Situation in Paris

[wautd]

Sickening how after mere hours after the attacks, the conspiracy theorists have it all figured out. It was actually France/Israël/the CIA... to make the muslims look bad. Even after IS claimed the attacks.

If it walks, talks, rapes and murders like an islamist, it's probably an islamist

[Purple]

Why refugees make for poor terrorists:

1.ISIS doesn't need refugees for infiltration, they have plenty of recruits from abroad with valid passports they can use for this.

2.Refugees are already under increased scrutiny

3.Refugees use unsafe and insecure routes to enter other countries. Why would ISIS risk losing their "assets" this way if they don't have to?

So refugees are actually less likely to commit terror attacks.

If I might interject. I do not believe that anyone fears the refugee wave is actually terrorists in disguise. But the fact remains that they are a vulnerable population that is going to try and settle in large number in territories ill equipped to handle them. So given an alien culture, an unknown land, no good prospect for jobs or the kind of life they thought they would be getting (and lets face it, most of these people imagined they'd immediately become middle class EU citizens) we might end up with large ethnic ghettos filled with disgruntled people. And that's a fertile breeding ground for radical anything and everything.

[cmdrjones]

Why refugees make for poor terrorists:

1.ISIS doesn't need refugees for infiltration, they have plenty of recruits from abroad with valid passports they can use for this.

2.Refugees are already under increased scrutiny

3.Refugees use unsafe and insecure routes to enter other countries. Why would ISIS risk losing their "assets" this way if they don't have to?

So refugees are actually less likely to commit terror attacks.

If I might interject. I do not believe that anyone fears the refugee wave is actually terrorists in disguise. But the fact remains that they are a vulnerable population that is going to try and settle in large number in territories ill equipped to handle them. So given an alien culture, an unknown land, no good prospect for jobs or the kind of life they thought they would be getting (and lets face it, most of these people imagined they'd immediately become middle class EU citizens) we might end up with large ethnic ghettos filled with disgruntled people. And that's a fertile breeding ground for radical anything and everything.

You Nazi you.... har har

[cmdrjones]

And yet, I'm called every name in the book for pointing this out, predicting it would get worse and imploring people to stop the wholesale importation of people who may very well do things like this... being that they HAVE JUST DONE IT.

Are you seriously trying to imply that every Syrian refugee is a potential terrorist?

That is exactly what he is doing. He also seems to think that the best possible option is to permit millions of people to die, or languish in refugee camps without the possibility of ever regaining something that resembles a normal life.

He is human trash, in other words.

Hyperbolic nonsense...
I've stated before in the Refugee crisis thread, my position is simple: The European PEOPLE should be deciding how to deal with this as nations, not the EU bureaucrats.
Actual refugees should be kept safe, fed, given medical care etc, within their capacity to do so, and then sent to a safe zone, preferably within a Muslim country that is NOT at war. (Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Brunei, Malaysia, Nigeria (maybe), Singapore, INdonesia, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Bangladesh, etc etc.)
Economic migrants I suppose could be let in, but it would be (and is) a massively stupid Idea.
Terrorist infiltrators should be shot... publicly.

None of these people should be encouraged to migrate in unsafe ways using criminal networks and enriching JIhadists and other assorted scum

See?

AS far as "permit millions of people to die or languish in refugee camps" you DO realize that this happens all the time... all over the third world, especially in Africa, right? Should Gaza be emptied and the people brought to Europe En masse?
No? well why not? It's a "refugee camp" right?

the point all of the left wing do-gooder types are failing to absorb is that THERE IS NO GOOD OPTION. In fact, you could easily characterize the 'best option" as the "least bad" option....
how is crippling Europe's ability to aid anybody in the future, including themselves going to benefit the third world hellholes these people came from in the first place? are ANY of the actions you propose going to stabilize the situations in those areas? Do you think the flow of refugees will slow down anytime soon? (apart from the cold weather that is)

it's easier to throw out that "You're a Nazi!!" canard though.... keep beating that drum though, it'll make you FEEEEL better, which is all that really matters I suppose.

[cmdrjones]

Sickening how after mere hours after the attacks, the conspiracy theorists have it all figured out. It was actually France/Israël/the CIA... to make the muslims look bad. Even after IS claimed the attacks.

If it walks, talks, rapes and murders like an islamist, it's probably an islamist

oooh! Another Nazi!

[ZOmegaZ]

Nous sommes tous Français.

NATO Article 5 has only been invoked once: after 9/11. France could legitimately invoke it again, now. And you know what? At this moment, I kind of hope they do. Up to this moment, ISIS has mostly kept to their immediate region. But part of their theology is that they expect to die in an apocalyptic battle in Syria, and they've apparently decided it's time for that to happen. I'm perfectly happy to give them what they want.

The real question for me is whether we can have a sane plan for the aftermath. At this point, NATO would be fully justified in permanently occupying much of Syria and Iraq, and Russia and China are not going to sit quietly for that one...

[The Romulan Republic]

Which is a nicely euphemistic way of saying that if NATO does so, we probably fight World War III with Russia.

[Crown]

Which is a nicely euphemistic way of saying that if NATO does so, we probably fight World War III with Russia.

No one is getting into a shooting war with Russia. Just like no one got into a shooting war with the USSR. Proxy wars are on the table though.

[wautd]

Sickening how after mere hours after the attacks, the conspiracy theorists have it all figured out. It was actually France/Israël/the CIA... to make the muslims look bad. Even after IS claimed the attacks.

If it walks, talks, rapes and murders like an islamist, it's probably an islamist

oooh! Another Nazi!

What, by pointing out that IS are islamists that makes me a nazi? You think they're secret following a different ideology or something? I don't know what you're smoking but I'll pass on it

[salm]

Not giving fuckers like this publicity is what experts usually recommend. Unfortunately that is impossible because news companies want money.

ps: Terrorists kill very few people over a long period of time. So fuck it.

Fuck you coward

Edit: I take that back, that should have been: Fuck off, Traitorous coward.

Lol. I´m a coward for proposing not to get scared and traitorious for proposing to act in a way that would be contrary to that what ISIS wants to achieve.

[Purple]

Not giving fuckers like this publicity is what experts usually recommend. Unfortunately that is impossible because news companies want money.

ps: Terrorists kill very few people over a long period of time. So fuck it.

Fuck you coward

Edit: I take that back, that should have been: Fuck off, Traitorous coward.

Lol. I´m a coward for proposing not to get scared and traitorious for proposing to act in a way that would be contrary to that what ISIS wants to achieve.

You are one of these people who thinks that if you ignore a bully he'll just get bored and go away. That, believe it or not is the exact opposite of how things work. If you ignore someone harassing you he is simply going to up the intensity more and more until you can't ignore him any more. ISIS like all other terrorists are simply an extension of this same mentality.

[salm]

Look, one of the goals of attacks such as these are to garner attention and rile up animosity between Europeans and Immigrants. We should not let that happen and the way to do that is not to panic of attacks such these. Neither should we get fooled into indtroducing too many security policies which carry the risk of turning ourselves into authoritarian surveillance states.

<edit>There is no reason to get scared because you will most likely not be a victim of terrorism. If you´re scared of terrorism you should be scared of traffic multiple times more. And if you are, you´re a fucking pussy</edit>

[Purple]

Look, one of the goals of attacks such as these are to garner attention and rile up animosity between Europeans and Immigrants. We should not let that happen and the way to do that is not to panic of attacks such these. Neither should we get fooled into indtroducing too many security policies which carry the risk of turning ourselves into authoritarian surveillance states.

On the other hand if the west does none of these it'll end up in a continual cycle of low level harassment with innocent people dying. I do not think that is a preferable option.

<edit>There is no reason to get scared because you will most likely not be a victim of terrorism. If you´re scared of terrorism you should be scared of traffic multiple times more. And if you are, you´re a fucking pussy</edit>

It's not about fear. It's the principal. You don't let someone beat up on you even if the odds of being seriously hurt are really low. What you do is you grab the bully by the balls so hard they start to bleed than you break his face in.

And in the case of ISIS this means coordinate with the Russians to exterminate them and bring peace to the region. I would personally be quite fine with leaving Assad in power if thats what it takes.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Hyperbolic nonsense...
I've stated before in the Refugee crisis thread, my position is simple: The European PEOPLE should be deciding how to deal with this as nations, not the EU bureaucrats.

I find it kinda funny that you assume the people of europe side with you this. The germans and swedes who have been hardest hit dont, and the worst that can be said about most of the other countries of western europe is that they are divided on the subject.

Actual refugees should be kept safe, fed, given medical care etc, within their capacity to do so, and then sent to a safe zone, preferably within a Muslim country that is NOT at war. (Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Brunei, Malaysia, Nigeria (maybe), Singapore, INdonesia, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Bangladesh, etc etc.)

Which pretty much violates ALL of international law WRT refugees, and wont give them a decent quality of life. Every last one of those countries is either a developing country, operate systems of mass slavery,or are oppressive regimes. Singapore and Morocco are cool, but tiny. You think they can handle millions of refugees? No. They can't. None of them can. Not for the decade, minimum, that dealing with ISIS will take (and likely a lot longer, if it is ever dealt with at all. Then there are the poor saps from Eritrea, who can never go home).

So yeah. You would still condemn them to destitution and death. The lack of opportunity present in a Jordanian refugee camp is only going to lead to disillusionment and create terrorists, which no one actually wants. To say nothing of the fact that business executives in the UAE will LOVE the new source of free labor they have literally held captive.

Why the insistance on muslim countries anyway? Oh. Wait. You are afraid of the big bad muslim menace, aren't you?

Economic migrants I suppose could be let in, but it would be (and is) a massively stupid Idea.

For what reason, exactly?

Terrorist infiltrators should be shot... publicly.

All several dozen of them? Holy Opsec, Batman! It is kinda hard to insert a terrorist into a group of refugees.

Also: You do realize that NONE of these countries has the death penalty anymore, right? The germans in particular despise it for kinda obvious reasons.

AS far as "permit millions of people to die or languish in refugee camps" you DO realize that this happens all the time.

There is not much Europe can do about that. However, actively sending people who have already made it across the med back, into a place that not only cannot actually handle them at all (Western europe has the resources to bring in a million or so people and incorporate them into the economy. The likes of Jordan, not so much), but will be a terrible place (UAE) is something that if they elect to do it, they would be morally responsible for. Not only that, but it would violate.... pretty much every treaty they ever signed that deals with refugees. Including in some cases their own constitutions.

how is crippling Europe's ability to aid anybody in the future, including themselves

If the burden were spread properly, there is no evidence that a few million people will do that, at all.

going to benefit the third world hellholes these people came from in the first place?

It doesn't. That is not why you take in refugees.

are ANY of the actions you propose going to stabilize the situations in those areas?

Given that the only option at this point is some sort of military intervention? That depends on the methodology used. On the other hand, the situation in Syria is bad enough that it would be hard to make it much worse short of carpet bombing.

[cmdrjones]

Sickening how after mere hours after the attacks, the conspiracy theorists have it all figured out. It was actually France/Israël/the CIA... to make the muslims look bad. Even after IS claimed the attacks.

If it walks, talks, rapes and murders like an islamist, it's probably an islamist

oooh! Another Nazi!

What, by pointing out that IS are islamists that makes me a nazi? You think they're secret following a different ideology or something? I don't know what you're smoking but I'll pass on it

I was being sarcastic... I've been called Nazi for saying essentially the same thing

[cmdrjones]

Look, one of the goals of attacks such as these are to garner attention and rile up animosity between Europeans and Immigrants. We should not let that happen and the way to do that is not to panic of attacks such these. Neither should we get fooled into indtroducing too many security policies which carry the risk of turning ourselves into authoritarian surveillance states.

On the other hand if the west does none of these it'll end up in a continual cycle of low level harassment with innocent people dying. I do not think that is a preferable option.

<edit>There is no reason to get scared because you will most likely not be a victim of terrorism. If you´re scared of terrorism you should be scared of traffic multiple times more. And if you are, you´re a fucking pussy</edit>

It's not about fear. It's the principal. You don't let someone beat up on you even if the odds of being seriously hurt are really low. What you do is you grab the bully by the balls so hard they start to bleed than you break his face in.

And in the case of ISIS this means coordinate with the Russians to exterminate them and bring peace to the region. I would personally be quite fine with leaving Assad in power if thats what it takes.

I couldn't have said it better.... oh and in addition:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... ed-6836199

[madd0ct0r]

oh hey, a link of my own: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/n ... th-caution

I'll even quote!

A third red flag is the fact that the passport concerned was found in the first place. Analysts find it strange that a bomber would remember to bring his passport on a mission, particularly one who does not intend to return alive. “Why would a jihadist who expressly rejects all notions of modern citizenship take his passport on a suicide mission?” tweeted Charlie Winter, an analyst focusing on Islamist extremism. “So it gets found.”

One theory is that Isis hopes to turn Europe against Syrian refugees. This would reinforce the idea of unresolvable divisions between east and west, and Christians and Muslims, and so persuade Syrians that Islamic State’s self-proclaimed caliphate is their best hope of protection. “You know what pissed off Islamist extremists the most about Europe?” summarised Iyad El-Baghdadi, an activist and jihadi-watcher, on Twitter. “It was watching their very humane, moral response to the refugee crisis.”

[Tribble]

The refugee crisis could be a very good thing for the EU if handled properly, since the EU is facing an aging population with low birth rates. Many more people are needed just to keep the working population stable.

[Metahive]

If I might interject. I do not believe that anyone fears the refugee wave is actually terrorists in disguise. But the fact remains that they are a vulnerable population that is going to try and settle in large number in territories ill equipped to handle them. So given an alien culture, an unknown land, no good prospect for jobs or the kind of life they thought they would be getting (and lets face it, most of these people imagined they'd immediately become middle class EU citizens) we might end up with large ethnic ghettos filled with disgruntled people. And that's a fertile breeding ground for radical anything and everything.

Please answer me this question:

If all those refugees were really that receptive to ISIS indoctrination, then why did they leave their homes and fled to countries rather than join ISIS at home? I think people have really no idea what it takes to actually abandon one's homecountry. That's not something people do on a whim. I'm also appaled by the insinuation that all those refugees were completely delusional about what was awaiting them. Who do you think are the people who flee? Hint, it's not the poorly-educated and destitute, those most often don't have the means to do so.

Once again, ISIS doesn't need the refugees, they can recruit from readily available domestic stock in Europe already, results of already grossly mishandled integration, especially in France which had problems with disaffected youths for decades.

Also, the whole "poor people are easier to be radicalized" is a misconception. The actual component is paranoia and hopelessness. Two things found in all strata of the population.

[Purple]

Please answer me this question:

If all those refugees were really that receptive to ISIS indoctrination,

And that's where you lose the plot. I newer mentioned ISIS indoctrination in any way, shape or form. What I said was, and I quote: "radical anything and everything". My concern you see is not that all these people are suddenly going to turn into EuroISIS but that they are going to become a permanent marginalized underclass. A class of poor people with no way out living in ethnic ghettos isolated from society at large. And as we all known permanent marginalized underclasses, especially if they are ethnically or religiously or in any other way mostly uniform tend to produce angry young men with a grudge against the society they live in. And such young man tend to turn to radicalism be that nationalism, neonaziism, radical Christianity, Islam or what ever else attracts them as a way of venting that anger and enacting what they see as change. Now of course this is not an issue that's going to happen tomorrow. But if we are not careful it is one that's lurking in wait for us in a generation or so time.

[Channel72]

It always irritates me when someone fucks with France. I've always liked the French, and Paris is supposed to be a fun, beautiful place. This is profoundly depressing.

Anyway, here's a pretty good summary/assessment of the current situation regarding ISIS in light of the recent attacks in Paris and Beirut, and what any future attempts to get rid of them would entail:

From http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... challenges

Smashing Islamic State After Paris Attacks Poses Huge Challenges

The Islamic State’s barbaric attacks in Paris are forcing an anguished reassessment by world powers that so far have lacked the political will and regional partners to defeat an organization flush with cash, equipment and volunteers.

As leaders gathered in Turkey on Sunday for a Group-of-20 summit, they pledged to redouble efforts to sap the lifeblood of the terrorists by targeting their finances and recruitment. They will consider deeper intelligence sharing, tighter border controls and the creation of Syrian safe havens.

Some also speak of a much more aggressive military option. Experts say it would require 150,000 U.S. troops, could last decades and cost trillions. It is considered highly unlikely at this stage because it would need to be led by Sunni nations that have shown no appetite for the fight and would pose severe challenges regarding Russia and Syria. Nor would such an invasion address the underlying forces that have shaped Islamic State.

"At the heart of it is the failed and broken state system in the Arab world that has given IS space in Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Libya," said Bruce Riedel, a CIA veteran at the Brookings Institution. "That problem is not fixable overnight or even in the next few years."
Tactical Shift

The Paris attacks, right after the downing of a jet of Russian tourists over the Sinai and suicide bombings in Lebanon and Iraq, indicate a sharp tactical shift for Islamic State. It had mostly limited its brutality to building a state-like Islamic caliphate in parts of Syria and Iraq, rather than sending its battle abroad, like its rival al Qaeda.

That change increases the challenge to the U.S.-led coalition, especially with Obama having staked his foreign policy legacy on getting the U.S. out of wars, not entering new ones. Current and former U.S. officials say coalition governments now face the threat of more attacks in their cities. Many also argue that the U.S. and its partners have little choice but to increase their military commitment.

"Unless you leave planet Earth, you can’t avoid this," said Michael Chertoff, who has a security consulting firm and was Secretary of Homeland Security under George W. Bush.

A day before the Paris assault, Obama told ABC News that Islamic State had been "contained" in Iraq and Syria. Indicating how the Paris attacks are affecting the discussion, Hillary Clinton, his former secretary of state and the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, disagreed at a debate on Saturday. Islamic State “cannot be contained,” she said. "It must be defeated."

Some Successes

The coalition had hoped to do that with more than 8,000 air strikes at a cost of $5 billion, according to the Pentagon. And there have been successes. The group lost the northern Iraqi city of Sinjar 48 hours after troops loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, backed by Russian air strikes, broke a two-year siege on the Kweiris military base in Aleppo province.

In fact, some analysts see the Paris attacks as a sign of IS despair after those defeats. "Islamic State’s decision to push the button is related to the pressure on it," said Sami Nader, head of the Beirut-based Levant Institute for Strategic Affairs.

But given the nature of asymmetrical warfare, it would be hard to argue that the fight against IS has been successful. Recently, the U.S. abandoned a train-and-equip program for moderate rebels and sent 50 Special Forces troops into Syria to assist with strikes. And those who follow the fight against terrorists say the Paris attacks showed sophistication.

“This was no small plot," said Patrick Skinner, a former CIA officer who directs special projects at the Soufan Group, a security consulting firm. "To be able to pull this off in a modern security state like France – which has really great intel and great security – it’s just worrisome.”

Combat Operations

The answer, said Thomas Donnelly of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, is "large-scale combat operations" in Iraq and Syria. It would take "more years of heavy combat than we’ve seen before" and "decades," to properly re-integrate alienated Sunni populations that have sometimes backed IS. The initial stage would cost more than $1 trillion over several years, he estimates, and 150,000 troops.

"Anything less than military engagement is likely to be useless," Donnelly said. "It’s a war."

The problem is that, even with a massive troop commitment, such a war would only prove successful if led by regional powers, none of which are willing. In fact, the paradox is that IS has taken root in the region precisely because of the vacuum created by other disputes -- intra-Syrian, Sunni-Shia, Turkish-Kurd, Iranian-Saudi.

"For the Saudis, countering Iran is more important" than fighting Islamic State as evidenced by the war in Yemen, said Kamran Bokhari, a lecturer of national security at the University of Ottawa. Egypt is facing a balance of payments crisis and is reeling from its own terror attacks, while Iraq is struggling to cope with a slump in oil prices and its own war. And Turkey, which might be best-placed to assist, prefers to attack Kurdish forces in Iraq and in its southeast.

Nobody in the region is really fighting Islamic State, Bokhari said.

Other Steps

Some say steps short of full military intervention would help. Riedel of the Brookings Institution, urges the killing of the group’s leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi.

Michael O’Hanlon, a security analyst at Brookings, suggests giving up the vision of a united Syria. That would allow the coalition to work with the Kurds in certain areas, create no-fly zones and bolster moderate groups.

NATO and allied forces could be sent in "to catalyze training and ensure humanitarian relief," while the U.S. could send Iraq more trainers and Special Forces to conduct raids. O’Hanlon estimated this would require fewer than 10,000 troops in each country.

Riad Kahwaji, head of the Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis in Dubai, said it’s crucial that any ground troops be Sunni. Right now, it’s largely Shiites, including Iran and Hezbollah, fighting the militants in Iraq and Syria. That plays into Islamic State’s narrative that it’s defending Sunnis against a Shiite onslaught, he said.

If there isn’t a change in strategy, Kahwaji said "the war in Iraq and Syria is going to be in many places in Europe and will even spread to the U.S."

Key points:

• Western nations have been hoping to get rid of ISIS as lazily and cheaply as possible, i.e. constant airstrikes
• Airstrikes are effective - in terms of quarantining ISIS in a few major strongholds and limiting their movement, but aren't nearly enough to make them non-operative
• Completely destroying ISIS and then stabilizing Syria in the aftermath would cost about $1 trillion and require 150,000 troops - no Western power seems willing to do this, especially Obama who has staked his legacy on withdrawing from Iraq
• The constant airstrike campaign has, ironically, made ISIS behave more like Al Qaeda - since they can't expand any further, and can't operate effectively out in the open, they are now shifting their efforts towards a campaign of international terrorism
• A Western invasion in Syria/Iraq would need to be complemented or led with support from regional Sunni Muslim powers (Turkey and Saudi Arabia)
• None of the regional Sunni Muslim powers are really interested in destroying ISIS, because they all have other agendas which they prioritize. Turkey is more interested in fighting the Kurds, Saudi Arabia is more concerned about Iran and only uses its military against Shia powers, e.g. the Yemen insurgents ... no Middle Eastern government is really that interested in getting rid of ISIS, especially when ISIS's goals partially overlap with their own goals, as in the case of Saudi Arabia and Turkey
• Finally, any Western intervention in the Syrian portion of ISIS territory is complicated by the need to acknowledge Russia's interests in the region

So basically, people who dismiss the airstrike campaign as worthless are missing some key elements. Remember the days a few years ago when ISIL was like, gaining new territory just about every day? That's pretty much over. Obama is correct that ISIL is "contained", despite what just happened in Paris and Beirut this week. They're contained to Raqqah, Mosul and (sort of) Ramadi, and they just recently lost Sinjar, which effectively means that the ISIL group in Mosul is cut off from the ISIL group in Raqqah, meaning ISIL territory is no longer contiguous and ISIL now exists in "pockets". This has, predictably, made ISIL less about traditional conquest and expansion, and more about retaliatory terrorist attacks. They've become more like their Al-Qaeda progenitors, because really, what else can they do? They can't continue to grow their state, since they're surrounded by US or Russian airstrike-backed enemies on all sides (Kurds to the North and Northeast, Syrian military to the West, and Iraqi military to the South.... they're literally quarantined, and must be very frustrated.)

So their new strategy is to retaliate via terrorist attacks in Western and Middle Eastern nations. The ironic thing is that this will simply make it more likely that Western nations will be willing to expend more resources defeating them.

In one sense, this is actually a "good" thing. ISIL used to be this rampaging expansionist horde, but they basically are now just a mini-regime confined to 3 cities. They can't even move convoys and equipment between Raqqah and Mosul to reinforce fighters there - all traffic between Raqqah and Mosul needs to be done via civilian vehicles. So since their dreams of a world-shaking, expansionist Caliphate have to temporarily be put on hold, they have now reopened the Al-Qaeda playbook. Classic move, guys.

On the other hand, they still have shitloads of money and resources, despite their current setbacks. They still generate about $3 million a day from the Mosul oil fields, they still have a bit over $1 billion in cash reserves from the money they initially stole from banks in Mosul and Raqqah, and they still have lots of military equipment in Raqqah/Mosul store houses, including a few surface to air missiles. And they're obviously quite capable of pulling off deadly, coordinated attacks in high-security Western nations like France. It's also interesting that most of their attacks are less sophisticated than what Al-Qaeda used to do, in the sense that ISIL terror attacks are usually just a bunch of rampaging gunmen shooting at innocent civilians, rather than the traditional MacGyver-esque Al-Qaeda attacks, which are more about "clever", singular, deadly explosions targeting key infrastructure (like the WTC, Madrid train station, etc.)

Anyway, given all this, my opinion is that I don't think we necessarily need the existing Middle Eastern governments to "lead" us on a ground campaign. There's vast anti-ISIL sentiment from among Arabs and Muslims in the social-media sphere - enough ordinary Muslims (especially many of those actually living in Raqqah) are sick of ISIL, and would welcome attempts to destroy them. The problem is that it would cost about $1 trillion dollars in terms of occupying, transitioning, and stabilizing Syria once the dust settles and ISIL is no more... and nobody wants to foot the bill right now - not to mention the absolute expert levels of political maneuvering required to rebuild Syria in light of conflicting US and Russian interests. (I guess we'll need to wait for ISIL to pull of a major attack in New York or Moscow before anybody takes this seriously.)

Also, speaking of stabilizing a post-ISIL Syria ... the political structure of the Middle East itself just fucking sucks, and is so difficult to work with. ISIL itself only exists because the US seriously disrupted that structure - and even apart from US intervention, any large Shia government outside of Iran seems to have the effect of creating hardcore, radicalized, disgruntled Sunni mother-fuckers who want to create Medieval states. It would be more stabilizing overall for the region if a Sunni regime was installed in Syria, but that goes against the interests of Iran and Russia. So it's really hard to make this work, especially in places like the Levant and Mesopotamia where there is a significant mix of Sunni/Shia interests. The sad thing, and the thing which I don't really like saying out loud, is that only a brutal tyrant like Saddam Hussein has really demonstrated the capability of effectively controlling and stabilizing the various sectarian forces that constantly tug at this fragile network of Arab states. Of course, he did it entirely through fear.

[Flagg]

Not giving fuckers like this publicity is what experts usually recommend. Unfortunately that is impossible because news companies want money.

ps: Terrorists kill very few people over a long period of time. So fuck it.

Fuck you coward

Edit: I take that back, that should have been: Fuck off, Traitorous coward.

What part of that makes him a traitorous coward? Experts do, in fact, recommend not placing emphasis on the attackers, but rather the victims as part of the reason religious/political terrorists, mass shooters, and crazy ass bombers do what they do is to garner publicity for whatever their cause is. And statistically your being killed or injured by a terrorist, mass shooter, or crazy ass bomber is very, very low. I don't like the display of apathy, but over the last 2 decades it's been one of the above like at least once a month, so it's completely understandable.

But <FACTS AND A GENERAL AMBIVILANCE ABOUT THESE EVENTS YOU DON'T LIKE>, so "RAAAAARRR TRAITOROUS COWARD!!!", I guess?

[The Romulan Republic]

Which is a nicely euphemistic way of saying that if NATO does so, we probably fight World War III with Russia.

No one is getting into a shooting war with Russia. Just like no one got into a shooting war with the USSR. Proxy wars are on the table though.

I very much hope you are right.

However, I would consider it folly to assume that because something has not yet happened, it can never happen. History has a number of very close calls. What you are saying, to me, seems akin to playing the lottery and assuming you will always win because you always have so far.

And it doesn't have to be anything so insane as one side or the other deliberately firing on the other, to start with at least. Put two powerful rival militaries in combat close together, and it seems entirely possible that a mistake (friendly fire incidents happen, after all) could spiral into something bigger, as knee-jerk reactions, paranoia, nationalism, and cries for vengeance take over.

[Batman]

Salm isn't afraid of terrorists (and rightly so given the Chance of being killed by one is vanishingly low unless you actually live in the Middle East). How, exactly, is that cowardice?
How, exactly, is salm's behaviour traitorous, and which nation is he a traitor to?

[The Romulan Republic]

Don't look for reason in the ramblings of Nazi apologists.