Paris attack.... how might we protect ourselves?

[Tom-D]

To answer the thread question, we protect ourselves by taking the fight to the enemy imo.

As simple and crude as that sounds.

Lovely thought, How? we are broke.

There is only 2 ways to win this, total isolation, total annihilation, which is feasible ?

 

[Art VanDelay]

Kool... And simple fix...

Let all the peaceful Muslims around the world create a army to wipe out Islamic Extremism and restore the honor to their religion...

Best solution yet !!!

As a Marine Corps veteran I'm tired of being the world's police force and quite frankly the majority of the world is not too appreciative of our efforts in this area anyway. It's time to pull back take a knee and concentrate on keeping us safe in our own nation without spilling any more of our young people's blood in other lands that we can't even pronounce.

And as I have questioned before why aren't the wealthy arab nations taking in any of the refugees ?

 

[Bob Noel]

Yes. A circular firing squad of cowboys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your narrow-minded bigotry is truly inspiring.

Please tell me, is your view that everyone should just accept being executed by terrorist?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Scoff at Doc's commentary as gung-ho all you like. He's your best friend when the shooting starts.

I scoff at his commentary because in my experience, the people who talk the most badass are the ones who are most likely to freeze when the stuff really hits the fan, training or not.

 

[FastEddieB]

Your narrow-minded bigotry is truly inspiring.

Please tell me, is your view that everyone should just accept being executed by terrorist?

I just composed and posted this to a skeptic's forum, but it could just as easily be in response to JoseCuervo's stance:

You've pointed out the problems with carrying a firearm.

And I will stipulate there are "problems".

But I believe the maxim is, "Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

Nearly every safety or preventive measure has risks.

Motorcycle helmets save lives overall, but can hinder peripheral vision and their extra weight can contribute to neck injuries.

Air bags save lives overall, but people have been injured and even killed by the airbags themselves.

Seat belts save lives overall, but people have drowned when they or others were unable to extricate them from a vehicle due to the seatbelt.

And vaccines save lives overall, but a tiny percentage of those receiving them may have serious adverse reactions.

It all boils down to risk/reward.

If, God forbid, I ever found myself in a situation like the Paris theater massacre, ideally my first instinct would be cover and/or concealment and/or escape. If none of those were feasible, and I found myself in a line of hostages being systematically executed, I hope I could fight off panic and resignation and calm my nerves enough to go for a head shot on the executioner before he got to me. With an 8 or 14 shot 9mm I might be able to take down more than one. Or not. But I would at all times be aware that my actions could cause collateral damage, and that I would have to live with the consequences if someone was injured died because of my actions.

I predict the above will be lambasted as a paranoid fantasy. Probably seemed like a pretty remote fantasy to those thousands of concert goers in Paris - until it wasn't.

 

[Henning]

Whatever you are drinking man, it's time to put it down and go to bed. You are so hopelessly lost.

Not really, these are the underlying issues since Muhammed.

 

[bflynn]

I am absolutely no advocate of gun control, but arming the populace isn't necessarily the answer. It is definitely not a cure all.

Everyone has talked about shock, what to do, etc. The truth is, having a concealed weapon allows you an additional choice. Without it, you are cowering on the floor, waiting to be shot and hoping that someone else saves you. Or you can make a suicide rush and hope one of you get to the guy first. Having a weapon, you gain another choice to fight back.

Arming everyone? No, not for it. When I was in the Navy, I held an auxillary duty as Small Arms Petty Officer, which among other things means i organized and arranged firearms qualifications for the crew (it also meant that I got to shoot at the range a lot). There were some poeple who were good and others that I wouldn't have trusted not to shoot themselves. From my experience, arming the right people will have a big impact on these situations, but "right people" means more than we do today. We should have a higher level of training for CCW. Someone who shoots a gun in publc should be trusted not to shoot others.

Ultimately guns or no guns will not solve this. We do not have a gun problem, we have a violence problem.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Everyone has talked about shock, what to do, etc. The truth is, having a concealed weapon allows you an additional choice. Without it, you are cowering on the floor, waiting to be shot and hoping that someone else saves you. Or you can make a suicide rush and hope one of you get to the guy first. Having a weapon, you gain another choice to fight back.

No disagreement there.

We should have a higher level of training for CCW. Someone who shoots a gun in publc should be trusted not to shoot others.

Agree 100%. Here in the Hampton Roads area, I can get a concealed carry permit simply by going to the city office and showing my military ID. No additional training required. While I personally have had a lot of training and feel pretty comfortable with a weapon, as you probably experienced, not everyone in the military is competent with a firearm. Some are downright scary.

Ultimately guns or no guns will not solve this. We do not have a gun problem, we have a violence problem.

Correct. Like I said, I have no problem with folks that want to carry and I agree that it gives more options, but that won't stop the attacks from coming.

 

[Henning]

I think everyone should be issued and trained on a sidearm, whether they carry or not is up to them and if they can qualify on skill, if not, the gun stays at home or in the car. It's not a cure all by any means to having a peaceful society, but if you don't have them in the tool box, the job is hopeless. The founders understood that which is why the second amendment exists.

 

[bflynn]

Guns have no bearing either way on the peacefullness of society.

 

[Henning]

Guns have no bearing either way on the peacefullness of society.

True, food handles that.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Your narrow-minded bigotry is truly inspiring.

Please tell me, is your view that everyone should just accept being executed by terrorist?

No bigotry here, but thanks for the personal attack.


If you know everything, tell me how you are going to identify the terrorists from the wanna-be John Wayne's once the shooting starts.

I have a concealed weapon permit, and, if I was in the situation in a crowded theater, I will start shooting the person closest to me that has a gun, as he is my closest threat to me. In a crowded concert hall, everyone with a gun is a threat to me, fact.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I just composed and posted this to a skeptic's forum, but it could just as easily be in response to JoseCuervo's stance:







And I will stipulate there are "problems".



But I believe the maxim is, "Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good."



Nearly every safety or preventive measure has risks.



Motorcycle helmets save lives overall, but can hinder peripheral vision and their extra weight can contribute to neck injuries.



Air bags save lives overall, but people have been injured and even killed by the airbags themselves.



Seat belts save lives overall, but people have drowned when they or others were unable to extricate them from a vehicle due to the seatbelt.



And vaccines save lives overall, but a tiny percentage of those receiving them may have serious adverse reactions.



It all boils down to risk/reward.



If, God forbid, I ever found myself in a situation like the Paris theater massacre, ideally my first instinct would be cover and/or concealment and/or escape. If none of those were feasible, and I found myself in a line of hostages being systematically executed, I hope I could fight off panic and resignation and calm my nerves enough to go for a head shot on the executioner before he got to me. With an 8 or 14 shot 9mm I might be able to take down more than one. Or not. But I would at all times be aware that my actions could cause collateral damage, and that I would have to live with the consequences if someone was injured died because of my actions.



I predict the above will be lambasted as a paranoid fantasy. Probably seemed like a pretty remote fantasy to those thousands of concert goers in Paris - until it wasn't.

There is plenty of actual data that helmets, seat belts, and airbags save lives, and, very little risk to innocent bystanders from a seat belt, helmet, or airbag.

There is no data that wanna-be John Wayne's save lives in crowded concert halls. Plus, there is a very high risk to innocent bystanders.

But, don't let facts keep you from not wearing your seatbelt.

 

[CobraDane]

I know the Original Post said to keep politics out of it, but when I heard those at the Democratic debate last night saying we needed to INCREASE the number of Syrian refugees we let into the country I just... GRRR. I don't mind helping people in need, in fact I think everyone should help people in need, but why not have a moratorium on refugee migration until we can figure out a system to properly screen the people coming in?

 

[Fearless Tower]

I know the Original Post said to keep politics out of it, but when I heard those at the Democratic debate last night saying we needed to INCREASE the number of Syrian refugees we let into the country I just... GRRR. I don't mind helping people in need, in fact I think everyone should help people in need, but why not have a moratorium on refugee migration until we can figure out a system to properly screen the people coming in?

Ubelievable. I hate to say it, but maybe Anne Coulter was right.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

I know the Original Post said to keep politics out of it, but when I heard those at the Democratic debate last night saying we needed to INCREASE the number of Syrian refugees we let into the country I just... GRRR. I don't mind helping people in need, in fact I think everyone should help people in need, but why not have a moratorium on refugee migration until we can figure out a system to properly screen the people coming in?

I understand your sentiment , but the practical matter is who in Syria are you going to call to background check? There is no way to "vet" these refugees. If you make the decision to hold off for a "proper background check", you may as well close the door. The rest is window dressing.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Here is an interesting piece from the Military Times today:
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/...y-lead-us-military-anti--escalation/75790350/

Stephen Biddle, a George Washington University professor of international affairs, said the Paris attack may create a political imperative to do more militarily against IS, but he thinks it would be a mistake to launch a U.S. ground war.

"To defeat ISIL decisively would require hundreds of thousands of Western ground troops, but nobody thinks the ISIL threat warrants that scale of commitment, and in fact it doesn't," Biddle said.

Essentially professor Biddle is saying that the risk ISIS poses is not worth the level of effort to annihilate them.

He might actually be right. I think Russia understands this. While we have probably made ISIS stronger by weakening the Assad regime, Russia has taken the opposite approach. For those of us who lived through the hot period of the Cold War, it might be hard to acknowledge, but I think Russia has learned a thing or two.

 

[PaulS]

Here is an interesting piece from the Military Times today:
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/...y-lead-us-military-anti--escalation/75790350/


Essentially professor Biddle is saying that the risk ISIS poses is not worth the level of effort to annihilate them.

He might actually be right. I think Russia understands this. While we have probably made ISIS stronger by weakening the Assad regime, Russia has taken the opposite approach. For those of us who lived through the hot period of the Cold War, it might be hard to acknowledge, but I think Russia has learned a thing or two.

I think the problem is that the ISIL/ISIS fighters would scatter at the first hint they were about to be overrun, only to reassemble in a few years. I really think we need a special forces arm that goes after these people, backed with heavy duty ordinance. I think when they are gathered in large groups and we know about it, we take them out without prejudice. They need to feel a lot less safe and they need to understand that their willingness to die will be answered with death.

 

[Velocity173]

Here is an interesting piece from the Military Times today:
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/...y-lead-us-military-anti--escalation/75790350/


Essentially professor Biddle is saying that the risk ISIS poses is not worth the level of effort to annihilate them.

He might actually be right. I think Russia understands this. While we have probably made ISIS stronger by weakening the Assad regime, Russia has taken the opposite approach. For those of us who lived through the hot period of the Cold War, it might be hard to acknowledge, but I think Russia has learned a thing or two.

I agree with the professor. I think the gains we had in 2008 in Iraq were a direct result of the build up. I also agree with Art V in that we shouldn't be spearheading this. No reason why Mosul should still be in ISIS hands. These peaceful middle eastern Muslim countries need to get off their butts and eradicate this problem with advisory help from us. We can barely afford a peacetime military. No way we can go back to wartime levels over there when there isn't a serious threat to the US.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

I agree that a statement must be made, ISIS has to suffer a humiliating, public defeat to make this group of murdering bastards appear a whole lot less of the type of "fun" that attracts recruits.
Anyone remember Daddy Assad's methods of dealing with his opposition in Homs?
Direct NATO to level Raqqa under article 5, bury the rubble. Demonstrate that this is what happens when they leave the sandbox for the west.

JMHO.

 

[Phoenix]

We don't need to chew up more special forces guys or start a ground war in some sheethole. We(US/Europe) need border fences and deportation. Inviting a few million into western civilization then trying to kill a couple of bad ones in the middle of nowhere is retarded.

 

[Dav8or]

So, the terrorists are dressed like ordinary citizens and not wearing robes and a turban. Likely they don't even have a long beard and they are running around with their guns drawn. Then there is the concealed carry guy, dressed like an ordinary citizen running around with his gun drawn. Now the uniformed police arrive with their guns drawn. Who do they shoot and not shoot?

It seems to me that in a big attack like this one, if you try to be a hero and save the day by taking it to the bad guys, you run a pretty big chance of actually being shot by police/army/security authorities. Just something to think about.

As to the original idea of 7-8 guys rushing the attackers unarmed- how in the world are you going to coordinate this counter assault? There you are, watching a concert with your back to the attackers like everybody else. You hear gunfire and it takes a few seconds to register that yes, this is gunfire and it really is happening. You turn around to find everyone behind you running away from the attackers in all directions to save themselves. How are you going to find these other heroes and coordinate an attack?

If you attack by yourself, it's certain death with no effect on the attackers.
Of those that did die at that concert, how do we know there weren't some wannabe heroes that did counter attack? Statistically, running, hiding and escaping worked pretty damn well.

 

[txflyer]

Lovely thought, How? we are broke.

There is only 2 ways to win this, total isolation, total annihilation, which is feasible ?

We do more like Trump suggests and make them pay for it. Take their oil fields or mineral fields or whatever they have.

Laying down a wall of suppressive fire is money better spent than building walls.

At least you're killing a few of the bastards instead of laying bricks. Walls don't keep anyone out.

 

[Phoenix]

I'm all for concealed carry and wish there was more of it, willing to accept any downsides. But yeah in this situation any fighting back is suicide. Course the other option is play dead and live or die as a coward whatever fate chooses. If one is really a badass they'd cower and live, then later go mow down a mosque. Yes kill the 'innocent' women and children of terrorists and those of their faith who do not renounce them. Not politically correct, morally questionable, and certainly 'illegal' but that is what a real badass would do. Western civilization will have to rediscover white man's capacity for evil if it is to survive.

So, the terrorists are dressed like ordinary citizens and not wearing robes and a turban. Likely they don't even have a long beard and they are running around with their guns drawn. Then there is the concealed carry guy, dressed like an ordinary citizen running around with his gun drawn. Now the uniformed police arrive with their guns drawn. Who do they shoot and not shoot?

It seems to me that in a big attack like this one, if you try to be a hero and save the day by taking it to the bad guys, you run a pretty big chance of actually being shot by police/army/security authorities. Just something to think about.

As to the original idea of 7-8 guys rushing the attackers unarmed- how in the world are you going to coordinate this counter assault? There you are, watching a concert with your back to the attackers like everybody else. You hear gunfire and it takes a few seconds to register that yes, this is gunfire and it really is happening. You turn around to find everyone behind you running away from the attackers in all directions to save themselves. How are you going to find these other heroes and coordinate an attack?

If you attack by yourself, it's certain death with no effect on the attackers.
Of those that did die at that concert, how do we know there weren't some wannabe heroes that did counter attack? Statistically, running, hiding and escaping worked pretty damn well.

 

[Phoenix]

We do more like Trump suggests and make them pay for it. Take their oil fields or mineral fields or whatever they have.

Laying down a wall of suppressive fire is money better spent than building walls.

At least you're killing a few of the bastards instead of laying bricks. Walls don't keep anyone out.

Israel's wall is working wonders. But no walls don't work if you don't build them, or build them and invite neerdowells in through paid for flights.

 

[Dav8or]

Here is an interesting piece from the Military Times today:
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/...y-lead-us-military-anti--escalation/75790350/


Essentially professor Biddle is saying that the risk ISIS poses is not worth the level of effort to annihilate them.

He might actually be right. I think Russia understands this. While we have probably made ISIS stronger by weakening the Assad regime, Russia has taken the opposite approach. For those of us who lived through the hot period of the Cold War, it might be hard to acknowledge, but I think Russia has learned a thing or two.

I agree 100% with Biddle. ISIS is an Arab problem and it needs an Arab solution. If Russia wants to play good cop and defend Assad, let them have at it. Let them soak in that misery. We should step aside and watch from afar.

I think the problem is that the ISIL/ISIS fighters would scatter at the first hint they were about to be overrun, only to reassemble in a few years. I really think we need a special forces arm that goes after these people, backed with heavy duty ordinance. I think when they are gathered in large groups and we know about it, we take them out without prejudice. They need to feel a lot less safe and they need to understand that their willingness to die will be answered with death.

It's clear we have a bunch of guys on this board that could easily assemble a "dirty dozen" squad and take ISIS down. Actually, no. we don't need any US personnel on the ground over there, or in the air. The Arabs can handle it, but they aren't going to do anything as long as we keep doing it for them.

I agree with the professor. I think the gains we had in 2008 in Iraq were a direct result of the build up. I also agree with Art V in that we shouldn't be spearheading this. No reason why Mosul should still be in ISIS hands. These peaceful middle eastern Muslim countries need to get off their butts and eradicate this problem with advisory help from us. We can barely afford a peacetime military. No way we can go back to wartime levels over there when there isn't a serious threat to the US.

EXACTLY!! We need more people to think this way and get our asses out of there. Arabs can take care of ISIS and if they want our advice, our intel, or our surveillance, we should give it when they ask, but we should not be their proxy monkey army.

We don't need to chew up more special forces guys or start a ground war in some sheethole. We(US/Europe) need border fences and deportation. Inviting a few million into western civilization then trying to kill a couple of bad ones in the middle of nowhere is retarded.

90% agree. I don't think we need to go crazy building a bunch of fences. It's a waste of money and makes us look scared.

 

[Kevin16587]

I've attended training involving active shooters. It's very difficult and unnatural to run TOWARD the sound of shooting. And that's with a weapon of my own in hand and the knowledge that it's make believe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LandSickness]

I'm all for concealed carry and wish there was more of it, willing to accept any downsides. But yeah in this situation any fighting back is suicide. Course the other option is play dead and live or die as a coward whatever fate chooses. If one is really a badass they'd cower and live, then later go mow down a mosque. Yes kill the 'innocent' women and children of terrorists and those of their faith who do not renounce them. Not politically correct, morally questionable, and certainly 'illegal' but that is what a real badass would do. Western civilization will have to rediscover white man's capacity for evil if it is to survive.

Surviving a rock fight is not a win. Matching one's "capacity for evil" can't be the answer. That's the fight they want. We kick their ass, they're "martyrs" and it only provides the recruiters fuel to convert others. We need dependable intelligence and covert "cleansing" of their ranks at the core.

 

[Phoenix]

Surviving a rock fight is not a win. Matching one's "capacity for evil" can't be the answer. That's the fight they want. We kick their ass, they're "martyrs" and it only provides the recruiters fuel to convert others. We need dependable intelligence and covert "cleansing" of their ranks at the core.

No you either out evil them or keep them in their own countries, separated by immigration controls and fences. Preferably both. You ain't cleansing them of their badness. That is silly sunday school talk.

 

[JoseCuervo]

We do more like Trump suggests and make them pay for it. Take their oil fields or mineral fields or whatever they have.

How many casualties in your "War For Oil" are you willing to take at $41/barrel?

 

[denverpilot]

I scoff at his commentary because in my experience, the people who talk the most badass are the ones who are most likely to freeze when the stuff really hits the fan, training or not.

I've seen both. I understand what you're saying, but I've met a few bonafide badasses. Not a lot, but a few. They weren't all professionally trained for a job at it, either. Some were. Some weren't. Some were REALLY well trained. It's a spectrum. (Should make the "diversity" lovers happy, eh? They never seem to want to apply that to anything but skin color. Haha.) Most of them attributed as much of their survival to luck of the draw as they did to their training.

Since I've got no dog in the "badass" argument fight, (no desire here to be a badass...), Doc will either do what he says he'll do, or he'll make for a great distraction for the bad guys, so others can get away. Either way, it's a win.

Lots of bad guys are "badasses" too, until someone shoots back. Same thing. That can work to your advantage. Even the confusion they count on when they start killing works against them in reverse.

Of course these twits in Paris had their secondary plan when that happened -- which was to blow themselves up, so they'd just have done that sooner and still taken out anyone near them, once they felt threatened.

Planned attacks in a confined space with limited exits, are always a no-win scenario from the start. Anything after that can only make it better, silly comments about "circular firing squad" horse crap, notwithstanding. You have three ways out. Escape early or at an opportunity presented by the attackers not noticing, shoot/fight your way out, or play dead/comply. Each has a limit to its effectiveness.

Your chances of survival were near zero the second it started, so any options you have after that only makes it better. The ideologues do not, and probably will not, ever understand this. They're not pragmatists by nature. They fake pragmatism with comments like the "circular firing squad" stuff.

Reality is that it's pretty easy to notice who was yelling and carrying the shotgun vs some dude or gal who pulled a pocket pistol. Friendly fire has been exceedingly rare in the even more rare cases of multiple good people carrying.

It's not too difficult in this particular scenario to know who's on which dodgeball team.

I'm sure if concealed carry were more prevalent, the bad guys would change tactics to make it harder to figure it out. Police style uniforms good enough to trick the casual observer trying to not be shot, are cheap and readily available. That'll happen somewhere eventually.

 

[Mutts]

How do you protect anyone from a bomber?
You can't. All they need do is get on a bus.
Don't let them in to the country will help greatly.
Home grown we just have to keep up what we do.

 

[Bob Noel]

I have a concealed weapon permit, and, if I was in the situation in a crowded theater, I will start shooting the person closest to me that has a gun, as he is my closest threat to me. In a crowded concert hall, everyone with a gun is a threat to me, fact.

I don't believe you have a concealed weapon permit.

You don't have the judgement needed to safely use a firearm (nevermind have a ccw).

 

[denverpilot]

Side note:

Most interesting "badass" I've met was a guy who was carjacked at gunpoint.

That scenario is trained that you don't even attempt to draw or fire because you're not going to win the draw with a gun already pointed at your head. Trigger squeeze vs draw stroke and firing. Not enough time. You're dead.

He realized the bad guy was so high that he was going to get shot anyway, and managed to distract the bad guy *just* enough to draw and put four rounds into him. Two of them he fired through the door. Two out the window.

He got hit anyway but survived.

Has permanently lost much of his hearing in one ear. He also had some rehab time from the injury to his lower neck and collarbone area.

His attacker was pronounced dead at the hospital.

He credits a particular instructor who taught what's essentially "sleight of hand" type tricks to move the attacker's eyes away from the draw hand. He added that obviously there was a lot of luck involved too. But he mainly said it was about what he was taught to say and do to distract the bad guy's eyeballs and brain that even gave him a chance.

He took his chance, as small as it was, and won and didn't end up a 15 second spot on the nightly news. He jokes today that they'd have given him as much of a eulogy on the news as the time it took for the entire thing to go down.

He didn't come away unscathed. He came out alive. I don't even really label him a "badass", personally. I just use it for the conversation here. He doesn't think that way, either. More of a simple fight to survive.

For background, he wasn't in a particularly nice place, but it wasn't typically a bad place in daylight either. I'll refrain from mentioning the city because it would make people think it's a worse place than it really is. It has a reputation. But he wasn't really in the crime riddled areas of that particular city at the time. It wasn't a scenario where he was carrying because he felt he was particularly in a place where he would need it.

He had the choice of a guaranteed shot to the head or rolling the dice. He rolled the dice. Experts later told him his chances were about one in eight.

He'd otherwise live out the rest of his life never telling anyone about it besides close friends, but he once in a while helps the trainer out with his personal story about how important the "distraction" training was.

The trainer is a consultant to the FBI and former LE who worked mostly undercover. He claims eight students have been involved in shootings and all have survived it, FWIW. He currently resides in Georgia.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I don't believe you have a concealed weapon permit.

You don't have the judgement needed to safely use a firearm (nevermind have a ccw).

Well, if you want to call me a liar, put your money where your mouth is.

$1000 says I have a concealed weapons permit.

Put your money where your mouth is, or shut it up. Either way is good for me.

 

[James331]

Id rather had seen "un trained" CCWs try to return fire, than simply have unarmed folks slaughtered like sheep.

 

[denverpilot]

By the way, I've purposely refrained from the political side of this thread. The OP requested information on protection of self, and politics isn't going to accomplish that with terrorism ever. You could close every border and decide everyone of a certain religion is suspect, and you'd still have home-grown nutbags.

That's all I'm going to say about that.

If you remove the socio-politicial posts from the thread, only a handful of people have offered up actual useful information in response to the OP's question.

And even then, smart folk know it's all based on the specifics of the scenario. Monday morning quarterbacking is fine as a mental exercise, but nothing someone finds themselves in the middle of is ever going to be exactly the same as the scenario that triggered the question.

All the socio-political stuff doesn't matter anymore once one is facing a sociopath who's decided to kill people.

Which is why I tossed the carjacking story out there. Being carjacked is incredibly unlikely in the vast majority of our lives, and it's still more common than being involved in a terrorist turkey shoot inside a concert venue.

 

[LandSickness]

No you either out evil them or keep them in their own countries, separated by immigration controls and fences. Preferably both. You ain't cleansing them of their badness. That is silly sunday school talk.

You can't "out evil" them unless you're willing to die as they are, so no, that won't work. You can't keep them in their own countries because you don't recognize them until it's too late. "Iron gate" immigration will never work in this country because too many people benefit from the by-product of illegal immigration...cheap, easy to conceal labor.

By "cleansing" I meant making them disappear in the middle of the night, so that they can't be called martyrs by the recruiters. We need to get better intelligence in order to infiltrate their ranks. No Sunday school talk here. I'm not talking about "rehabbing" them. Those of higher rank need to be quietly killed and their organization depleted from the inside. Screw fighting fair. Screw trying to be a moral example. We need good ole fashioned "mob action" disappearances.

 

[Phoenix]

I can out evil them no problem. Hail me some cattle cars. Ain't nothing to it.

 

[Tom-D]

$1000 says I have a concealed weapons permit.

Doesn't mean squat. speciality when you ask questions that show you would fire at some one who you don't know is the target you need to kill.