|
You're not fooling anybody Vince. That said, it's good the FBI is actually looking into it, rather than just letting rumors fly around unchecked.
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
Nonsense posted:You're not fooling anybody Vince. Yeah, its Anon so take it with a grain of salt. Regardless, ISIS responded declaring they would attack Anon for the announcement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/uncucumbered/anonymous_uncovers_isis_plans_for_a_series_of_attacks_tomorrow?recruiter_id=17 Hmmm yes I'm sure this is productive and will not at all perpetuate a climate of panic and fear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah, its Anon so take it with a grain of salt. Regardless, ISIS responded declaring they would attack Anon for the announcement. Good, let the undersexed fedora-clad manchildren and the undersexed black mask clad manchildren duke it out for the title of ultimate global shitheap. Just so long as the dweebs with Guy Fawkes masks and dweebs with AKs can leave the civilians out of the mix.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
It obviously could be nonsense but after reading loads of things in the last few days. This sort of stuff is part luck. They reckon the french security services are completely under staffed and knew about all the charlie hebdo and the most recent attackers but just didn't have the resources too monitor them all. Anon could have stumbled across some thing but obviously it could just as easily be bollocks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah, its Anon so take it with a grain of salt. Regardless, ISIS responded declaring they would attack Anon for the announcement. CommieGIR posted:http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/uncucumbered/anonymous_uncovers_isis_plans_for_a_series_of_attacks_tomorrow?recruiter_id=17 It could be possible. anons dumb as poo poo, But all those targets seem like places that ISIS could hit and get national attention. none of the targets seem particularly out there either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:It could be possible. anons dumb as poo poo, But all those targets seem like places that ISIS could hit and get national attention. none of the targets seem particularly out there either. For as apocalyptic their attitudes are, Indonesia seems like a weird choice though. EDIT: And the 1 Day 1 Juz thing seems to be a movement to encourage Muslims in Indonesia to read/recite one Juz' of the Qu'ran per day I think? I mean maybe there's an ideological difference with the people pushing this 1 Day 1 Juz thing, but it just seems like a weird choice to me. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Nov 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:For as apocalyptic their attitudes are, Indonesia seems like a weird choice though. Lots of heretically peaceful muslims
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:I never understood why the terrorists focus on the big cities, instead of wreaking havoc in bumfuck towns no one expects them to. Whenever someone of arab descent twitches, the big cities go on some sort of terror alert. You'd think that if you want to gently caress with a government, you try to spread their police forces thin. Because the main objective of these attacks is to use them as propaganda aimed at would-be recruits, and to boost the morale of those already in their ranks. If you want to support the narrative that you are an invincible army of god fulfilling prophecies towards the creation of a global caliphate, preparing for an apocalyptic battle against the forces of the west and blah blah blah, which do you think is better: 1.) striking a ~*~decisive blow into the very beating heart of the crusaders~*~ or 2.) blowing up bumfuck nowhere that nobody gives a poo poo about. Secondly, another objective is to help further alienate muslims in the target countries, and drive anti-muslim sentiment. Again, which do you think is better: 1.) an attack in a heavily populated urban area of great political and cultural significance, with a large muslim population, many of them poor and disenfranchised or 2.) some no-name town comprised almost entirely of white people that already want to deport all of the shifty Mohammedans. Finally, as the Paris attacks unfortunately indicate, it isn't appreciably more difficult to attack a big "high-security" city than a rural nowhere, since all you need to do is smuggle people(maybe) and illegal material, something that happens all the time in vast quantities every day in every city anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Morbus posted:Because the main objective of these attacks is to use them as propaganda aimed at would-be recruits, and to boost the morale of those already in their ranks. If you want to support the narrative that you are an invincible army of god fulfilling prophecies towards the creation of a global caliphate, preparing for an apocalyptic battle against the forces of the west and blah blah blah, which do you think is better: 1.) striking a ~*~decisive blow into the very beating heart of the crusaders~*~ or 2.) blowing up bumfuck nowhere that nobody gives a poo poo about. agreed. But i think hitting anywhere in the US, big city/little city/small town america/any populated event, would probaly cause the reaction they are looking for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:I've always said this too. I'm reminded of Britain's Hungerford massacre - a bloke just walks into a sleepy village and shoots everyone up and armed police can't get there in time. It's more symbolic to attack a big city than some bumfuck rural town. Their goal isn't just to make people afraid but to spread propaganda for recruitment purposes too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/uncucumbered/anonymous_uncovers_isis_plans_for_a_series_of_attacks_tomorrow?recruiter_id=17 I hear Le Reddit Atheist Army are moving their Tactical Katana squads into position as we speak.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:I never understood why the terrorists focus on the big cities, instead of wreaking havoc in bumfuck towns no one expects them to. Whenever someone of arab descent twitches, the big cities go on some sort of terror alert. You'd think that if you want to gently caress with a government, you try to spread their police forces thin. If you want to gently caress with a government, blow up the security line at the airport. Then they'll need a security line for the security line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If you want to gently caress with a government, blow up the security line at the airport. With the attacks happening just outside the soccer stadium, I'm just a bit itchy to be standing in the slow moving security line outside of Levi's Stadium next weekend for the 49ers game because of this thought.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:I never understood why the terrorists focus on the big cities, instead of wreaking havoc in bumfuck towns no one expects them to. Whenever someone of arab descent twitches, the big cities go on some sort of terror alert. You'd think that if you want to gently caress with a government, you try to spread their police forces thin. They don't have perfect intel on every corner of every country. Suppose you were a terrorist cell leader, I bet you would prefer places you knew really well. And if you were muslim that grew up, say, in France or Belgium, then it's more likely that you lived in one of the big city suburbs than in some pastoral village. Also you probably wouldn't blend all that well in a town with population of 563. And finall let's be completely honest, politicians don't care about small towns and therefore neither do terrorists. You're irrelevant to everyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If you want to gently caress with a government, blow up the security line at the airport. Why stop there? It's the Inception model of terror attacks and it's brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:They don't have perfect intel on every corner of every country. Suppose you were a terrorist cell leader, I bet you would prefer places you knew really well. And if you were muslim that grew up, say, in France or Belgium, then it's more likely that you lived in one of the big city suburbs than in some pastoral village. Trust me no one cares about small towns not politicians not even terrorists except the people who live there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
That doesn't stop way too many small town dwellers from convincing themselves we're next. Like the example I posted earlier from a Facebook page about my local small town, there are plenty of people who think that ISIS is already infiltrating Bumfuck Farmville and are just waiting for Obummer to tell them to strike against the Real Americans. There are still quite a few sane people and a lot of the paranoid people sobered up a few days after the Paris attack, but the amount of nutjobs is still way too high. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
Goddamn, Vice is making an interview with Eagles of Death Metal, this is just a preview and  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOeI7nRYUE4
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Goddamn, Vice is making an interview with Eagles of Death Metal, this is just a preview and those 1000 yard stares. Is there a good comprehensive article out on the baclan stuff yet?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Goddamn, Vice is making an interview with Eagles of Death Metal, this is just a preview and oh god that's rough
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:For as apocalyptic their attitudes are, Indonesia seems like a weird choice though. There have been vague threats by Daesh in 2014 against Borobodur and Prambanan near the city of Jogjakarta. These Hindu and Buddhist temples are Indonesia's biggest cultural attractions and emblems of Indonesia's pluralism (or ther attempt at it). As long as Indonesia steps up their security at the temples, which was rather lacking the two times I visited it in the past year, I don't think they should worry too much to be honest. As far as I know, Belgium has sent a lot more fighters to Syria by an order of magnitude. Indonesian Islamists are content to keep racial strife in a more local setting that's akin to mob justice, pitchforks and torches included, as well as making themselves sound stupid in press releases. Kurtofan posted:Goddamn, Vice is making an interview with Eagles of Death Metal, this is just a preview and Oh I wonder if this situation changed Josh Homme's views on guns for self defence, or if it will push him towards the deep end. Fragrag fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Nov 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Morbus posted:Because the main objective of these attacks is to use them as propaganda aimed at would-be recruits, and to boost the morale of those already in their ranks. If you want to support the narrative that you are an invincible army of god fulfilling prophecies towards the creation of a global caliphate, preparing for an apocalyptic battle against the forces of the west and blah blah blah, which do you think is better: 1.) striking a ~*~decisive blow into the very beating heart of the crusaders~*~ or 2.) blowing up bumfuck nowhere that nobody gives a poo poo about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Did terrorists even used to have the logistics to think like that? Before, terrorist cells seemed to be lucky if one operative slipped under the radar, which is an asset they couldn't afford to waste on doing an attack in bumfuck nowhere. The Paris and Hebdo attacks were audacious attacks, involving small arms and explosives, which we've seen before in Mumbai and Nairobi Westgate where the terrorists presumably had easier access to men and weapons, being close to their area of operations. With Syrian fighters faking their deaths and/or slipping back to Europe, and Belgium being absolute fuckwits when it cones to illegal arms trade, it seems that cells now have the ability to plan larger attacks. Does this mean they will start attacking bumfuck nowhere? Maybe, but sooner they'd pick a target they're familiar with, I feel like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:Did terrorists even used to have the logistics to think like that? Before, terrorist cells seemed to be lucky if one operative slipped under the radar, which is an asset they couldn't afford to waste on doing an attack in bumfuck nowhere. In 1970 there were 77 airplane hijackings, so terrorist success isn't something novel to the last few years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:In 1970 there were 77 airplane hijackings, so terrorist success isn't something novel to the last few years. How many of those were acts of terrorism as opposed to DB Cooper-like heist attempts?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:How many of those were acts of terrorism as opposed to DB Cooper-like heist attempts? Not sure. It's all airlines rather than corporate or military aircraft, so I suspect the vast majority are terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:How many of those were acts of terrorism as opposed to DB Cooper-like heist attempts? most of those were more hostages so they could trade if for a goal of somesort. ISIS/AQ dont care as much about hostages. Fragrag posted:Did terrorists even used to have the logistics to think like that? Before, terrorist cells seemed to be lucky if one operative slipped under the radar, which is an asset they couldn't afford to waste on doing an attack in bumfuck nowhere. true, but imagine the fear it would create if a bunch these nuts just destroy/shoot up a small american town. it would scare the gently caress out of rural america. I agree that they would probably go for cities or events but if alot of their goals are just ranking up fear and a body count, then anywhere in america would work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:Did terrorists even used to have the logistics to think like that? Before, terrorist cells seemed to be lucky if one operative slipped under the radar, which is an asset they couldn't afford to waste on doing an attack in bumfuck nowhere. I also imagine a lot of their possible macro-death Tom Clancy scenarios would blow back on them in a way that a bombs and guns raid doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Rural america is already doing exactly what they want, it would be a waste of resources to try to scare them more
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:I don't know... If they're all about the infidels and how they have to die, you'd expect them to set fire everywhere. If you get the police forces to disperse all over the place, you'd also have it easier to attack more of those big symbolic places. Thing is there actually aren't more terrorists than cops. To set fire everywhere, they'd have to disperse everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:most of those were more hostages so they could trade if for a goal of somesort. ISIS/AQ dont care as much about hostages. Most of hijackings in the 70's were terrorists. Security was almost a casual thing. I think Carlos the Jackal snuck an rpg up to the boarding line of a plane and shot it off. Small towns are not good terrorist targets. First, nobody gives a gently caress. Second there isn't good target density. How far do you have to go to find a meaningful target and how many people can you get with a suicide vest if there's really not that many people around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:I never understood why the terrorists focus on the big cities, instead of wreaking havoc in bumfuck towns no one expects them to. Whenever someone of arab descent twitches, the big cities go on some sort of terror alert. You'd think that if you want to gently caress with a government, you try to spread their police forces thin. Morbus posted:Because the main objective of these attacks is to use them as propaganda aimed at would-be recruits While what you've said is true, Pretzel has a point in that actually rural areas are also very smart places to target, as by doing so you remove a key element of the populace's perceived security: if the attacks only happen in capital cities, people elsewhere feel immune from the issue. By focusing only on a place that is perfectly sensible to attack, you reiterate that the danger lies in the big urban centres. Part of the power of the Boston bombings was that it was hardly NYC (a financial centre) nor the Pentagon or D.C., so it made the terrorist threat wider than the central US government, to the point where people start to wonder if it could even reach out to bumfuck, Ohio or whocares, New Hampshire.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Thing is there actually aren't more terrorists than cops. To set fire everywhere, they'd have to disperse everywhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Small towns are not good terrorist targets. First, nobody gives a gently caress. Second there isn't good target density. How far do you have to go to find a meaningful target and how many people can you get with a suicide vest if there's really not that many people around. Pick the right town and the right high school graduation or football game (or gun show!) and you can probably max out the effectiveness of a bomb vest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
Kind of want to see a terrorist shootout at a rural gunshow just to see how effective an armed populace is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:Oh Well, to be fair it was a text book "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" kind of scenario. France is very, very restrictive with civilian firearm ownership and use. The guns used in the attack would have been illegal practically anywhere on the planet and nobody involved was using a gun for self defense anyways. If anything it's the sort of thing that could convince someone that they may actually want a weapon around to defend themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Well, to be fair it was a text book "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" kind of scenario. France is very, very restrictive with civilian firearm ownership and use. The guns used in the attack would have been illegal practically anywhere on the planet and nobody involved was using a gun for self defense anyways. If anything it's the sort of thing that could convince someone that they may actually want a weapon around to defend themselves. I'm dubious that a bunch of people with guns in the middle of a panicking mob would do anything but create even more casualties, for every reason from "lots of smoke and chaos" to "no idea where/who all of the shooters actually are so maybe that other Good Guy With A Guy is the one who gets laid out instead of a bad guy". These are the same people who when witnessing the two person incident that is a carjacking will shoot the carjackee in the head, which is to say they're just regular assholes like all of us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Skellybones posted:Kind of want to see a terrorist shootout at a rural gunshow just to see how effective an armed populace is. Somehow everyone ended up dead even though the terrorists only brought a starter pistol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
Warbadger posted:Well, to be fair it was a text book "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" kind of scenario. Scenario assumes cops are like the cliché English bobbies, no weapons except at most a baton. French police (and gendarmes, riot brigades, etc.) have guns. And grenades. Warbadger posted:If anything it's the sort of thing that could convince someone that they may actually want a weapon around to defend themselves. Sure, if you don't really think about it. Supposing you're a hero worthy of being the protagonist in a fantasy novel. You're going to a live concert. Do you: - leave your gun at home because you assume security won't let you go through with a gun? - actually decide to go to a crowded concert room where you know they let people carry firearms?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2015 02:17
|
|