It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

French Islamic Terrorist Hostage Situation a Diversion for something else?

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

He's getting what I'm laying down. A diversion is only used to preoccupy someone temporarily so that you can do something while they are distracted. There is no point in distracting someone then sitting back and waiting for something else. That is unless your goal was something like, "analyze police response time and reactions." But that isn't a distraction. That is an information gathering technique.
edit on 9-1-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Would it help to think of it as mere speculation then, Somebody had a thought and simply wondered if others agreed that the posibility existed?


increasingly, and sadly, it seems that 'not here' is the answer to that question. ssshhhh! accept the story as it is officially given, or shut up! way to go ATS.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe




My suggestion was not to learn police tactics, but that these actions were in order to do something else at another location, or bring something/someone into the country/area while police forces were distracted.


If that were the case then we all would know about the larger terrorist attack that would have happened while the smaller was going on. No such larger attack happened. It's been two days since the attack at the paper. It is more than safe to assume it wasn't a distraction for a larger mission.




If your suggestion is that I must have evidence to prove a thought, then I would suggest the same to anyone that is religious in any sense and your argument would prove them wrong every time through semantics.


No, I said you need some evidence to make an assumption that isn't wild arbitrary conjecture. "Arbitrary" means "unsupported".




edit on 9-1-2015 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vasa Croe

He's getting what I'm laying down. A diversion is only used to preoccupy someone temporarily so that you can do something while they are distracted. There is no point in distracting someone then sitting back and waiting for something else. That is unless your goal was something like, "analyze police response time and reactions." But that isn't a distraction. That is an information gathering technique.


Again...argue semantics all you want. If you misinterpret what I am saying and I explain it multiple times, it is not my place to continually correct or re-assert my thoughts to convince you.

From my OP, it would not be know if it was a long term plan until something else did occur. And yes, there is a point in distracting someone else if your main objective is to bring something else in for a later operation. You pull resources away from an area that you want to either bring something in, or move something to. Call it what you want, but I really can't explain it any simpler than I have.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Vasa Croe




My suggestion was not to learn police tactics, but that these actions were in order to do something else at another location, or bring something/someone into the country/area while police forces were distracted.


If that were the case then we all would know about the larger terrorist attack that would have happened while the smaller was going on. No such larger attack happened. It's been two days since the attack at the paper. It is more than safe to assume it wasn't a distraction for a larger mission.


I feel like I am beating my head against a wall here.

No worries...I am sure nobody has ever planned anything that takes more than a few days.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Maybe you should claim that your op is simply wild arbitrary conjecture and then we could all move forward?



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe




Again...argue semantics all you want. If you misinterpret what I am saying and I explain it multiple times, it is not my place to continually correct or re-assert my thoughts to convince you.


I'm more than happy to grant you that the wrong word was used (distraction). Now it very well could have been planned and executed as a tool for gathering intelligence on the police for a larger attack in the future. But that's intel gathering.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. The maximum point of effectiveness for a distraction is RIGHT after it occurs. The longer you wait, the more time you give the opposing side to regroup and start broadening their awareness.

If you do something like the terrorist attack in Paris then sit back and wait so you can implement another plan later down the line, all you've done is put the police on alert for more terrorist activity. You make literally EVERY aspect of your future plan harder to accomplish. Your idea just doesn't make sense logically as a valid plan to accomplish something. The terrorists would do better to smuggle their bomb into the country (which was one of the things you suggested the distraction was for) when the authorities AREN'T on high alert.

Nothing you are saying makes sense. Though I will concede that if the plan was to gather intelligence on police response times and reactions, then it would be a perfectly valid plan. That isn't a distraction though.
edit on 9-1-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical
At first I was quite interested in what you had say, but it seems now I just skip past anything writen next to your avatar, what are you trying to achieve.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
I wouldn’t deny any possibility at this point in this world that is so incredibly orchestrated in every way; however, my leaning is more towards an awakening to the disillusionment of our governments. As more people become absolutely frustrated with the people’s lack of control over anything of importance, the fanaticism will increase globally.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Great Job at distracting people discussing the topic in the OP. Now instead of 4 pages of a nice discussion on the op we have 4 pages of people talking about you and semantics.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Voyaging

You have to admire the effort though.

I can't even remember what we were talking about.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Voyaging
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Great Job at distracting people discussing the topic in the OP. Now instead of 4 pages of a nice discussion on the op we have 4 pages of people talking about you and semantics.


You get more and more used to it here....just have to roll with it.

Either way, more than happy to discuss it with those that get it. Some are too busy with semantics and definitions to understand.
edit on 1/9/15 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Voyaging

Why is disagreeing with the OP's premise considered an argument over semantics? Were we all supposed to read the OP and say, "Yep I see her point, this attack was likely a distraction for something bigger!"? Because I, personally, don't work that way. I look at the logistics of certain conspiracy claims and make the determination of how likely they are to have happened or are happening. I don't see the account in the OP as anything close to likely and neither does NOTurTypical, except for one specific case (information gathering).

Also, I don't see you contributing very much to this thread, yet are calling others out for what you perceive to be OT.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Voyaging

Why is disagreeing with the OP's premise considered an argument over semantics? Were we all supposed to read the OP and say, "Yep I see her point, this attack was likely a distraction for something bigger!"? Because I, personally, don't work that way. I look at the logistics of certain conspiracy claims and make the determination of how likely they are to have happened or are happening. I don't see the account in the OP as anything close to likely and neither does NOTurTypical, except for one specific case (information gathering).

Also, I don't see you contributing very much to this thread, yet are calling others out for what you perceive to be OT.


I would say it is an argument over semantics when definitions, subjective apparently, are being thrown around. Your idea on a distraction only being good if there is an immediate action after is your idea, not a definition.

Did something happen immediately after? I don't know and neither do you. This is the general conspiracy forum....pretty simple concept...conspiracy THEORIES, unless your definition of theory is different as well.

I was merely stating that this event seemed more like a diversionary tactic for something else to occur....not that what was going to occur had to happen on national news, but that it was a secondary piece to a larger puzzle. Because your logic is such that it does not understand mine, does not make mine illogical at all....it just means you do not think like me.
edit on 1/9/15 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Well there are multiple definitions of theory. I know of two that are commonly used on these forums. But THAT is a real semantics argument.

Also, I made it clear when I first started talking to you that I never said you were wrong. I just don't see how your account is even close to a logical plan someone would carry out.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Would you not agree that there is a difference between a valid argument and an argument simply for the sake of it.

Voyaging is not the only member to have picked up on this and NOTurTypical has had ample oppertunity to conceed the point.

I understand that you both choose to disagree with the Op's premise but you did it very differently.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

Fair enough. I tend to be more long winded and explanatory in my posts though. I was just giving him the benefit of the doubt.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Well there are multiple definitions of theory. I know of two that are commonly used on these forums. But THAT is a real semantics argument.

Also, I made it clear when I first started talking to you that I never said you were wrong. I just don't see how your account is even close to a logical plan someone would carry out.


Logic is largely personal....one person's logic is not going to be another persons same logic. It usually comes with experiences that someone can derive a certain outcome based on those experiences.

Logic seems to be something Islamic terrorists are lacking in as well, so who's definition of logic are we using?



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Maybe it's not all over yet as reports coming in of another hostage situation in France.

It does not prove anything as far as the OP goes but theres a lot going on right now and I imagine the police are all over the place.

Link




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join