French People

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The French were well-armed and trained in 1939 and what good did it do them. By the way, I have a French Fusil MAS36 rifle for sale . . . it's never been fired and only dropped once.

Different times and a different foe. The Third Reich was a sophisticated and well oiled yet conventional military and rolled through Europe with impunity. Today the world faces "asymmetrical warfare", where a mere handful of dedicated terrorists acting in secrecy can and have inflicted major impacts upon much larger opponents. These current bastards need to be totally annihilated before they become strong enough to control a "state", which is their stated goal: Islamic State in Syria, ISIS.
 
Different times and a different foe. The Third Reich was a sophisticated and well oiled yet conventional military and rolled through Europe with impunity. Today the world faces "asymmetrical warfare", where a mere handful of dedicated terrorists acting in secrecy can and have inflicted major impacts upon much larger opponents. These current bastards need to be totally annihilated before they become strong enough to control a "state", which is their stated goal: Islamic State in Syria, ISIS.

My post was merely a set-up for an old joke . . . that's all it was.
 
Apparently ISIS doesn't like the name Daesh because

it is similar to the Arabic words 'Daes', 'one who crushes something underfoot' and 'Dahes', translated as 'one who sows discord'.

In January this year, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced that he would begin referring to the Islamic State group by this name, saying: "Daesh hates being referred to by this term, and what they don't like has an instinctive appeal to me."

It seems that other world leaders have now followed suit, with French president Francois Hollande and the USA's secretary of state John Kerry both using the term.


According to NBC , ISIS has reportedly threatened to 'cut out the tongues' of anyone it hears using the term.


Evan Kohlmann, a national security analyst, told NBC: "It's a derogatory term and not something people should use even if you dislike them.'"

Well, Let's shout it from the rooftops...

Daesh it is... and Dash it, WE WILL.
 
Last edited:
The truth is the truth...

No matter where you find it...

Maybe you will find this source more to your liking...

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/artic...-united-states

Looking back, I see that I misread your original comment--I thought you were saying we were bringing in 100K Syrians a year, as opposed to 100K from the Middle East each year. The link above says ~1 million people from the Middle East and North Africa have arrived in the US over time (apparently over the last century, but not really clear). About 40% of those immigrants get green cards as relatives of US citizens.

About 200K of the immigrants came in the 2010-2013 period, or about 50K-70K/year. A grand total of 861 Syrian refugees got asylum in 2013. The majority of the people from the Middle East (695K total) were from Iraq (201K), Lebanon (124K) or Saudi Arabia (89K). It's interesting to look at the chart that shows total numbers by year. You can see relatively large upticks in Iraqis since 1990 (no surprise with 2 wars where we would want to allow our friends on the ground in), a big jump in Saudis since 2010, and that most Lebanese came between 1970 and 1990. The Syrians were mostly a 1980-2000 migration with a larger uptick since. There must have been quite a few Syrians entering the US not as refugees, since the jump 2010-2013 is much larger than the number of refugees cited.

Anyway, thank you for posting the link. It allowed me to geek out over numbers for a while.
 
Now is not the time for "knee jerk" reactions. The immediate priority must surely be with French people and helping them to return to some form of objective normality.

Every generation has had a challenge of this nature. In my generation I remember the the Northern Ireland conflict, the Belfast, Londonderry, London, Birmingham, Manchester, and more ad nauseam, IRA bombings. Interestingly the solution was political.
The threat has changed however, along with funding lines that supported the terrorist.

9/11 in New York, 7/7 in London, Russian passenger aircraft, and now Paris, twice in one year ( apologies to the many terrorist events that I've failed to mention).

The answer isn't simple and probably unknown to most of us.
In my opinion, the answer is not in halting the acceptance of refugees, many of whom are under extreme threat of death by the same terrorist. And possibly condemned to death if nationalistic hysteria prevails.
Nor is it nuclear EMP, Super Hornet, or relaxation in gun law!

My wife and family were "fortunate escapees" from the 7/7 London bombing. The idea of gun toting citizens confined on a tube train is bluntly horrific! More people killed by innocent gunslingers in a state of panic, shooting at any any ethnic target.

Here in the UK, our ethnic communities are vociferously rising to the threat in condemnation of ISIS. The rising interest of the UN, and international voice, an international force including Russia and MENA members, maybe the way forward?

On a final note, we have a football match at Wembley (London) tomorrow night. Between England and France. It is going ahead without thought of cancellation. In anticipation I urge you to watch it or at least be aware of it. The English fans will be singing La Marseillaise along with French supporters. The Duke of Cambridge has volunteered to be there, it will grow.
That's an initial European response to what is primarily a threat to Europe and the Middle East. I'm sure there will be a more measured and objective response. It won't be an ordinary and friendly football match. It will be a statement of European defiance.

Vive La France, and the families of those that were killed by ignorance.

SO.
 
Last edited:
The idea of gun toting citizens confined on a tube train is bluntly horrific! More people killed by innocent gunslingers in a state of panic, shooting at any any ethnic target.

Maybe true but the theory of deterrence is not considered often.

Here is a thought experiment hypothetical. There is a high published threat of a terrorist attack on mass transit. You HAVE to take the train. You have the choice of boarding one of 2 clearly marked cars. One is labeled guns prohibited, the other is known to include a high percentage of law-abiding, background checked, required gun safety and use training packing passengers. Which car would you board? Which car would the terrorists board?
 
the other is known to include a high percentage of law-abiding, background checked, required gun safety and use training packing passengers.

The problem is that this would not be the case. I would not trust the vast majority of gun owners to react correctly in a crisis and not make things worse.
It's probably true that a good, well trained, experienced in emergencies, guy with a gun might help against a bad guy with a gun but there simply aren't enough
(relative to the number of places to be protected) of those kinds of good guys.
 
Maybe true but the theory of deterrence is not considered often.

Here is a thought experiment hypothetical. There is a high published threat of a terrorist attack on mass transit. You HAVE to take the train. You have the choice of boarding one of 2 clearly marked cars. One is labeled guns prohibited, the other is known to include a high percentage of law-abiding, background checked, required gun safety and use training packing passengers. Which car would you board? Which car would the terrorists board?

If I'm a suicide bomber I would choose the car with the most people. Not to belittle your point, but my goal is to inflict as much damage as possible. If that means getting on a car with a lot of people carrying guns I would do that. If I'm successful, I'm dead and so are you.

If a group of people is utterly committed to spreading terror at any cost they will be successful some of the time. No freedom loving society can stop all attacks. Think about it for a moment. Many of us belong to clubs. We talk about getting black powder for ejection charges. If we were terrorists we could easily obtain large quantities of powder and other materials and make weapons out of this stuff. This is what the terrorists do.

And terrorists use their attacks to recruit three different kinds of people.
1) People who are like them and want to cause terror, anarchy or whatever their goal is. Successful attacks help them recruit like-minded people.

2) Ordinary people who belong to the same general group. In the Paris attacks these are non-violent Muslims who feel threatened by the reaction of their friends and neighbors to the attacks because these ordinary people are one of 'them'.

3) People who oppose the terrorists, but label anyone like them as the enemy. For example, I would say that they have recruited Donald Trump. He has said he would close certain mosques and you could interpret some of what he says to make it sound like all Muslims are the enemy. The terrorists love people who say this stuff because it pushes some people in group 2 into group 1 and in general turns people in a community against each other. ISIS can never defeat the U.S. in a fight, but they can turn us against each other.
 
The idea of gun toting citizens confined on a tube train is bluntly horrific! More people killed by innocent gunslingers in a state of panic, shooting at any any ethnic target.

Well this wouldn't happen. There's no reason to think that a train carrying licensed, background checked, trained, gun owners that have their guns on them will break out into a wild west shootout at "any ethnic target". Seriously, you think that if someone gets on the train with brown skin and Middle Eastern clothing, they'll be shot at all, much less multiple times, in a shoot out?

A shoot out implies that "any ethnic target" will be shooting back. So you're assuming that "ethnic" people will automatically have weapons and be shooting people too. You seem like the prejudiced one in this conversation to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top