Jump to content

The implications of the Paris attacks


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

I was wondering about the intelligence on this too. It was a massive attack with six different targets and nothing was heard (or perhaps the connections weren't made/analyzed) from the chatter? 

There should be a full inquiry. The only thing I can add is that there's been a lot of terrorist attacks, lone wolf and otherwise on French soil this year, so it's possible that their attention was elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard somewhere in the reports last night that France was already on the highest level of alert and that the movement of that alert level to the highest level was recent. Not sure if it is a true but if it is they at least had a pulse on the chatter level.

I would think the relatively large population of muslims in France would lend itself to having better intelligence channels. In theory you have more opportunities to infiltrate cells but its a balance because it also provides more places for the cells to hide. As always the larger the scale the more complicated it is the build out the infrastructure to address it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*cough* And Jews. Nearly half of the French Jewish population are from and from parents from North Africa, I believe.

You're right, of course. The main point was that while we don't know the exact numbers, we can estimate them - and that these estimates are probably too high because of sizable portions of our proxies not actually being what we're looking at (in this case, not all French with MENA background are Muslims, although the majority almost certainly is)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be  goddamned if Marine Le Pen doesn't  get elected  president  of  France.  

I'd think it would depend on how France's retaliation goes. If they achieve something like a successful proportional response (or at actively pursuing one that seems to be going well), I could easily see a rally around the flag effect and Hollande winning re-election overwhelmingly.

I'm not totally sure what that would look like though. Maybe large numbers of French special forces on the ground operating alongside the Kurds and capturing/killing numerous high value ISIL strongholds and members while suffering few casualties?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the number of French people from the Middle East and North Africa doesn't exceed 10% either - and taking them as a proxy for Muslims that ignores the relatively large numbers of Syrian and Lebanese Christians among them. Yes, there's also conversion of course, but there's also secularization going on at the same time in the opposite direction. Aour assumptions are still unfounded.

Also, a population group increasing by 25% in just 10 years sounds quite... unlikely.

Similarly, the percentage of Muslims in Paris and Marseille is estimated to be about 15-20% each, and they are the places where you'd expect the highest concentration of minorities. Those percentages are the absolute maximum we'd expect to see, not the average.

Just admit that you're talking out of your backside here ;)

Go do a google search. Put the date parameters back to 15 years ago and type in 'Muslim population of France' or equivalent and look at the results. You'll see the exact same numbers pf around 5 million/ 7-10% of the population, being quoted, pretty much the exact same number we're being told is the situation today. So the Muslim population of France hasn't increased in 15 years? Really??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The implications:

- The Daesh want us (the West) to lash out which suggests we should not, but if we do not respond the political implications for those who choose to remain calm will be quite bleak.  It's a terrible catch-22.

- I suspect, as FB and others suggested, this attack was planned without resort to any electronic communication meaning all our signals intellegence that we are so reliant upon may be less useful than it was in the past.

- I think the Daesh want the French, and others, to declare and prosecute a formal war against them.  They can't get international recognition any other way so they kill until "war" is formally declared and claim that means they are a legitimate government as a result.

- I'm sure there will be a backlash against refugees fleeing Syria.  The Daesh would be foolish to not take advantage of that mass migration to plant agents in the West. I really don't know how this problem can be fixed.

- Could France invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty?

- Shit will continue to hit the fan for a number of months to come in ways we do not see now and that will surprise and disturb us.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Sigh*

It's quite a bad sign that here in Germany people look at Paris and make an immediate connection to the refugee crisis. I don't think the IS actually succeeded in making the people fearful and turning them against the refugees, but there is already a quite strong sentiment of frustration against the helplessness of our government. Yes, we need to help those people, they have nowhere else to go. But arriving in Germany they are confronted with a bureaucratic dead-end. I don't fear populist right-wingers trying to turn that sentiment against the refugees (and Paris gives them more fuel to do so), I'm just afraid those people just pile up neither having the chance to join society nor to go back home.

I'm not a fan of blind interventionism. We have seen where that leads to in Iraq. What happens if you bomb down a country and then leave it to fend for itself. But the IS has gotten far too strong. Maybe I'm just simplifying things, but right now I only see one chance to end both the refugee crisis and to reduce the terror threat in the long term. And that is to break the neck of the IS where it lives. I want to see how their hapless militias get mowed down by a real military strike-force. One supported with a rear-force tasked with actually rebuilding the towns the IS recruits their forces from. Let's just play their game and play it better: Offer the population peace and civilization so they don't have to turn towards the IS in their desperation. Not just dropping bombs onto their heads hoping to hit the right people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The implications:

- The Daesh want us (the West) to lash out which suggests we should not, but if we do not respond the political implications for those who choose to remain calm will be quite bleak.  It's a terrible catch-22.

Thats just nonsense. They want the same as osama wanted, that the west retreats and gives in to fear. What would their achievment be, if we would lash out? It is one thing to claim you fight against the crusaders, it is a totally different thing if you actually would turn europe into crusaders, believe me. It is the false thinking of adequating the usefullness of terrorism against colonial forces in their colonies because they could retreat to their homeland which would automatically be free from any person interested in terrorism against them. The only way for europe to make a full "retreat" would be to cleanse europe from islam.

- I suspect, as FB and others suggested, this attack was planned without resort to any electronic communication meaning all our signals intellegence that we are so reliant upon may be less useful than it was in the past.

Yeah, there is the question of what the result of this will be and if it is really true.

- I think the Daesh want the French, and others, to declare and prosecute a formal war against them.  They can't get international recognition any other way so they kill until "war" is formally declared and claim that means they are a legitimate government as a result.

]Why should France declare war and not just discriminatory bomb the shit out of their cities?

- I'm sure there will be a backlash against refugees fleeing Syria.  The Daesh would be foolish to not take advantage of that mass migration to plant agents in the West. I really don't know how this problem can be fixed.

Well, I guess we will see. What is quite open about that is, that if one of or several of the attackers were enabled because of lax german security, the moral superiority of germany in the refugee question will burn and die. And this in turn would of course strengthen a the chance of a general europeen position close ot the one of eastern europe regarding the refugees.

- Could France invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty?

Like it was done for 9.11? Theoretically yes, I suppose.

- Shit will continue to hit the fan for a number of months to come in ways we do not see now and that will surprise and disturb us.

We will see. It really depends how skillfull europeen politicians will be now. If europe shows absolute solidarity with france, that might already go a big way towards making Hollande seem strong and capable. If not, France could really drift to the right, and that could totally shift the balance in europe. And looking at the german left which again seems to have more solidarity with terrorists then their victims, that might be the ending. (How stupid can people be, it is quite beyond me.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The implications:

- The Daesh want us (the West) to lash out which suggests we should not, but if we do not respond the political implications for those who choose to remain calm will be quite bleak.  It's a terrible catch-22.

- I suspect, as FB and others suggested, this attack was planned without resort to any electronic communication meaning all our signals intellegence that we are so reliant upon may be less useful than it was in the past.

The first is a dilemma, the second is speculation based on nothing other than a sizeable intelligence failure. This happens, even when groups are being monitored.

 

- I think the Daesh want the French, and others, to declare and prosecute a formal war against them.  They can't get international recognition any other way so they kill until "war" is formally declared and claim that means they are a legitimate government as a result.

IS doesn't want international recogniton. They consider themselves the only state sanctioned by God and recognise no other.

 

 

- I'm sure there will be a backlash against refugees fleeing Syria.  The Daesh would be foolish to not take advantage of that mass migration to plant agents in the West. I really don't know how this problem can be fixed.

This idea keeps floating around but it has nothing to recommend it. Refugees run significant risks to arrive at their destination are subject to much more scrutiny than recruits from within the target countries. The war on terror is fourteen years old and the global refugee crisis has grown dramatically but I've yet to hear of any plan by AQ, IS or affiliates to smuggle agents in via the most difficult and risky route possible.

- Could France invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty?

Aside from this amounting to a recognition of IS as a state, something that would confer prestige on something that more closely resembles an Islamic New Jerusalem on steroids and which won't be reciprocated in the form of it acting in a proper Westphalian manner, in functional terms it's redundant: the NATO alliance is already at war with IS, as IS is at war with every state by default.

- Shit will continue to hit the fan for a number of months to come in ways we do not see now and that will surprise and disturb us.

Cool story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article 5 was invoked after 9/11 though. And the article just says "armed attack" it doesn't have any sort of qualifying like "armed attack by a state actor." The full text is just:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

And the referenced UN Charter Article 51 is:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

I don't see how invoking it grants any sort of recognition to ISIL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go do a google search. Put the date parameters back to 15 years ago and type in 'Muslim population of France' or equivalent and look at the results. You'll see the exact same numbers pf around 5 million/ 7-10% of the population, being quoted, pretty much the exact same number we're being told is the situation today. So the Muslim population of France hasn't increased in 15 years? Really??

I just did a Google search, and while they do put 10% as the upper limit, the lower estimates are down at 3%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article 5 was invoked after 9/11 though. And the article just says "armed attack" it doesn't have any sort of qualifying like "armed attack by a state actor." The full text is just:And the referenced UN Charter Article 51 is:I don't see how invoking it grants any sort of recognition to ISIL.

It's time to wipe the bastards off the face of the Earth. If that means making the Middle East uninhabitable, so be it. Enough is enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article 5 was invoked after 9/11 though. And the article just says "armed attack" it doesn't have any sort of qualifying like "armed attack by a state actor." The full text is just:

And the referenced UN Charter Article 51 is:

I don't see how invoking it grants any sort of recognition to ISIL.

I stand corrected. I still maintain that invoking Article 5 would be a feather in ISIS's cap, and redundant given that the NATO powers with any significant heft are fighting them anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's time to wipe the bastards off the face of the Earth. If that means making the Middle East uninhabitable, so be it. Enough is enough.

It's precisely this sort of macho bullshit that got us into this mess in the first place.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, don't wish my extended family dead?

I don't. I'm sorry, I'm just angry. I don't see any other way to solve this.

This is WW III. You know that, right? ISIS is by definition at war with every legitimate nation in the world. They believe that they are the ONLY nation that exists, created by God, and EVERY other nation on Earth is an enemy.

I've long felt that the ME needs to solve its own problems. Obviously they can't do that. Yes, we created that monster. Time to take them out permanently. The citizens there could help themselves and fight too--and they should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't. I'm sorry, I'm just angry. I don't see any other way to solve this.

 

This is WW III. You know that, right? ISIS is by definition at war with every legitimate nation in the world. They believe that they are the ONLY nation that exists, created by God, and EVERY other nation on Earth is an enemy.

 

I've long felt that the ME needs to solve its own problems. Obviously they can't do that. Yes, we created that monster. Time to take them out permanently. The citizens there could help themselves and fight too--and they should.

You can't say you're sorry and then keep doing it. Hear yourself out. You probably need to go and take a walk and calm yourself if you can't see anyway to post on this threads other than thinking the solution is the indiscriminate genocide of the millions of people living in the ME because that's what the words you're saying mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only terrorism if they do it!!!

Jesus. Could you "nuke em back to the Stone Age!" fucknuts go somewhere else and let the grownups talk please?

And you suggest what? Talking nicely and maybe they'll be nice too?

You're the one who needs to grow the fuck up and deal in reality here. ISIS is not going to go away unless they are sent to their graves.

Nowhere did I say anything about nukes. Don't need them. Modern weaponry has made nukes essentially obsolete.

Look, I thought Iraq was stupid and I watched my father suffer the after effects of Vietnam, another stupid and pointless war. Bit sometimes you have to get down and dirty. While ISIS remains, the whole world is at risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...