Predictive Military Analysis Coming True in Europe: The Paris Attacks

Don't blame me for observing a truth. If there were no Muslims...the vast majority of terrorism would vanish.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Don't blame me for observing a truth. If there were no Muslims...the vast majority of terrorism would vanish.

If there were no white Christians millions of Native Americans and black Africans would be alive

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Don't blame me for observing a truth. If there were no Muslims...the vast majority of terrorism would vanish.

If there were no Muslims, then they would fabricate another threat, that we would have to focus on.
Before 2001 there wasn't even talk of Muslims as a whole being regarded as a threat, that only started after 9/11 to alter public consensus and to justify the upcoming wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There were terrorist attacks before 2001, however this was regarded then to be on account of certain organizations, rather than the doing of the entire Muslim community, because the Islam is a "cruel and oppressing religion" they would like us to believe nowadays.
Sure, I strongly dissaprove of Sharia Law excercising countries or areas, however this not standard Islamism, but only reinforced by ultra orthodox Muslims.
In comparison, has anyone ever heard an ultra orthodox Jew ramble on, they have very oppressive tendencies as well in my opinion.

A few decades ago we had the "communist threat" in the east and seeing how diplomatic relations have cooled down the last few years now again with Russia, my guess we'll have another Cold War all over again, after the "Muslim threat" has been dealt with.
This time with more focus on China, rather than only Russia.
As to why, I think because the U.S. is loosing terrain real fast as the dominant global power it once was.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Don't blame me for observing a truth. If there were no Muslims...the vast majority of terrorism would vanish.

Please don't conflate my support for the expansion of military power in Europe for any kind of support for anti-Muslim bigotry.

originally posted by: Tyrion79

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Don't blame me for observing a truth. If there were no Muslims...the vast majority of terrorism would vanish.

If there were no Muslims, then they would fabricate another threat, that we would have to focus on.
Before 2001 there wasn't even talk of Muslims as a whole being regarded as a threat, that only started after 9/11 to alter public consensus and to justify the upcoming wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There were terrorist attacks before 2001, however this was regarded then to be on account of certain organizations, rather than the doing of the entire Muslim community, because the Islam is a "cruel and oppressing religion" they would like us to believe nowadays.
Sure, I strongly dissaprove of Sharia Law excercising countries or areas, however this not standard Islamism, but only reinforced by ultra orthodox Muslims.
In comparison, has anyone ever heard an ultra orthodox Jew ramble on, they have very oppressive tendencies as well in my opinion.

A few decades ago we had the "communist threat" in the east and seeing how diplomatic relations have cooled down the last few years now again with Russia, my guess we'll have another Cold War all over again, after the "Muslim threat" has been dealt with.
This time with more focus on China, rather than only Russia.
As to why, I think because the U.S. is loosing terrain real fast as the dominant global power it once was.

You must be very young if you think 2001 was the start. Islamic terrorists have been around since the 1800s and has been fought on and off since then by Western nations. In fact that wasn't even the first attack on the world trade center.

We should fear terrorism as long as the US are determined to do anything that is in the very Best Interest Of The United States Of America.

Do the American People actually know what their officials actually mean when they state: Whats best in the Interest of the United States Of America?

Do we who are their allies know what the US mean by that? Hell i dont.

a reply to: dragonridr
Of course terrorism has existed longer than 2001, that was not my point and I was refering to 9/11 in that year.
I've explained what I meant in the mid part of my post, read it again.

You make it sound as if Islamic terrorism is not only a western problem, but also the only kind of terrorism that has been dealt with in the last couple of centuries.
Also, earlier attacks on the WTC were blamed on Bin Laden and his organization and not on the Muslim community itself and that's exactly my point which I've tried to explain.

There always has to be a common enemy, because it's an easy way to lay all the focus on by the government or the media.
We've had the communists for instance and now it's the turn of Muslims.
Who's next, Roma gypsies, Hindu's, people who question authority (commonly referred to as "intellectual terrorists") ?

a reply to: DupontDeux

what i find interesting from all of the press coverage about the attacks in paris, is the lack of focus on the failing of the intelligence services.

Whenever there is an attack or something like this in the developed world, there is always something of a witch hunt with that countries intelligence agencies. Usually goes like, what did they know? what couldnt they stop it? etc.

In not one of the news broadcasts i have watched, and i watch alot of the news, there hasnt been a murmur about this. I just find this a bit odd.

a reply to: Tyrion79

there has been the potential of attacks from that part of the world since the crusades,which started 920yrs ago!

war...war never changes...just the backdrop, boogeyman and time

originally posted by: projectvxn
1. The EU has been consistently underestimating Islamic threats for years now. There is zero political will to enter the fight, even as their citizens are largely sitting ducks to these people. They also have very obvious appeasement policies that I find unbelievable. For instance, letting hundreds of thousands of migrants into their member nations without so much as a background check. They care more about looking like compassionate progressives than they do about living in the realities of a brutal world beyond their borders.

I love the way you unashamedly put quotation marks around "refugees". This shows your clear nationalist/xenophobic bias. The reality, of course, is that those women and kids are not terrorists, they are running away from the same psychopaths we are now facing.

The fact that you use the words "progressives" as some kind of generalized insult also shows your obvious political leaning - the usual Conservative ranter complaining about "commie liberal socialists" etc etc...

It's also incorrect that the EU has been underestimating the threat. We are all too well aware of the threat. The difference is we are not "yeehaw!" Gun-toting Americans who act first and think ten years later when they're outed for mass abuses in conflict zones, the privatization of war for profit, mass surveillance of their own population and the gigantic hypocrisy of preaching about freedom while systematically removing the freedoms of all.

We know the threat, but we actually BELIEVE the often quoted line of many Americans that “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Unlike America, most of Europe actually adheres to this principle and isn't willing to give up all our liberties to our governments without question.

And, unlike many ignorant Americans, most of Europe understands that women and children fleeing a conflict are not instantly terrorists simply because "they're brown".

originally posted by: projectvxn
2. War, to Europeans, seems to be something only the US does, and we are the bullies, not the extremist assholes who slaughter their people, but we- the ones who have the nuts to fight them. NATO countries are required to contribute 2% of their GDP toward their militaries in order to remain on a constant state of readiness. Most do not contribute at all. Their member armies are ill-equipped, poorly trained, and so underfunded that most of the EU armies cannot prosecute a war on their own soil for the requisite 30 days. Military expenditure takes a back seat to progressive socialism and, at this point, international welfare that the US generally provides most of the military deterrent for Europe. It is this military support that allows them to spend on social programs and international welfare while we foot the bill for their defense...All while being criticized by their citizens for doing so.

And yet Europe has not been at war since WW2.
So, obviously something is working, right?
You whine and complain about "progressives" and "liberals" and try to claim that this mentality has led to something terrible, when in reality you're just exposing your ignorance about the rest of the world. There are PLENTY of Conservative political parties across Europe, there are several in power now.

Really, your "analysis" of all of this is nothing but the most base Conservative ranting. I would have been willing to give you some credence had you not shown your biased hand so easily, but that nonsense partisan bs makes a hell of lot of us instantly switch off.

And lets not forget, as it stands only one of those identified in this event has even been suspected of being a migrant.

It's actually pretty funny, the right-wing tabloid trash in the UK instantly jumped on this with sensationalist headlines about refugees, then they look like complete tw@s when it becomes clear that MOST OF THOSE involved were FRENCH/BELGIAN NATIONALS.

And believe me, don't be thinking you've got it all cushy in the US because you think you're doing it right (although you would be screaming about your "Muslim President Obama" if it was convenient right now), you are facing just as much risk as the rest of us, as is Russia. Don't be thinking you have some podium of authority to scream your nonsense from when you're own government is not only dealing with IS threats but nationalists, extremist Conservatives, racists and militias too (pretty much all one and the same, but you get the idea).

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Don't blame me for observing a truth. If there were no Muslims...the vast majority of terrorism would vanish.

You seem to forget the fact that terrorism would be created by those in our government (call them what you want, TPTB, shadow gov't, etc.) that require an enemy to scare the masses.

From the early 1900s to the 1990s it was Communism. After Communism died, al Qaeda took it's spot. Al Qaeda dropped out of the news and now it's ISIS.

All the while the DHS and other agencies have been also stating that other terrorism might come from:
1. Constitutionalists (because the Founding Father's were terrorists)
2. Returning Veterans
3. Religious Right-wing
4. Conspiracy theorists (I think they've been thrown in there too, someone correct me if I'm wrong)

You see, the constant creation of potential threats means one thing - the Gov't/TPTB are scared of the people. Further, they need a constant supply of potential boogie men to scare the populace.

a reply to: projectvxn

I can fathom the practical need for each country to have a strong military with the way this world is.

a reply to: tweetie
If the military of each country would stay within their own borders instead of attacking others then there would be less need of such strong military to begin.
They should rename Departments of Defense to Departments of Offense, if only for the sake of governmental transparency in my opinion.

a reply to: Tyrion79

I hear you. I was sitting back contemplating the original post of this thread and was looking at the way things are right now and not how I would like them to be.

Ironically, the breeding ground for one jihadist turns out to be a posh resort lifestyle....

i.dailymail.co.uk...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

It appears that a mundane lifestyle is enough to trigger homicidal rage. Obviously it's not "normal" and comes from an outside influence and "brainwashing".

Unfortunately, this is not too difference from what we see domestically in the USA, where the mere perception of unjustness brings out deep mental rage, from people who are otherwise well-off...like that TV reporter who shot a co-worker, or the militant BLM Movement.

I happened across a video last night. I could link this video under a number of threads but will post it here since Putin stated late last year these jihadists are really mercenaries and will work for whomever pays the most; that is their motivation.

Their actions are not about religion which makes a lot of sense to me.

Putin answers questions about IS (7 min. 11 sec.)

I don't have a link right now (it's 3 AM and I will look later) but I also came across discussion that Putin stated at the G20 meeting there are individuals from 40 countries who are paying these mercenaries (I will use that term) to commit acts of terror and some of these individuals come from countries represented at the G20.

If what I posted is well-known already, please excuse me as I'm still getting to know ATS.

originally posted by: tweetie
If what I posted is well-known already, please excuse me as I'm still getting to know ATS.

I hadn't seen it until you posted it, so either way, I am thankful

Excellent video, wish it'd gone on longer, would love to know what the Chinese journalist was going to ask after Putin had stated that Russia and the US were on the same geostrategic line.

Cheers.

originally posted by: Tyrion79
a reply to: tweetie
If the military of each country would stay within their own borders instead of attacking others then there would be less need of such strong military to begin.
They should rename Departments of Defense to Departments of Offense, if only for the sake of governmental transparency in my opinion.

Wouldn't logic say if each military stayed in their own borders no country would need a military? The problem is in thousands of years of warfare no one ever stays in their own borders. And because of that countries keep militaries. Even terrorism finds its way outside of their borders and requires self defence.

As for a solution their isn't one someone will always be at war at any given time their are multiple wars going on all over the globe. There has never been a single year where a conflict wasn't going on somewhere.

People also think terrorism is new in fact it's just a never ending cycle. This isn't the first time syria caused trouble. In the Marine hymn it mentions the battle of tripoli that was a fight to stop terrorism. The barbery pirates were taking ships and killing sailors from many nations. The Marines went in rescued hostages and later destroyed the pirates.

a reply to: Anaana

Thank you. It puts things in a different perspective. I wished it was longer, too.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: projectvxn

When it comes time to actually do something about this kind of crap, everyone gets indignant and spineless about having to do nasty things to bad people.

and this gives those who refuse to act the all too convenient ability
to point to those in the past that did, and blame it all on them.

Ya I'm guilty of that. I didn't agree with the Iraq war. I know that dismembering the Iraq military in an irresponsible manner likely led to many of them joining ISIS. In fact, we know at least some of the high ranking leadership in ISIS were former Iraq military intelligence. We also know many of the members in ISIS were living in Syria or Iraq, meaning some of them at least were former Iraq military. This explains their precision.

Here's one link about it:
time.com - How Disbanding the Iraqi Army Fueled ISIS...

But I also know support for the war was on both sides of the party line. It wasn't as widespread on the democrat side, but there were enough votes for it to be convincing. I gave a link in a prior post about it. I guess I'll just give it here:
en.wikipedia.org - Iraq Resolution...

So our leadership did something after 9/11. Most people wanted to do something. It may have been the wrong thign, but that doesn't mean it was necessarily wrong. It doesn't make Bush a dictator. It might be that what has happened was unavoidable. Only in hindsight can we pretend otherwise. What goes on to create reality is a lot more complex.

But I think you're right. It's like when a European blames the US for the Iraq war. They didn't get as involved, so it's easy to blame the US for every misstep. But lately more and more European coutnries are waking up and realizing they can't stay uninvolved. I think they're also realizing mistakes are easy to make and maybe the US isn't their enemy.

That's the whole point of the OP. He/she stated Europe can't rely on the US military anymore. Europe has to take some of the slack and transfer some of its social welfare spending to military.

And Eyrope never appreciated the US anyway. Even as the US was using its military to improve security, Europeans blamed it.