CHOULO19

All analysis is irrelevant as we obviously only won because I couldn't watch the match!

Sooo....when's the next international break?

Going to miss this because beIN are cunts...

There's actually more. This is regarding the girl who allegedly blew herself up during the raid that killed Abaaoud: Suicide bomber was a party girl who hung out with drug dealers So far, it's looking a lot more like a group of small criminals who joined ISIS for power and chaos.

Found this interesting article from the New York Times about Abaaoud, the alleged mastermind of the attack, from ten months ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/25/world/europe/belgium-confronts-the-jihadist-danger-within.html Obviously he's a Belgian citizen, but also he was never religious, never went to a mosque according to his sister, even went to Catholic school and has been suspected of plotting terrorist attacks for at least an entire year during which he has gone to Syria and back to Belgium several times without being arrested! What a monumental fuck up by the police and 'intelligence' agencies!

I have no idea what you're talking about. ISIS kill everyone, but mostly Muslims. If you think that beliefs make people want to blow themselves up, then you lack basic understanding of human beings let alone the politics, sociology, psychology...etc. behind phenomena like ISIS. Anyway, what these ex-airforce soldiers are saying is not all controversial. I don't think it's even debatable. Yemen is obviously prime example but it's true everywhere. And of course it is. When your innocent loved ones are randomly murdered, eecially outside of a war zone, you're going to want revenge. It's basic logic.

So US airforce whistleblowers saying what anyone who pays any attention to the region knows and what the media refuses to report: Drone strikes are the major recruitment tool for ISIS: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/obama-drone-war-isis-recruitment-tool-air-force-whistleblowers But of course that won't even be debated because the corporates that make drones have very strong lobbies in the US and across Europe and they make A LOT of money (from taxpayers I might add) for a few 'important' people... Really politicians' statements about stopping ISIS at all costs (or really most statements in general) should come with an asterisk at the end and below it should read: *does not apply to cases that may conflict with concentrated private and corporate interest.

Conspiracy theories are rampant among people in the region here when it comes to politics and I think it's a mixture of a an inferiority complex towards the west and a feeling that their fates and the fates of their countries are always controlled and and sabotaged by western countries which to be perfectly honest is largely true a lot of the times. To just give one example, I remember something from our history books about the civil war in (mount) Lebanon between 1840s and 1860s when the tensions were rising between Christians backed by France and Druze backed by the UK. Those are wars that killed something like a quarter of the population at the time. In reality the UK and France were more or less in agreement and were just using the religious divide because they realized that Lebanon was the weak point of the Ottoman empire and were planing to start taking it apart from there. In fact the sparks of some of the main battles (burning of a Maronite house, killing of a Druze boy) were actually done by French/UK spies to spark the conflict. ...at least that's what we're taught in school, who the fuck actually knows!

Going to try to be as brief and objective here as possible but those are very complicated questions you ask. 1) a) ISIS as a group actually came to be first in Iraq after the invasion (actually started inside US prisons in Iraq) and worked pretty much under Al Qaeda. But they then split from them in Syria in 2013/14 as a result of a political disagreement between Al Qaeda affiliates inside Syria and on the larger scale a political disagreement between Turkey and Qatar on one side who backed ISIS and USA and KSA on the other who backed Al Qaeda. That said, there are genuine 'religious' disputes between ISIS and Al Qaeda, mainly about killing Muslim civilians, dealing with hostages, execution methods...etc. Regarding the so called 'caliphate', the idea predates ISIS in Syria. In fact even when the rebels in Syria were still being marketed as 'moderate freedom fighters' back in 2012, the idea of an Islamic Caliphate was known to US and allies in region and even encouraged as a means to further weaken the regime. Watch minutes 8 to 12 of this interview with the director of defense intelligence agency at the time saying exactly that: https://youtu.be/SG3j8OYKgn4?t=8m2s (in fact watch the whole thing if you have time as it will explain a lot of things you are asking about) 1) b ) The invasion of Iraq (and the sanctions before which were equally devastating but are forgotten by everyone) basically destroyed the society allowing for the rise of such extremist militias. Then the subsequent policies fueled the sectarian Sunni-Shia conflict that is now tearing the whole region apart because the US gave power almost conclusively to Shias (who were oppressed under Saddam) and got rid of most Sunnis in power (that's why most ISIS leaders now are former Iraqi army generals). Then the invasion (and destruction) of Libya and the arms and funds that were thrown there mostly for religious extremist groups largely increased the numbers of Jihadi in the region (as well as whole of Africa for that matter) and their arming and battle readiness. It has gotten this far because the US and allies had already destroyed most local forces that can actually fight religious extremism, namely Iraqi and Syrian regimes/armies, and because US and allies were actively supporting, funding and arming those extremists at the start of the Syrian 'revolution' and advertising them as freedom fighters, and because of the billions spent by KSA to radicalize Muslims in the region, and because of the billions spent by Iran to fund and arm extremists in Iraq after the invasion, and because both gulf states and Iran are fueling the Shia-Sunni conflict with inflammatory rhetoric on a daily basis as well as all sorts of other social, political, economic, military and even meteorological factors! 2) I've wrote something in this thread that relates to that: It's really no surprise at all the bombing doesn't work. Bombs kill people, and not just the intended people. In fact, statistically speaking, killing the intended people is usually the exception. So bombs tend to create more extremists faster than they can kill them. Because think about it, if you're a civilian going about your life and a bomb kills your father or son, regardless of what you think of ISIS or Al Qaeda, you are very likely to join them just for revenge for the death of your loved ones. Especially when those bombs come from 'the greatest devil'. I will add that the only military solution that might work is to provide a united front that includes EVERYONE against ISIS and Al Qaeda. No alternative agendas, no regional and international gains, no liberators and liberated, no religious divides, a multi-cultural, multi-national, multi-religious...etc. front that includes everyone as equals because we're all in this mess as a world together. THAT is the quickest way to defeat the religious extremists. But as I mentioned in the post above, first cut their funding and arming, quit sending weapons that are bound to end u quit using them for political gains, quit giving them what they want, and quit validating their rhetoric. Oh, and selling 1.29 billion dollars in arms to KSA is NOT helping... Hope that gives you at least one perspective on the questions you asked.

Yes, but they did it in a civilized enlightened manner! I'm sorry to say this, but one of the reasons that ISIS can find recruits in the middle east is because some people feel that the attacks like the one in Paris resonate with them, in a sick way they make them feel vindicated about all the atrocities committed by France and others in the region. I'm in now way defending that feeling, but unfortunately it does exist with some, and not just religious extremists. The role of imperialism in the past couple of centuries as well as the forced globalization of western culture and values (and consumer habits of course! ) in fueling religious extremism cannot be understated.

The principle to take out of all of this HAS to be that we're all in this together a species. Everyone on both sides has to realize that we're all very similar even in the situation and threats we face. It must be finally accepted that actions anywhere on earth will affect the whole planet and its population. Foe any western country now to come into the middle east as 'savors' with their own agenda is a recipe for more disaster and suffering. If help is to be given, and it is direly needed, it needs to come as equal partners not as liberators, not as 'spreaders of enlightenment' or 'democracy' or any other euphemism that the middle east is so tired of.

See below the statement that ISIS put out after the Charlie Hebdo attack**: The aim is to destroy the so called "grey zone". The zone where European and Muslim cultures meet. The zone where Muslims can live peacefully in Europe. They want fear, knee-jerk reactions and illogical responses. They are betting on the reaction of Europeans to drive away the Muslims in Europe straight into their hands. They wish to destroy moderation and common ground so that everyone everywhere is either "with the crusaders or...with Islam". EDIT: I know it's hard to see from afar, but ISIS is on the down. It was never going to be a sustainable movement. Their numbers are going down, they are losing territories in both Syria and Iraq and they are going low on new recruits. THAT is the main reason for the attack. First to preserve the incredible inflated figure of their assumed power, to reinstate the fear that helped them achieve all of that they achieved which was starting to diminish, to stop more refugees from being accepted into Europe which they have been very vocally expressed against because if they manage to keep those people in the region and especially in their own territories they are at worst shields and at best possible recruits and finally to force Muslims in Europe to the extremes to turn them into more possible recruits. THAT is the aim of the attack. **Should point out that this wasn't a statement they actually put out but rather a piece in the edition after the Charlie Hebdo attacks of their own magazine.

I know that if it were up to you or me the whole world would live in peace. That is the very root of the principle of equality between all humans: that people are intrinsically good. Perhaps the same principle ought to be applied to the refugees coming to Europe? On any account, there has been no proof that refugees increase the threat of attacks, but even assuming that is the case, stopping all refugees will certainly not stop the threat. Ultimately, Europe cannot detach itself from the world. Events anywhere in the world will affect everywhere. I'm not saying that you need to take in ever refugee who wants to go to Europe, but that everyone needs to be part of the solution. One last point that is maybe worth considering is that the only side in Syria/Iraq that has been vocal about not allowing refugees to flee the countries towards Europe is....ISIS.

Again, if the attack had taken place in Australia would the media focus have been Beirut? How about if it were in Japan? No need to answer me, just think about it. Your response to witnessing the very same horror that these refugees are running from is to send them back to where they have to face that horror on a daily basis? And yet you still can't see how you only see Europeans as humans and everyone else a couple of places below?!

@Barbara, I'll answer tomorrow if I find the time, dear. Sorry. I'm sorry, but it's not exactly debatable that human lives are not equal in the view of the world. Literally almost any knowledge of history proves this. For the most part, there are the people of the countries that own the world and then there the unpeople of the rest of the world. That's a fact. I don't say this in self pity, trust me, I hate to admit it just as much as you do. It's not about geographical closeness. If the attack had taken place in Australia, would you have placed a Lebanese flag on your profile for the attacks in Beirut and barely mentioned the ones in Australia? Of course not. Heck, same to a degree would apply if it had happened in say Japan. Lebanon is not a war zone either and the civilians who died were just going about their daily lives feeling as secure as those in Paris were. And while the majority of French people didn't even hear about the attacks in Beirut, half my Facebook friends from Lebanon added the French flag as their profile picture 24 hours later. The fact is accepted either implicitly or explicitly by everyone on earth. You are of the privileged valued people who own the world. Embrace it. PS: Don't even get me started on how the media handled each attack.

Of course that also has truth in it. Ultimately, the truth always resists simplicity (J. Green) so no analysis can hold all the truth. But I think it's too easy to just look at religious extremists as they are. We're much more likely to understand when we analyze how they came to be. And this is no way justifying what they've become but merely trying to find more solutions. Even ISIS and Al Qaeda need a rhetoric to recruit people. Religion is a tool; it's an incredibly powerful tool, but ultimately just a tool. It is NOT a/the cause. For example, the internet history of some British citizens who went to join ISIS in Syria showed that their last purchases included "Islam for dummies". And this is similar to a lot of normal middle class Europeans who have went to Syria to become jihadis. In fact, quite a few come from non-practicing muslim backgrounds and as much as a quarter of French jihadis in Syria were not even Muslim! Most probably, the majority of those Europeans did not join ISIS because they are crazy or because they are Muslim, they joined them because they feel for various reasons alienated and unable to be integrated into their societies. Those are very complicated cases to study but ones we have to look at if we're serious about fighting ISIS. You mentioned the Charlie Hebdo attackers. One of them was actually arrested back in 2008 on terror charges by the French authorities. He was an 'occasional muslim' who drank alcohol and smoked pot. According to the investigation he was radicalized by the invasion of Iraq, particularly the attack on Fallujah and the violations at the Abu Ghraib prison. It is too easy to say that they all are crazy (which in many cases they just are) but all of them are humans who generally need a reason to go from their ordinary lives working in an IT company or running a shoes store or herding sheep to becoming jihadis. And again this certainly is not to justify their awful choices but to stop more people going down that same road. Onto the 'bulk' of the extremist jihadi movement: the recruits from the middle east, north Africa and middle Asia. What are the reasons and major factors there? Those are what I mentioned in my original post, mainly from a western perspective as there are also many factors that need to be addressed internally here. But lets go through why people join ISIS from some of the main countries: Iraq? The sanctions, followed by the sledge hammer (invasion) followed by the sectarian isolation and non-inclusion policies. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion. Now the majority of ISIS leaders are ex-Baathist (and secular I might add) army leaders who were all sacked after the invasion. North Africa? The invasion and destruction of Lybia with all the arms and money that were thrown into it. Afghanistan? Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. Arabian gulf? The billions of dollars that are being 'invested' to by KSA to radicalize people with their Wahabi version of Islam. Chechnya? The incredibly long Russian oppression of the population. Syria? Obviously there is the brutality of the Syrian regime but arguably more important are the weapons and money thrown in there to bring extremists from all over the region and arm and fund them to fight the regime...etc. Obviously there are many other factors, but those are some of the major ones which can or at least should be addressed. So will all of this stop the threat of ISIS in days, weeks or even months? Of course not. But the world is where it is at the moment and I struggle to think of more effective means of battling the threat of ISIS. Regardless, if one thing is certain, it is that the usual sledge hammer response of bombing everything you don't like is guaranteed to make things much much worse.

I'm not sure but it might have to do with the fact their original countries keep getting invaded, bombed and intentionally destabilized by those peace loving non-muslim governments. Also, way to defined people based solely on their religious beliefs and to stereotype them all accordingly. That's always a great idea...sigh.

Just spent about half an hour writing a huge post on what they and all of should do, would appreciate it if you read it

That makes no sense. Any French (or any other western) troops on the ground will create many times more local support for the side they are targeting. In case you didn't know, the French/British/US armies are not exactly popular in the region, and with pretty good reasons. It will certainly NOT make their citizens any safer, but on the contrary undermine the security of France. Ask yourself, why are the targets usually France, UK and USA, the three major imperialistic powers? That's not justify the attacks in any way, but it's an obvious fact that violence will create even more violence. Obviously there were many mistakes after the invasion, mostly from the lack of understanding of the society and probably the lack of caring about the population and some were obviously intentional policies of creating more sectarian divides. However all of that become irrelevant next to the biggest crime of the century which was the invasion itself. Can anyone actually justify the invasion now? All the thinly veiled pretexts have fallen since but people don't think about the reasons anymore. The biggest criticism of the invasion in the mainstream is that it was a 'mistake', a tactical blunder because it didn't work out. Nothing about it being the biggest international crime of the century or about the immorality of invading a country and causing the deaths of over 1.8 million people just for oil and political and military influence. Nothing about all the generals and leaders and even propaganda media editors who should be jail....

In Syria? High unlikely. In Iraq? Possibly but only if there were plans to do so before the attacks.

I don't understand your point, I genuinely don't... Assuming that the clear fairly simple guidelines I mentioned above are not doable, it doesn't mean that we should accept that and it certainly doesn't mean that the expected reaction that we were talking about in the first place will solve anything. Way to sort out your priorities!

Well to begin with, so called counter terrorism laws historically don't work. They just don't. On the contrary they tend to alienate people more and create more terrorists. To give just a couple of examples, take the NSA mass surveillance program which is supposedly protecting the country from terrorism, there was an investigation after the Snowden leaks and it turns out that throughout its entire history it managed to stop ONE 'terrorist': a man was wiring 2800 dollars to a suspicious group or something. That's why the government is intruding on the rights and privacy of all Americans. A more specific example would be the Charlie Hebdo attackers who were being monitored by the French authorities and still managed to get weapons and rocket launchers. In some cases, as is the case with bulk data collection, it actually hinders the ability of stopping actual attacks as people working in that field will tell you themselves. And that's actually no surprise as most of those laws are not aimed at stopping terrorist attacks but at controlling the population. So what to actually do about ISIS attacks? Well let's look at what created the environment for the monstrosity that is ISIS to be born. No one with any knowledge of the politics of the region will argue against the fact that the main factor was doubtlessly the invasion of Iraq which hit an already very fragile society after years of genocidal sanctions with a sledge hammer and created a power vacuum that, along with the 'divide and rule' strategy used by the US army after the invasion, fueled the sectarian war that is now ripping the region into shreds. Then, because it obviously worked so well in Iraq, the same divide and rule tactics were used in Syria by US and regional allies by inflating the sunni-shia conflict and the perceived 'Iranian threat' to attempt to weaken the regime. Naturally extremists were always going to rise to the surface as result. Then of course you have gulf states and Turkey actively bringing the religious extremists to Syria then arming and funding them. Most still have connections with ISIS as was shown when the Turkish army walked straight through ISIS territory to retrieve a historic tomb from Syria and coordinated the recent joint attack of ISIS and 'moderate' rebels on the main Syrian regime supply rout in Aleppo. Then of course you have the fiasco that is invasion of Lybia from where A LOT of the ISIS and AQ fighters and weapons came into Syria. In fact the weapons given to the Lybian 'rebels' have spilled all over Africa and particularly Mali, Nigeria and Burkina and are the main reason behind the wave of terrorism in the continent. But that all is already done, so what can help decrease the threat of ISIS now? It's actually simpler than you might think. ISIS to this day is still getting funding and arms from known sources in the gulf. Stop that. Stop the money they are getting from oil which EVERYONE is buying. Support popular local forces fighting against ISIS. ISIS's (and Al Qaeda's for that matter) violent extremists version of Islam is an offshoot from the Saudi Wahabi doctrine which the KSA spends billions on to sponsor and promote and create mosques for throughout the world. Stop that. Stop military tactics that are known to create more terrorists just because they generate revenue for powerful corporates such as drone strikes. Stop the flow of foreign fighters into Syria and Iraq, mainly from Jordan and Turkey. In Europe, stop scaring people into alienating and discriminating against Muslims just to get more votes in elections. Those are all just for starters and everyone knows them all. But there is no will to actually do any of that because EVERYONE benefits from ISIS. In the future and going forward to avoid more Al Qaedas and ISISes, get your governments to stop invading countries and destroying regions for the benefit of oil and weapons companies. Stop pretending that the destruction of one region does not affect all of the world and realize that the entire planet is closely linked together. Abolish the believe that you can commit great violence anywhere on earth with no repercussions. Stop acting like all the resources on earth are theirs for the taking. And finally stop fueling and using religious extremism to do their dirty work like in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, because they evidently can't. Actually, just stop interfering in other countries all together. That will probably do.

It means they will use this attack to scare their own population into stricter 'Counter Terrorism' laws that steals more of their civil rights and privacy Tell me you don't actually buy that BS? That's very obviously made up. Just google John Oliver and you'll see that not only is there nothing of the sorts but John Oliver yesterday was actually having his first ever child.

8% in France, 6% in Germany. The inflated view of the number if Muslims in Europe and hence their threat to Europe only shows the growing Islamophobia in the continent as this excellent graphic by the Economist from Jan shows: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/01/daily-chart-2?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/islamineurope

First attacker identified. Frenchman.