French Islamic Terrorist Hostage Situation a Diversion for something else?

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: NOTurTypical

What exactly are you hoping to achive?

Would you like everyone to stop having a conversation because you feel it is without merit?

I'm simply asking what leads one to believe that the likely scenario here is that it is a distraction? There has to be some reason for this to be assumed. If there are no reasons, and just an arbitrary conjecture then it's meaningless. What gives people the reason to assume this is a distraction, if there are valid reasons to make the assumption then that's fine. I'd like to know myself.

originally posted by: Dabrazzo
a reply to: nonspecific

Seems to be one of the thread derailment people.

Not at all. I'm a rational thinker. I reject arbitrariness, it's illogical and I can't help that my mind reacts this way. Assumptions have to be supported by evidence, any evidence. I'm just asking what the evidence is that leads to the assumption that this is a distraction?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

At this time I really don't know. I'm not french and i'm searching in English language.

Look to what I found more, that is suspicious:

Three people have been arrested with drones near a nuclear power plant in the Cher region south of Paris,

(all the fuss is now at north east... while forgetting south of Paris...)

The three twentysomethings, detained near Belleville-sur-Loire plant on Wednesday night with two drones, are thought to be model plane enthusiasts and unconnected to the recent spate of drones spotted over nuclear reactors in recent weeks by mystery operators.

The three, who include a locksmith and student couple, now face possible one-year prison sentences [..]

There are also reports of flights in Saclay, south of Paris and other facilities. Greenpeace have been saying for days that EDF is not the only nuclear operator affected by these flights and this has not been denied by other operators or by the government. So this is not strictly speaking a targeting of EDF sites.”

But Rousselet, who lives close to the Flamanville plant, said that two army helicopters failed to intercept drones there on 27 October. “They were efficient and high speed helicopters,” he said. “They tried to follow the drones, but lost them.”

(speaking of military type forces above)

Marignac said that he believed there were three possible culprits.
“One is that anti-nuclear people have formed an underground group although the operation seems to involve too much capacity for a really secret group,” he said.

“The second option is a group like Anonymous or an anti-government group, trying to defy the government and show that there are breaches in security.”

“The third and most worrying possibility is that it is a malevolent and potentially terrorist group really challenging the government, saying ‘These are the means we have.’”

care to read the link

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?

The Op was pretty vauge so until there is the formulation of a hypothosis is would be hard to find any evidence to support it.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Dabrazzo
a reply to: nonspecific

Seems to be one of the thread derailment people.

Not at all. I'm a rational thinker. I reject arbitrariness, it's illogical and I can't help that my mind reacts this way. Assumptions have to be supported by evidence, any evidence. I'm just asking what the evidence is that leads to the assumption that this is a distraction.

I am a rational thinker as well and this was where my mind led me.

Reasons have been mentioned already. An attack happens and they go on the run. One of the three was falsely ID'd as another, was picked up and released. The other two went north toward a highly Muslim populated area and took hostages. Another group follows and takes hostages as well and this divides the police forces and they have to deal with two incidents. It is terrorist related so that brings more than the usual police intervention which pulls them away from multiple other areas allowing for someone/something else to slip by where it may not have been before because of active police presence in the area.

Create a diversion....plan an attack and go on the run to draw police from the scene you really want to do something at. If the place they really wanted to hit was already heavily patrolled then this would certainly have drawn some of that patrol away.

Either way...like I said before...just a thought. I tend to think a bit unconventionally in situations, and my thought is that this would be an easy opportunity to get something else past a discerning eye when chaos is going on elsewhere.

a reply to: nonspecific

Would it help to think of it as mere speculation then

It seems that way to me. That's why I asked originally if there was some kind of evidence to assume it was a distraction for something else or if the idea was just a "wild arbitrary conjecture".

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I fail to see the rationale behind putting the authorities on high alert as a precursor to getting away with something. Most criminals wait until the authorities aren't paying attention to make their moves.

Actually terrorists have done this tactic a few times to some extent....I forget which attack it was but they stood outside a building or barracks and tossed 2 grenades...then everyone went to the window and the detonated the big one....the majority of the people died from glass because they were looking to see what was outside.

There is another one where they do this and as emergency services show they detonate the bigger bomb.

I used to be able to name each one of the top of my head but there are so many know I can't remember em all :/

All of those diversions involve the big event happening shortly after the diversion. The example in the OP suggests that the diversion is a long con to get away with something down the line.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Create a diversion....plan an attack and go on the run to draw police from the scene you really want to do something at. If the place they really wanted to hit was already heavily patrolled then this would certainly have drawn some of that patrol away.

It very well could have been a distraction, but if that were the case I would think that it would have been a much larger attack on the other side of town or miles away while police resources are concentrated on the shooting at the newspaper building. But no bigger attack happened somewhere else during the murder spree at the newspaper.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: nonspecific

Would it help to think of it as mere speculation then

It seems that way to me. That's why I asked originally if there was some kind of evidence to assume it was a distraction for something else or if the idea was just a "wild arbitrary conjecture".

Not sure where anyone would get evidence prior to the fact on ATS.

For that matter, would you say me saying that a terror attack will occur somewhere again in the world next week would be wild conjecture?

How would you assume I would come by actual evidence of this exactly?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Precisely. A flank only works while the decoy unit is engaging the enemy.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I fail to see the rationale behind putting the authorities on high alert as a precursor to getting away with something. Most criminals wait until the authorities aren't paying attention to make their moves.

Actually terrorists have done this tactic a few times to some extent....I forget which attack it was but they stood outside a building or barracks and tossed 2 grenades...then everyone went to the window and the detonated the big one....the majority of the people died from glass because they were looking to see what was outside.

There is another one where they do this and as emergency services show they detonate the bigger bomb.

I used to be able to name each one of the top of my head but there are so many know I can't remember em all :/

All of those diversions involve the big event happening shortly after the diversion. The example in the OP suggests that the diversion is a long con to get away with something down the line.

Yes...this is exactly what I am talking about. Basically a distraction to get something set for a larger attack down the road.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

For that matter, would you say me saying that a terror attack will occur somewhere again in the world next week would be wild conjecture?

No. That would be a reasoned assumption because they happen somewhere in the world with regularity.

Reports are coming in that the pigs were killed.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Precisely. A flank only works while the decoy unit is engaging the enemy.

Like KS said...long term goal here...

If I wanted to get something done within a large city that was heavily police patrolled I would need to get a LOT of those police to leave the area. My reasoning was not that something was going to happen NOW.....it is that there is a possibility that the larger plan included having to pull the police force away from the area in order for the next part of the plan to bear fruit.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I fail to see the rationale behind putting the authorities on high alert as a precursor to getting away with something. Most criminals wait until the authorities aren't paying attention to make their moves.

Actually terrorists have done this tactic a few times to some extent....I forget which attack it was but they stood outside a building or barracks and tossed 2 grenades...then everyone went to the window and the detonated the big one....the majority of the people died from glass because they were looking to see what was outside.

There is another one where they do this and as emergency services show they detonate the bigger bomb.

I used to be able to name each one of the top of my head but there are so many know I can't remember em all :/

All of those diversions involve the big event happening shortly after the diversion. The example in the OP suggests that the diversion is a long con to get away with something down the line.

Yes...this is exactly what I am talking about. Basically a distraction to get something set for a larger attack down the road.

You misread what the member was saying. For it to have been a distraction to a larger event the larger event would have had to have happened while resources were preoccupied at the smaller event.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Precisely. A flank only works while the decoy unit is engaging the enemy.

Like KS said...long term goal here...

If I wanted to get something done within a large city that was heavily police patrolled I would need to get a LOT of those police to leave the area. My reasoning was not that something was going to happen NOW.....it is that there is a possibility that the larger plan included having to pull the police force away from the area in order for the next part of the plan to bear fruit.

Then if that were the case the smaller event wouldn't be a "distraction" for the larger event, it would be merely a planned attack to learn tactics of the police for example. The larger event would be limited in it's relation to the smaller event. For the smaller event to be a "distraction" for the larger, or a ruse event the larger event would need to happen while police assets were focused and preoccupied with the smaller event.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I fail to see the rationale behind putting the authorities on high alert as a precursor to getting away with something. Most criminals wait until the authorities aren't paying attention to make their moves.

Actually terrorists have done this tactic a few times to some extent....I forget which attack it was but they stood outside a building or barracks and tossed 2 grenades...then everyone went to the window and the detonated the big one....the majority of the people died from glass because they were looking to see what was outside.

There is another one where they do this and as emergency services show they detonate the bigger bomb.

I used to be able to name each one of the top of my head but there are so many know I can't remember em all :/

All of those diversions involve the big event happening shortly after the diversion. The example in the OP suggests that the diversion is a long con to get away with something down the line.

Yes...this is exactly what I am talking about. Basically a distraction to get something set for a larger attack down the road.

You misread what the member was saying. For it to have been a distraction to a larger event the larger event would have had to have happened while resources were preoccupied at the smaller event.

I didn't know you spoke for other members here....

Anywho....not sure how it is I misread this:

The example in the OP suggests that the diversion is a long con to get away with something down the line.

Seems pretty straight forward what he was saying....

a reply to: Vasa Croe

That's precisely what the other member said:

"All of those diversions involve the big event happening shortly after the diversion."

The reason why the diversion would provide cover for the larger event is because police/military resources would be preoccupied with the smaller event. It would need to happen while those resources are preoccupied, much like a flank in armed conflict.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Thanks. I'm glad someone understands what I'm saying here.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Precisely. A flank only works while the decoy unit is engaging the enemy.

Like KS said...long term goal here...

If I wanted to get something done within a large city that was heavily police patrolled I would need to get a LOT of those police to leave the area. My reasoning was not that something was going to happen NOW.....it is that there is a possibility that the larger plan included having to pull the police force away from the area in order for the next part of the plan to bear fruit.

Then if that were the case the smaller event wouldn't be a "distraction" for the larger event, it would be merely a planned attack to learn tactics of the police for example. The larger event would be limited in it's relation to the smaller event. For the smaller event to be a "distraction" for the larger, or a ruse event the larger event would need to happen while police assets were focused and preoccupied with the smaller event.

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.

Your semantics and hair-splitting is becoming trollish at this point.

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.

The facts are that there were terror attacks, terror attacks in the past have included a build up of activities and diversionary activities. If I had advanced knowledge of such, that would make me a terrorist as well correct? Well I don't, and as such, I simply had a thought that a possible scenario is that this entire action was a diversionary tactic in order to get something else accomplished for a larger plan.

Pretty simple concept to follow unless arguing is just the mood you are in right now.