• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

" Ambulance Bomb " Found outside of German Stadium

Visbek said:
They've been losing territory for some time now. They can't march in the open, they can't maneuver, they can't take more territory.

It's very likely this is a main reason why they are resorting to terrorism. They are losing, and by making a big splash they look like they are powerful. And of course, the West is now playing into their hands in many respects, including treating them like a bigger threat than they really are. Again I say... Good job.
Click to expand...

You still have to get in there and kill them, or you'll be looking at attacks like Paris for the next 30 years. Not currently advancing in territory does not mean contained. And air strikes can only do so much.
 
Erod said:
The past 45 days, they haven't, you're right.

Good gosh, how much land are you willing to give them?
Click to expand...

I'm willing to give them South Dakota. Maybe Quartsite, Arizona. Oh, and Trenton, New Jersey.
 
Visbek said:
Yes. They started out waging a more or less conventional ground war, seizing territory, controlling cities, and trying to set up an actual functioning state. Once the bombs started to drop, it got harder for them to maneuver in the open, and shifted to less conventional techniques.

Terrorists generally do not capture and hold territory. They use small cells to engage in highly disruptive and showy attacks, precisely because they are incapable of holding territory.

They only really started using terrorist attacks recently, such as detonating a few car bombs in Baghdad earlier this year, shooting down the Russian jet in Egypt, and now the attack in France... to which the West is both overreacting (e.g. screaming about refugees) and possibly not reacting enough (e.g. not hearing much talk of ground troops yet).
Click to expand...
They were beheading people, burning people alive, and generally behaving like the sadistic human scum that they are the entire time they were "seizing territory".

And to say that "terrorists generally do not capture and hold territory" simply demonstrates that you really have no idea what you are talking about. These "terrorists" are part of a movement "Islamic State". Their GOAL is to seize and maintain territory. That is the reason for their existence. They use terrorism as a too to achieve that goal.
 
As of 30 mins ago there was no bomb or explosives from anywhere near the stadium. Yes there were threats, and the match was cancelled. But as of 11pm their time, The Telegraph is reporting no explosives have been found.

The title of this thread should be changed.

Paris attacks: French military launches second wave of air strikes against Islamic State in Syria - latest news - Telegraph

Of course even the rag the NY Post reported an ambulance was found full of explosives. But then when you READ the article, it says no explosives were found.

You can't make this stuff up.

Ambulance full of explosives found outside German stadium | New York Post

Boris Pistorius, the interior minister for Lower Saxony, also denied a report that an ambulance full of explosives had been found outside.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
They've been losing territory for some time now. They can't march in the open, they can't maneuver, they can't take more territory.

It's very likely this is a main reason why they are resorting to terrorism. They are losing, and by making a big splash they look like they are powerful. And of course, the West is now playing into their hands in many respects, including treating them like a bigger threat than they really are. Again I say... Good job.
Click to expand...

FLASH NEWS, Terrorists resort to TERRORISM. That gave me a chuckle.
 
stonewall50 said:
We really need to stop the "bombing runs." We need small teams to do hit missions on leaders. Seek and destroy cells. Very simple. Effective. Keep it quiet and avoid drones. Snipers preferred. The idea would be to keep it out of the press and avoid civilian casualties.
Click to expand...

My guess is you've never been in the military.
 
Erod said:
So...31 whole days, eh? And while they were mired in "containment", they managed to bomb a Russian plane, Baghdad, Beirut, and Paris in a span of 10 days, killing about 1,000 civilians. If that's "containment", I'd hate to see what advancement looks like.
Click to expand...


1000? Not good at math or do you just exaggerate?
 
Jack Fabulous said:
They were beheading people, burning people alive, and generally behaving like the sadistic human scum that they are the entire time they were "seizing territory".

And to say that "terrorists generally do not capture and hold territory" simply demonstrates that you really have no idea what you are talking about. These "terrorists" are part of a movement "Islamic State". Their GOAL is to seize and maintain territory. That is the reason for their existence. They use terrorism as a too to achieve that goal.
Click to expand...

Have you been under a rock for the last month or so? You seem really out of touch.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Moved from *BN* to War on Terror forum
 
stonewall50 said:
We really need to stop the "bombing runs." We need small teams to do hit missions on leaders. Seek and destroy cells. Very simple. Effective. Keep it quiet and avoid drones. Snipers preferred. The idea would be to keep it out of the press and avoid civilian casualties.
Click to expand...

We need to train another 1000 snipers, and send them to the Middle East.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
They were beheading people, burning people alive, and generally behaving like the sadistic human scum that they are the entire time they were "seizing territory".
Click to expand...
Brutality ≠ Terrorism.

Lots of armies and soldiers will commit horrendous acts of violence, without necessarily being or becoming "terrorists." Even American forces in Vietnam occasionally did terrible things. At My Lai, American soldiers they rounded up and mass murdered 70-80 people, including women, children and the elderly; they gang-raped women; they mutilated bodies; they burned huts, and fired on the people fleeing the fire, and so on. This did not make them or the US army terrorists. They were soldiers who lost control.

Terrorism is a fairly specific form of violence. It is typically asymmetrical attacks against a vastly superior force (either military or legal), with a political goal in mind, and its purpose is to generate fear more than to achieve a more concrete goal (like seizing territory).

When ISIL sets up a coordinated attack on the streets of Paris that kills 100 people, that's terrorism. When ISIL sweeps into a town in northern Iraq, seizes the territory, holds it, attacks civilians, and declares it part of their caliphate, they're a militia or an army, engaged in acts of conquest or war.


And to say that "terrorists generally do not capture and hold territory" simply demonstrates that you really have no idea what you are talking about. These "terrorists" are part of a movement "Islamic State".
Click to expand...
And yet, they were clearly not trying to seize territory in Paris or Beirut.

You are starting with the premise that "ISIL are terrorists, therefore whatever ISIL does is what terrorists do."

That line of reasoning is clearly fallacious. You are bluntly ignoring how their actions early in their existence are not properly defined as "terrorism," and instead of accepting that they were not engaged in terrorism until a few months ago, you're redefining acts of war as "terrorism." That just doesn't add up.
 
Visbek said:
Brutality ≠ Terrorism.

Lots of armies and soldiers will commit horrendous acts of violence, without necessarily being or becoming "terrorists." Even American forces in Vietnam occasionally did terrible things. At My Lai, American soldiers they rounded up and mass murdered 70-80 people, including women, children and the elderly; they gang-raped women; they mutilated bodies; they burned huts, and fired on the people fleeing the fire, and so on. This did not make them or the US army terrorists. They were soldiers who lost control.

Terrorism is a fairly specific form of violence. It is typically asymmetrical attacks against a vastly superior force (either military or legal), with a political goal in mind, and its purpose is to generate fear more than to achieve a more concrete goal (like seizing territory).

When ISIL sets up a coordinated attack on the streets of Paris that kills 100 people, that's terrorism. When ISIL sweeps into a town in northern Iraq, seizes the territory, holds it, attacks civilians, and declares it part of their caliphate, they're a militia or an army, engaged in acts of conquest or war.



And yet, they were clearly not trying to seize territory in Paris or Beirut.

You are starting with the premise that "ISIL are terrorists, therefore whatever ISIL does is what terrorists do."

That line of reasoning is clearly fallacious. You are bluntly ignoring how their actions early in their existence are not properly defined as "terrorism," and instead of accepting that they were not engaged in terrorism until a few months ago, you're redefining acts of war as "terrorism." That just doesn't add up.
Click to expand...
Sorry but filming and distributing executions, brutal, inhumane butchering, IS terrorism. And since when are acts of war and terrorism mutually exclusive? 9-11 was both an act of war and it was terrorism. The French Prime Minister just declared the terrorist attacks last Friday an act of war.

These people use terror as their primary weapon in their war against us. They aren't "lashing out". This is what they do.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Sorry but filming and distributing executions, brutal, inhumane butchering, IS terrorism.
Click to expand...
Repetition is not an argument.

Oh, and public executions? Not terrorism. If that was the case, then the US was a terrorist nation until 1936.


And since when are acts of war and terrorism mutually exclusive? 9-11 was both an act of war and it was terrorism.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. 9/11 was a straight-up terrorist attack.

It was not conducted on a field of battle by professional soldiers. The attackers were not wearing uniforms. They were terrorists.

We refer to Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization because, wait for it... from the start, they routinely engaged in small-cell asymmetrical attacks, designed to generate more fear than harm, more attention than damage, and to destabilize their opponents. AQ never planned to seize and hold territory, or impose political control over specific populations.

Any specific entity can engage in acts of war, and acts of terror. The line between the two are occasionally fuzzy (as is so often the case with any category). However, ultimately the two are fundamentally different. The goal of war is conquest; the goal of terrorism is fear. War is fought by organized military forces, which ultimately want to establish stabilization through control; terrorism is an asymmetric attack by small cells that seek to destabilize.


The French Prime Minister just declared the terrorist attacks last Friday an act of war.
Click to expand...
By that standard, the "War on Drugs" is a literal war, and drug dealers constitute a sovereign nation that wants to seize and hold territory; the "War on Poverty" was a military exercise, designed to conquer poor citizens and drag them into prosperity; and the Culture Wars recruit soldiers and gives them uniforms.

Politicians may say they are declaring "war" on a terrorist organization for a variety of reasons, ranging from legal to political to metaphorical. That doesn't magically turn a terrorist into a soldier.


These people use terror as their primary weapon in their war against us. They aren't "lashing out". This is what they do.
Click to expand...
ISIL is not Al Qaeda. They are not fighting a war "against us." Their targets are Muslims.

They are attempting to seize territory in the Middle East, in order to build their own nation, a new caliphate. They spend the vast majority of their time killing other Muslims. For years, they established political control over numerous cities, tried to deliver services, and become an actual government.

They're primarily interested in the West for PR purposes, and because they know the US and its allies will defend Israel, and attack ISIL. If the US was leaving the Middle East alone, they would not bother with the US -- much in the way that Boko Haram is not targeting the US.
 
le bouffon said:
Dead terrorists are an occupation?
Click to expand...

From the accounts I've read, they weren't dead when they first occupied that French territory and held people hostage.

Perhaps you know more and can report they were in fact dead when they opened fire and started slaughtering innocent people.
 
Visbek said:
Repetition is not an argument.

Oh, and public executions? Not terrorism. If that was the case, then the US was a terrorist nation until 1936.



Incorrect. 9/11 was a straight-up terrorist attack.

It was not conducted on a field of battle by professional soldiers. The attackers were not wearing uniforms. They were terrorists.

We refer to Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization because, wait for it... from the start, they routinely engaged in small-cell asymmetrical attacks, designed to generate more fear than harm, more attention than damage, and to destabilize their opponents. AQ never planned to seize and hold territory, or impose political control over specific populations.

Any specific entity can engage in acts of war, and acts of terror. The line between the two are occasionally fuzzy (as is so often the case with any category). However, ultimately the two are fundamentally different. The goal of war is conquest; the goal of terrorism is fear. War is fought by organized military forces, which ultimately want to establish stabilization through control; terrorism is an asymmetric attack by small cells that seek to destabilize.



By that standard, the "War on Drugs" is a literal war, and drug dealers constitute a sovereign nation that wants to seize and hold territory; the "War on Poverty" was a military exercise, designed to conquer poor citizens and drag them into prosperity; and the Culture Wars recruit soldiers and gives them uniforms.

Politicians may say they are declaring "war" on a terrorist organization for a variety of reasons, ranging from legal to political to metaphorical. That doesn't magically turn a terrorist into a soldier.



ISIL is not Al Qaeda. They are not fighting a war "against us." Their targets are Muslims.

They are attempting to seize territory in the Middle East, in order to build their own nation, a new caliphate. They spend the vast majority of their time killing other Muslims. For years, they established political control over numerous cities, tried to deliver services, and become an actual government.

They're primarily interested in the West for PR purposes, and because they know the US and its allies will defend Israel, and attack ISIL. If the US was leaving the Middle East alone, they would not bother with the US -- much in the way that Boko Haram is not targeting the US.
Click to expand...

This guy seems to have a much better handle on who these people are and what they want than you do...

The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants - SPIEGEL ONLINE

ISIS or ISIL, whatever you want to call them, is just the next phase of the very same movement. Worth noting that this was written prior to 2005. Note the different phases, where it began, what has transpired, and where we are today.

Stunningly accurate.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
This guy seems to have a much better handle on who these people are and what they want than you do...

The Future of Terrorism: What al-Qaida Really Wants - SPIEGEL ONLINE

ISIS or ISIL, whatever you want to call them, is just the next phase of the very same movement. Worth noting that this was written prior to 2005. Note the different phases, where it began, what has transpired, and where we are today.

Stunningly accurate.
Click to expand...

:yawn:

Now lets see them achieve the 7th phase?
 
DDD said:
:yawn:

Now lets see them achieve the 7th phase?
Click to expand...
Achievement wasn't the point. The point is what they want to achieve and how they go about getting there.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Achievement wasn't the point. The point is what they want to achieve and how they go about getting there.
Click to expand...

I am neither impressed that they had such religiously backed grandiose plans, nor that we have their information. People can write whatever they want, it achieving them in deed completely that was a problem for Nazies as well as now ISIS.
 
Has the bomb laden ambulance ever been found. Or do we chalk this up to yet another example of piss poor reporting and journalism?
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Has the bomb laden ambulance ever been found. Or do we chalk this up to yet another example of piss poor reporting and journalism?
Click to expand...
There was no bomb-laden ambulance, it was just bad journalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom