Massacre In Paris

[iseah100 5,612]

But that doesn't mean taking away people's civil liberties as @Chuolo rightfully pointed out. They'll try to convince us that we're living everyday in abject fear of terrorism, when that's just not the case.

That's true. But don't you think people live in fear of terrorism already? How many peoplebare scared of going on planes cause they'll go down? Or hate going out of the country? That fear is there already, for good reason.

So what you believe has to be right and what I believe has to be wrong right? You're just offended just because you're American. Quote this post all you want, explaining things to you will probably get nowhere.

Never said you can't believe that, just said it's wrong. You have no logical foundation for that argument. Just cause you hate the US doesn't mean they are empowering ISIS.

[Rmpr 8,977]

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.

Excellent points Nour!

I wish people studied the reasons why everything is happening before drawing stupid pre-made conclusions like "nuke them all". It would not only make the world a better place but it would help my moderation job (lol).

But yeah, thanks a lot for explaining everything Choulo and I agree 100%. Just like bankers fought (and succeeded by the way) regulation reform after 2008 crisis, the belic industry will never allow for "peace" to strive because its not profitable. Its super sad but I bet some European and American companies are loving what happened because this will reignite their business...

One doesnt need to be a genius to arrive at the conclusions you pointed out in your post and big nations are definitely capable of certifying that such things are achieved if they actually wanted to. However, where will the 1,3 trillion dollars that are spent on security every year go otherwise? How will the governments justify the huge public money that goes to the private mercenary sector each year (an estimated 70million per week world wide) if there is no Al-Qaeda or ISIS? What the gigantic army budget? Even the military sector of Airbus. Etc. Etc. Etc.

EDIT: For those who didnt understand, I am in no way suggesting that the leaders of the biggest Western Nations want to be attacked or that it was planned by themselves or anything of that nature. However, I honoestly believe they also dont want to trully solve the war on the Middles East because it would go against their biggest lobbiests and it would make a looooot of veeeeery powerful and rich people upset (as harsh and inconceivable as it may sound).

[lucio 5,395]

More money used on developing scientific resources on research for more sustainable energy, and less on imperialistic militant hardware for sourcing a dying energy, might help do some good in the future, imo.

i'd honestly reserve all the technology for emergency services, medical and sustainable research. I think we'd be better off without cars and computers. they haven't been around long, and probably won't last.

I think we should live more locally, like we did 100 years ago or so, but with modern healthcare. no good will come of this concrete world.

[Fernando 6,376]

That is about as realistic as total world peace. It'll never happen, there will always be conflicts. Without the USA and other powers interfering the world would be much different, for the worse. You suggest everyone just sit back and do nothing? Just stop buying oil and they'll go away?

Yeah that's the funny thing about those that don't like USA.

It's a lose lose situation for them.

If they do something they perceived as bad.

If they don't do anything they perceived as bad.

Can't ever win that battle so might as well not try!

[Parky 739]

Im guessing there will now be a full on ground assault by a French led coalition. Seems like the airstrikes will never completely destroy ISIS.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

That is about as realistic as total world peace. It'll never happen, there will always be conflicts. Without the USA and other powers interfering the world would be much different, for the worse. You suggest everyone just sit back and do nothing? Just stop buying oil and they'll go away?

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.

Excellent points Nour!

I wish people studied the reasons why everything is happening before drawing stupid pre-made conclusions like "nuke them all". It would not only make the world a better place but it would help my moderation job (lol).

But yeah, thanks a lot for explaining everything Choulo and I agree 100%. Just like bankers fought (and succeeded by the way) regulation reform after 2008 crisis, the belic industry will never allow for "peace" to strive because its not profitable. Its super sad but I bet some European and American companies are loving what happened because this will reignite their business...

One doesnt need to be a genius to arrive at the conclusions you pointed out in your post and big nations are definitely capable of certifying that such things are achieved if they actually wanted to. However, where will the 1,3 trillion dollars that are spent on security every year go otherwise? How will the governments justify the huge public money that goes to the private mercenary sector each year (an estimated 70million per week world wide) if there is no Al-Qaeda or ISIS? What the gigantic army budget? Even the military sector of Airbus. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Way to sort out your priorities!

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Im guessing there will now be a full on ground assault by a French led coalition. Seems like the airstrikes will never completely destroy ISIS.

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

[Rmpr 8,977]

Way to sort out your priorities!

Lighting up the mood is necessary from time to time

But to reiterate on your post, I heard once a former Pentagon director on a TED talk saying they were too unprepared for how strong the US military was. He said that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 had achieved in less than a week what was expected out of a full month of war so there were yet no plans for rebuilding the country and its political system. He then goes on to elaborate how it should have been done and compare it to the absurds mistakes it was actually conducted in reality. Many things of what he said you point out as well.

I will try to find it...

[jmarlow 458]

Such sad news!

Sky Sports News HQ ‏@SkySportsNewsHQ 56m56 minutes ago

BREAKING NEWS: France international Lassana Diarra confirms his cousin was killed in Paris terrorist attacks #SSNHQ

[xPetrCechx 13,546]

The Air Attacks Are nonsense...

Month ago, German Police arrested a suspected man, today they said he has a contact to some of the terrorists from yesterday...

one of the terrorists came through Greece with the another refugees...

Time for Europe to WAKE UP and start acting against ISIS.

[iseah100 5,612]

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!

My point is, while what you say may work, it will never happen. France have to protect their citizens. They need to ATTACK ISIS.

[ZanSnake 1,211]

If they have been monitoring these guys, then surely they must not have been monitoring close enough!

[CHOULO19 24,332]

My point is, while what you say may work, it will never happen. France have to protect their citizens. They need to ATTACK ISIS.

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.

Lighting up the mood is necessary from time to time

But to reiterate on your post, I heard once a former Pentagon director on a TED talk saying they were too unprepared for how strong the US military was. He said that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 had achieved in less than a week what was expected out of a full month of war so there were yet no plans for rebuilding the country and its political system. He then goes on to elaborate how it should have been done and compare it to the absurds mistakes it was actually conducted in reality. Many things of what he said you point out as well.

I will try to find it...

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....

[xPetrCechx 13,546]

So Violence will create more violence? so if France will attack ISIS, more terrorists attacks on them? so what they have to do? be quiet and do nothing?...

2. The terrorists rent their cars in Belgium, and at least 1 of them returned to belgium... the police arrested him apparently....

Belgium-France-UK - Circle of terrorism.

[Spike 12,049]

Ibrahimovic just said a few days earlier that [he] 'put France and Sweden on the map'.

STOCKHOLM NEXT?

[Fulham Broadway 16,393]

I'll say it: the cultural values of Europe & France are BETTER than those of Syria, or Iraq or most of sub-Saharan Africa. We are freer, more equal, more prosperous and happier as a direct result of that culture (the same culture that allows the self-hating liberal elite the comfort and the resources to express their mistaken views). Time to end the pernicious moral relativism

[ZanSnake 1,211]

Syria strikes to continue

Posted at19:20

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls says France will continue air strikes in Syria, targeting Islamic State, Reuters reports.

[KevinAshburner 1,270]

HERE IS SOME WIKIPEDIA PAGES ON EVENTS RELATING TO TERRORIST ATTACKS IN EUROPE AND THE EUROPEAN UNION REGION.

List of terrorist incidents, 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2015

This is a timeline of terrorist incidents which took place in 2015, including attacks by violent non-state actors for political or other unknown motives.

Terrorism in the European Union

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_European_Union

The failed, foiled and successfully executed acts of terrorism in the European Union are according to the European Police Office either unspecified, or pertains to religious issues, animal rights, right wing, left wing or separatist movements. The field is subject to considerable cooperation among national authorities.