[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Except they attack police departments and military patrols all the time.

In the west/western europe?

[Waragainstsleep]

Not so much, no.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Charlie Hebdo was a target of opportunity because the terrorists knew that it was highly unlikely that anyone in those offices would be armed. Like a million to one shot. Now what if the "offensive" content had been published by a magazine headquartered in Houston? Not so much....

Whether you are pro- or anti-gun, you cannot argue that a terrorist organization would be nearly as likely to attack a location in the US the way they did in Paris, where it was even possible that one or more of the people in the location were armed. They don't go after targets that are likely to be "difficult" for them. It's kind of part of the definition of terrorism: attacking undefended, unprepared civilians in order to cause terror and fear. That doesn't work if the targets even might shoot back.

Your assertion here is pretty much without merit. A magazine headquartered in Houston is a much softer target than anywhere in Israel. Or Iraq, or Afghanistan, etc. These are not tactical attacks. The point is not to win. The point is to make an impact and, more often than not, dying in the process. They are self styled martyrs. I would assert the relative safety of the US has as much to do with geography than anything else. An ocean is much harder to penetrate than the relatively open borders of Europe.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

In the west/western europe?

Don't forget than one of the victims on the day of the attack was a cop. I can't say for certain that she was armed, but the French police generally are.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The simulation also specifies "gun-owners" and not "concealed carry permit holders." There is a level of safety and training required for the latter that is absent the former.

I can't speak to the rest of the country, but in N.C. the "training" is a one day class with copious breaks for donuts and lunch. Hardly rigorous. And you have to take one trip to a range to fire a gun. It's not exactly special forces training. I would imagine the vast majority of cc permit holders would be diving for cover in the face of a surprise attack by automatic fire- same as the rest of us.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Except they attack police departments and military patrols all the time.

Not in Paris, and not in the same sort of way they attacked Charlie Hebdo. It's a different kind of attack for different purposes. Attacking a publisher in a "peaceful" city is intended to cause terror and panic. Attacking police and military patrols is NOT done in France, but it's done in places that are already in significant conflict, like in Iraq, Yemen, etc. These attacks are carried out with a very different set of tactics and with a HUGE amount of personnel and weaponry, and are intended to make the public distrust the police and military's ability to protect them.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Or with a bomb in the trunk of a car.
There not the same as the terrorists of the 80's. They don't want to get out alive. It changes their target selection.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Not in Paris, and not in the same sort of way they attacked Charlie Hebdo. It's a different kind of attack for different purposes. Attacking a publisher in a "peaceful" city is intended to cause terror and panic. Attacking police and military patrols is NOT done in France, but it's done in places that are already in significant conflict, like in Iraq, Yemen, etc. These attacks are carried out with a very different set of tactics and with a HUGE amount of personnel and weaponry, and are intended to make the public distrust the police and military's ability to protect them.

What are you on about? Most of the terror attacks in recent history are suicide bombers or small groups with hand-held weapons. Any attacks with HUGE amounts of personnel and weaponry are not terror attacks, but guerrilla warfare by insurgents.

[Paco500]

Add to that, the last notable terrorist attack in western Europe was of Lee Rigby. A soldier who was run down and killed near a military base in London. They didn't attack a tea room. And they waited around for the armed response unit to show up seemingly hoping to be gunned down.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

What are you on about? Most of the terror attacks in recent history are suicide bombers or small groups with hand-held weapons. Any attacks with HUGE amounts of personnel and weaponry are not terror attacks, but guerrilla warfare by insurgents.

What we call it doesn't change Glenn's point, especially since it seems your definition of "Terror" vs "Insurgent Warfare" hinges upon the weaponry and personnel used.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What we call it doesn't change Glenn's point, especially since it seems your definition of "Terror" vs "Insurgent Warfare" hinges upon the weaponry and personnel used.

My point was and remains so, what that vast majority of the world classifies as terrorist attacks by militant islamists (the ones we seem to be talking about) have been carried out by individuals or small groups of people, primarily in places where they could expect to find lots of people with guns that would know how to use them. Police stations, military bases, government installations, anywhere in Israel, Iraq or Afghanistan, etc. I don't believe, and I imagine most people would agree with me, that they chose Charlie Hebdo because they were a soft target, but because they wanted to kill them.

The idea that a couple of armed cowboys in a Huston office block would have been a deterrent does not fit the evidence. These attacks almost ALWAYS end with the death of the assailants- it's part of the plan.

Had the staff at Charlie Hebdo been armed, would it have been a different outcome? Probably. I don't know that less staff would have been killed, but perhaps the assailants would not have taken the time to identify specific victims and would have killed more indiscriminately. Maybe the terrorists would have been killed at the scene. But I don't think the specific knowledge of an armed workforce would have put them off. Hasn't anywhere else in the world.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

My point was and remains so, what that vast majority of the world classifies as terrorist attacks by militant islamists (the ones we seem to be talking about) have been carried out by individuals or small groups of people, primarily in places where they could expect to find lots of people with guns that would know how to use them. Police stations, military bases, government installations, anywhere in Israel, Iraq or Afghanistan, etc. I don't believe, and I imagine most people would agree with me, that they chose Charlie Hebdo because they were a soft target, but because they wanted to kill them.

And how is this not terrorism?

The idea that a couple of armed cowboys in a Huston office block would have been a deterrent does not fit the evidence. These attacks almost ALWAYS end with the death of the assailants- it's part of the plan.

Well a couple of those cowboys would have certainly made those plans much tougher. Whether they plan to die or not, armed citizens absolutely could have lowered the body count. Whether or not the assailant dies some point later is moot.

Had the staff at Charlie Hebdo been armed, would it have been a different outcome? Probably. I don't know that less staff would have been killed, but perhaps the assailants would not have taken the time to identify specific victims and would have killed more indiscriminately.

They did kill indiscriminately.

Maybe the terrorists would have been killed at the scene. But I don't think the specific knowledge of an armed workforce would have put them off. Hasn't anywhere else in the world.

Thats because this type of thing doesn't happen in places that are full of armed citizens. Do you think that's just a random coincidence?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And how is this not terrorism?

I'm confused, or you are. I believe it is terrorism. Although, I also believe the Charlie Hebdo attack was kind of a hybrid- it was a targeted assassination rather than indiscriminate killing.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Well a couple of those cowboys would have certainly made those plans much tougher. Whether they plan to die or not, armed citizens absolutely could have lowered the body count. Whether or not the assailant dies some point later is moot.

Maybe. If they thought there were guns there, perhaps they would have used a bomb and the body count would have been much higher.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

They did kill indiscriminately.

No they didn't. They went after specific people, letting others live. They did not go in guns blazing killing everyone in sight. If they thought the office was armed, they might have.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Thats because this type of thing doesn't happen in places that are full of armed citizens. Do you think that's just a random coincidence?

Of course it does. Are you not aware of how armed Israeli citizens are? Do you really think there are not armed citizens all over Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc? No office anywhere is Texas is as well armed as anyplace these attacks happen most often.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I'm confused, or you are. I believe it is terrorism. Although, I also believe the Charlie Hebdo attack was kind of a hybrid- it was a targeted assassination rather than indiscriminate killing.
Maybe. If they thought there were guns there, perhaps they would have used a bomb and the body count would have been much higher.

I am confused. Where were you going with that whole "insurgency" vs "terrorism" thing?

Perhaps. Or, maybe this thing wouldn't have happened at all and they would have picked a different target that was offending their prophet.

No they didn't. They went after specific people, letting others live. They did not go in guns blazing killing everyone in sight. If they thought the office was armed, they might have.

They killed 13 people, only 4 of which were targets the rest being in the wrong office at the wrong time. The cop was not a target, nor were the people they mowed down to get to who they were after.

Of course it does. Are you not aware of how armed Israeli citizens are? Do you really think there are not armed citizens all over Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc? No office anywhere is Texas is as well armed as anyplace these attacks happen most often.

This type of thing doesn't happen in Israel, for that very reason, which is exactly my point. Go ahead, look for yourself. Israel deals with Rockets on a daily basis, because Hamas et al know any type of attack involving personal and small arms would be suicide, evoke a military response, and would probably fail because the people of Israel too well armed for any operation to fulfill its strategic goal.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I am confused. Where were you going with that whole "insurgency" vs "terrorism" thing?

Ahh... I understand the confusion. Perhaps I'm unique in my thinking, but I would classify attacks such as the Charlie Hebdo attack and most suicide bombings as markedly different than what ISIS are up to. One is straight out terrorism- designed to promote fear and confusion, generally (and purposefully) ending in the "martyrdom" of the attacker. The other is an attempt to gain strategic advantage in a more traditional military like campaign. The tactics and desired outcomes are different, but (I believe) for political purposes, we like to call them all "terrorism."

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Perhaps. Or, maybe this thing wouldn't have happened at all and they would have picked a different target that was offending their prophet.

You are right. Perhaps. They seemed pretty angry with Carlie Hebdo though.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

They killed 13 people, only 4 of which were targets the rest being in the wrong office at the wrong time. The cop was not a target, nor were the people they mowed down to get to who they were after.

This is just not so. They went to the wrong office first and didn't kill anyone, then they had someone escort them to the proper office without killing her. Only one person was 'mowed down' to get to who they were after, and he was sitting at the reception desk of the company they were targeting. They then shouted the name of the editor to ensure he was killed. Yes, others in the office were killed or wounded, but it was not indiscriminate killing. As for the cop? Well they were trying to get away at that point, and there was someone with a gun. They didn't kill other bystanders. It is clear who their targets were.

Don't forget another cop that was killed that day by the other attacked. She was not individually targeted, but the clearly the intended target was a cop- no one else was shot until they intervened. Again, if terrorist are so scared of people with guns, why was target chosen who was almost definitely armed and trained to defend herself?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

This type of thing doesn't happen in Israel, for that very reason, which is exactly my point. Go ahead, look for yourself. Israel deals with Rockets on a daily basis, because Hamas et al know any type of attack involving personal and small arms would be suicide, evoke a military response, and would probably fail because the people of Israel too well armed for any operation to fulfill its strategic goal.

Well that is just patently false. Here are accounts of terrorism related deaths in Israel in 2014.

Comprehensive Listing of Terrorism Victims in Israel | Jewish Virtual Library

Yes some are caused by mortar/rocket fire, many others aren't.

This is a bit of a silly argument. Really bad people did some really bad things. Other really bad people have done similar bad things around the world and thus far, well trained people with guns on high alert have not be able to stop them. I just don't think a couple of accountants with concealed carry permits are the answer to stopping terrorism.