It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Where is the sense? Regarding the Paris attacks - ISIS

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 08:34 AM

originally posted by: Kokatsi
Who else but extremists risk certain death?

So you suppose France is operating a bogus Islamic terror group training people to go on suicide missions? For what purpose? To make Daesh look bad? They already do look bad and they don't mind looking worse. Plus the French don't want to dies for no reason at all, Islamists do.
If you were a false flag operator, why not let the real extremists carry the dirty work themselves once they are eager to do it?
Plus, everyone knows everyone in a terror squad - it's difficult to infiltrate and any time it could happen that they send you out to die. You will not carry a senior position all at once. Plus the real terrorists may know about your fake plan and execute you instead as a traitor to their cause.

Israel has done it allegedly but all the handlers were Mossad Arabs who pretended cleverly to be fanatic Muslim extremists with long training. And it took a long time to prepare. Turned out soon that their one was not the real group so they had to stop.

Is France ready for an all-out war? Like the US at the Gulf of Tonkin?

A misidentified dead attacker will be traced by DNA etc. It's so risky that it does not make sense except in a totalitarian state where the police can make all incriminating evidence disappear.

Aply Occam's razor.
gladio B

this is to increase weapons profiteering

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 08:39 AM

originally posted by: PaddyInf
The attack was carried out in order to persuade the French to stop their bombing campaign in the ME against IS. Essentially they are trying to show that the bombing of IS targets will become too costly in European lives, making the governments of these countries leave the Middle East.

In conflict you identify an enemies weakness and you exploit it. IS are trying to make the French people so afraid that they will force their government to abandon their Middle East campaign. They are trying to use the democratic process (which they see as a weakness) against their enemy.

It is the standard technique of terrorist groups throughout the world (trust me, I grew up in Belfast through the worst of the violence). They know they cannot stand toe to toe against European forces, so they attack the population of the country.
doubt it, in the history of recent terrorist attacks like 9/11, if you do a small scale attack (not full invasion just a bombing of a few hundred or few thousand lives) all that results in is the western country, USA, France, etc, they get everyone in that country ready for more war.

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 08:57 AM
The west seeks to dislodge the middle east from the last remaining strongholds blocking them from total control of puppet governments. Syria is the last remaining strategic stronghold that is blocking them from doing whatever the West wants to do in the middle east. This would allow the West to pretty much bypass Saudi Arabia and the new Chinese oil agreements. This has very little to do with actual Terrorism and more to do with selling the west on another crusade through the middle east, The west have got to make it look as though the middle east cannot fight the Evil ISIS without military intervention. So i look to future with more Terrorist attacks on civilians, why else target civilians unless you are trying to sell the public the counter attack to the terrorism, This isnt that hard to see.

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 09:40 AM
a reply to: RevolutionAnon

The logic of ISIS is obviously the successorship of muhammad, hence the caliphate and the caliph.
The war was already ongoing when the caliphate was established and cruel atrocities were committed against the Syrian people.
They don't need intelligence, they only need finance and weapons which they have gotten from the gulf states, Turkey and the US who disguised it as training and equipping moderates in order to fight against Assad's regime.
Apparently many of the fighters of the caliphate need more than a caliph and love for their ideology, they are getting paid to fight for the caliphate.
Some do what we have seen for many many years in the middle east, they commit suicide attacks.

Social media is the source used to reach those elsewhere in the world, on the one hand to lure muslims to the caliphate, on the other hand to tell their brothers to commit attacks.

Yes, they are that stupid to say it bluntly which is to be expected from a death army who have surrendered them self to an ideal and die for it.
Organized belief is a great tool to unite people in an ideal and make them commit the most satanic and cruel atrocities against their fellow human beings.

posted on Nov, 16 2015 @ 09:55 AM
Not everything or everyone is logical.

posted on Nov, 17 2015 @ 08:39 PM

originally posted by: RevolutionAnon
I have a hard time accepting this stuff.

What is the logic of the ISIS movement?

I understand they are supposed "Extremists" etc... but surely their leaders must possess a large amount of cunning if not intellegence to get to where they are, a level of self preservation aswell (Bearing in mind alot of these leaders use the religion aspect to motivate people into joining them, they dont neccessarily believe what they preach).
ISIS claimed rsponsibility for the attacks (Almost immediatly given the circumstances). But could'nt i kill people, dissapear, put on a beard, darken my skin, scream allah and claim ISIS? Okay, they would of got the blame anyway but why even do it?
How did that conversation go

Leader: "Here, i have a plan, one of my most brilliant yet.
Other guy : "Even better than the Iraq Terrorists 9/11"?
L + O : Exchange glances and laugh (As if that was them)
L : No but seriously its a good plan.
O : Im listening boss
L : We train several men, send them undercover through the europian borders, get them into france, prefferably paris, we arm these men with our "contacts", and run a joint attack on several locations killing as many innocents as possible.
O : Great plan boss then we blame it on a rival? cause dissention? Spring another attack?
L : No, we admit to the crime, inciting mass hatred beyond even that which people regard us with now. Then the leaders of NATO will most likley convene as the french call out for revenge against our acts of hatred bringing a war of mass propotions to our door, one we would have no chance of winning.
O: No chance of winning? Ohhh haha boss i get it, then we spring a surprise attack that will completely turn the tables, perhaps including some allies you have kept secret?
L : No no, They will slaughter us, at best a few will come to our aid as we are despised in many many places but it will be a very one sided war in which most if not all of us will die. Our leaders may escape into hiding with a few men but that is the best we can hope for. Good plan no?
O : I'll be handing in my resignation shortly due to an unrelated matter.....

This is obviously 100% quoted btw.

But surely these people cannot be that stupid. If you wanted to start a war that will wipe you out you may aswell go the whole 10 yards,
why not organize a group of 50,100,200 instead of several to carry out these attacks, with the borders and recruitment success's they have its possible. (I am not condoning more deaths than what was already a terrible event just making a point)

I know people will say they do not need reasons but i dont believe these people are that stupid
They have finances, weapons, trucks, tanks etc... (Which for me is because the Americans armed them so that they will achieve what they were created for, WW3. But im trying to keep this topic more open). They may act like animals sometimes, but even to make that comparison would lead you to believe they would seek both to achieve their goals, and to survive through them. All animals are driven heavily to survive, so are humans.

Maybe more information has come out that im un-aware giving details into the master plans but to me seems the only logical reason is to incite a WW3, something that wouldnt benifit ISIS as their death toll would be mountains compared to the Allied forces and there heavy training and NATO's combined economic wealth (Aparrently 50% GDP?)

Also the war will be "Pitiless and Merciless". Prepare yourselves overseas innocents. Your guiltless families are about to become alot smaller.

How will NATO nations finance the military actions ? (many modern jets cost over $1,000,000/hour to operate)

Who will they borrow the money from? Who is lending money to ISIS ?

Same story as war of 1812;both sides nearly bankrupted whilst the bankers laughted and smiled. Same thing Andrew Jackson fought hard against, and regarded as his greatest achievement, uttering "I killed the bank" on this deathbed.

posted on Nov, 18 2015 @ 02:40 AM
a reply to: HorusChrist

By forcing the West to increasing the military footprint in the Middle East, ISIS increases the amount of collateral damage we cause. This reduces the support of the local population as it is they who are killed (remember the increased air strikes in Sangin in Afghanistan in 2006? This caused a huge drop in support from local Afghans which never fully recovered).

Increased military input means increased military casualties. The West has shown itself to be casualty averse, and flag-drapped coffins are bad press. This reduces public support for the conflict after a while, regardless of the initial reasons for it starting (Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan anyone?).

The result of this is uncreased public pressure for a military withdrawal from the region. Governments need votes to stay in power and rely on public opinion, so a withdrawal becomes an attractive option for a politician who wants to stay in/gain power.

This is a long term strategy. Western politicians generally only think forward as far as the next election. ISIS don't do elections, so they look at the long term.

All sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it?

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 04:46 AM

originally posted by: RevolutionAnon
a reply to: namelesss

I don't see this fear they are supposed to induce. The underground in the UK was bombed, I dont think twice about getting on it straight afterwards. I see the Goverment benefiting from this fear not terrorists. A means to an end.

"A fearful public is easily manipulated!" - Macchiavelli
That benefits those attempting to take over, AND it benefits the governments!
The only ones losing are the frightened people.

Id still go to work in a tower if i was American even if said tower was next door to the WTC (Though not if it was the 47 floored #7 because a building like that is SO likely to collapse MSM stations even report it collapsing before it actually has.

Of course!
Statistically, what's the chance the you are going to get blown up or otherwise killed, if you aren't living in a war zone?
Slim to none.
The few that do... we all die at exactly the perfect moment.
I'd rather live until I discover which moment that is.
So there is no fear here, but many folks are frightened.
It is relatively easy to manipulate those incapable of thinking for themselves!
Besides, there is no 'fear' in Love!

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in