ISIS terror attacks around the world

Obama and Putin had a 15 minuts private talk after G20. Hopefully ISIS was the main discussion

The French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve has given more details about the attacks after meeting his Belgian counterpart.

"The investigation will show that the Paris attacks were prepared abroad, by a group of individuals based in Belgium who benefited from accomplices in France.

"There's an intensive need for cooperation between the French and Belgian services because those in Belgium who prepared the attacks were not known to the French intelligence services."

3 of the attackers confirmed French citizens.

3 atackers confirmed as Belgian citizens too. All brothers

@RG you would think it would be a longer discussion than 15 mins though

Not considering they were there to attend G20 and it was an unplanned meeting.

urbaNRoots wrote:

Paris police sources say the 2 Syrian passports found on the terrorists were fakes probably made in Turkey

More and more I'm starting to believe Viva's theory.

CNN report one of the bombers who claimed to be from Syria had his fingerprints matched to those taken in leros where the passport was issued.

2 of the other carried false Turkish passports.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/15/world/paris-attacks/index.html

EarlyPrototype wrote:How many British and American soldiers have been killed by ISIS? yeh that's what I thought.

didn't Britain and the usa save lots of muslim lifes when Milosevic was trying to wipe them out. did they not put their own life on the line to save them. yeh that's what I thought.

Apparently one of the suicide bombers was a woman

Comments on this thread proves how far away are you western people from the truth.

US and France are funding ISIS. how? by helping Saudi Arabia and ignoring whatever they do.

ISIS is killing hundreds of people on daily basis in Syria and Iraq. all Muslims.

You want to stop terrorists? i have solution for you. stop using them for your political goals. that's it.

Problem is Mamad that there are no alternatives... you had Iran funding Hezbollah and that had to be stopped because it had destroyed Lebanon and was threatening Israel, Jordan and Egypt.  There was no way that the West was just going to let that ride... so they funded Iran's adversaries, who weren't better... but that idea was that they would neutralize each other.  Peace was never the objective.  Containing the chaos from spreading was.

Now the issue is that the balance has tipped towards ISIS and they were too radical yet again (just like Hezbollah was in the past).  So now you have to find a way to counter-measure ISIS.

One of my parents is Iranian and i have been to the middle east often for work.  A few countries have figured it out and have assimilated into the world... like Qatar, UAE, Oman, etc....  and are reaping the rewards.  Most countries, however, remain stuck in outdated religious or cultural ideology that has no place in the modern world... and keeps them in the 3rd world.  As a result, the world has passed them by and their standard of living is awful.  They obviously can't blame themselves for being backwards idiots... so they have to find a scapegoat.  The West is very convenient (although by no means innocent).

Until the countries in the Gulf/Middle East region are able to police themselves and don't threaten the world....  the world will intervene often to the detriment of the region.  Just how it is.

I hate to say this... but there is too much savagery and wanton death in the region that is somehow socially acceptable.  That will never fly.  Also, having Theocratic governments that are radical in their beliefs and openly threaten and persecute people that don't into their theocratic beliefs will never get respect either.  

Don't make it sound like people haven't been killing each other for thousands of years... way before the West intervened.

Mamad wrote:Comments on this thread proves how far away are you western people from the truth.

US and France are funding ISIS. how? by helping Saudi Arabia and ignoring whatever they do.

ISIS is killing hundreds of people on daily basis in Syria and Iraq. all Muslims.

You want to stop terrorists? i have solution for you. stop using them for your political goals. that's it.

what about ISIS in Africa. are they doing what they do because the usa are buddys with Saudi arabia. imo the only way to stop terrorists is to kill them.

France is bombing Raqqa now.

As much as Sadam Hussein, Khadafi, etc. were brutal leaders... they were also necessary.  You were never going to replace brutality with democracy where there was absolutely no appetite for democracy in most of those countries... so with the power vacuum, someone had to jump in.  In countries that have a strong and independent military institution, the extremists were kept in check.  But in countries where the military collapsed with the regime, extremist groups took over.

We should have stayed with the lesser of two evils... leave the brutal dictatorships in place.  As bad as they were, the people of their countries were far better off then.  

The only solution i see is for the world to wipe out the existing institutions and rid the countries of terrorists, deploy a massive and sustained peacekeeping force... and slowly lay the bricks for the people there to take over ownership of their own countries.  Bombing and leaving will do anything.

sportsczy wrote:As much as Sadam Hussein, Khadafi, etc. were brutal leaders... they were also necessary.  You were never going to replace brutality with democracy where there was absolutely no appetite for democracy in most of those countries... so with the power vacuum, someone had to jump in.  In countries that have a strong and independent military institution, the extremists were kept in check.  But in countries where the military collapsed with the regime, extremist groups took over.

We should have stayed with the lesser of two evils... leave the brutal dictatorships in place.  As bad as they were, the people of their countries were far better off then.  

The only solution i see is for the world to wipe out the existing institutions and rid the countries of terrorists, deploy a massive and sustained peacekeeping force... and slowly lay the bricks for the people there to take over ownership of their own countries.  Bombing and leaving will do anything.

The problem is Sadam was killing his own people plus the Kurds. That was not feasible either.

People killing people in the region was nothing new and not the reason.  US just miscalculated...   they wanted to gain a foothold in the region to use as a base to fight al qaeda post 9/11.  They just didn't realize how costly and ineffective it would be.  There was nobody to hand power to once the US was done. Just mishandled the administration and did not understand how factious the country was since Saddam suppressed all the factions.

Blue wrote:The problem is Sadam was killing his own people plus the Kurds. That was not feasible either.

That's the question.

Maybe left completely alone, the Arab world would have experienced their own type of "French REvolution" one day where the folk would have stood up and ousted their dictatorial leaders.

The problem is - this would have lead to widespread civil war and many thousands of deaths, too. REmember the horrors of the FRench revolution? The mass executions etc?

But maybe it really would have been the proper way to let things develop in their own course. It might have lead to a grown up, democratic society on their own terms.

Unfortunately, the Middle East has resources that are too valuable, so the West tried to do everything to make sure to keep the access to these resources for themselves, leading to the support of the people that offered the best access to these resources for the best time.

The result can be seen now.

At least Iraq was not a safe haven for terrorists under him because he contained them. He is hardly the only leader guilty of killing his own people yet he was the one the west were desperate to depose with made up excuses.

Autocratic Saddam>>>ISIS who dont mind dying because they think theyll die martyrs so there is no real way of stopping them

As sport said both are bad but you have got to keep the lesser of the two evils and imo that was Saddam

rwo power wrote:

Blue wrote:The problem is Sadam was killing his own people plus the Kurds. That was not feasible either.

That's the question.

Maybe left completely alone, the Arab world would have experienced their own type of "French REvolution" one day where the folk would have stood up and ousted their dictatorial leaders.

The problem is - this would have lead to widespread civil war and many thousands of deaths, too. REmember the horrors of the FRench revolution? The mass executions etc?

But maybe it really would have been the proper way to let things develop in their own course. It might have lead to a grown up, democratic society on their own terms.

Unfortunately, the Middle East has resources that are too valuable, so the West tried to do everything to make sure to keep the access to these resources for themselves, leading to the support of the people that offered the best access to these resources for the best time.

The result can be seen now.

The problem is the West has intervened since as far as back as the British empire, then US-Russia intervention during the Cold War, and up to current event in the last 20 years. The reason Sadam and Al Qaeda exist is due to the west tbh. I don't think the west can claim no responsibility for Sadam dictatorship at that point. I don't think US can say "yeah we are responsible for Sadam but we don't care he is killing you guys."

The west+Russia has interest in those countries, and sometime back dictators. The people not only have to go against the current regime, but also outside interest. They feel they are trapped from both corners. Despair and depression is the reason Barbaric groups like Daesh exist.

How else do you think Hitler rose to power? taking advantage of desperate people

The issue at the moment is the West+Russia needs to come together, they have made a mess in this situation. You have Russia and Iran supporting Assad, who are fighting rebels, not daesh. Then you have Saudi supporting rebels and most likely Daesh too. Then you have US ally Turkey fighting Kurdish rebels, who are supporting local militia against Daesh. Then you have other Kurdish group who are fighting Daesh, who kinda have US support but not fully.

It is a cluster f@&k.

halamadrid2 wrote:At least Iraq was not a safe haven for terrorists under him because he contained them. He is hardly the only leader guilty of killing his own people yet he was the one the west were desperate to depose with made up excuses.

Autocratic Saddam>>>ISIS who dont mind dying because they think theyll die martyrs so there is no real way of stopping them

As sport said both are bad but you have got to keep the lesser of the two evils and imo that was Saddam

Things are better maybe from your perspective, you don't live in Iraq exactly. You know the people who suffer the most.

You know Al Qaeda still exist what you described "ISIS" existed before Iraq invasion. Who is to say an incident like Paris(RIP) would have not happened instead of Carried out by AL Qaeda instead of Daesh.

Who knows the trajectory of the world if Sadam was still in power. Maybe Daesh would still exist.

The rebels and the Islamic state are one in the same at this point. Sure, there might have been a point where there was a distinction between the two, but that time has long gone. The Only Americans the Islamic state have ever got their hands on have been people who were given over to them by "moderate" rebels.

Russia, in helping Assad, seems to be the correct course of action for us to take at this point in time.

@Blue

I understand that the problem started when the West first jumped in - my comment was more about how things might have turned out if there wouldn't have been any intervention.

BTW, I read up what Daesh means, and I agree it is probably a far better term to use for these insane extremist terrorists than IS(IS).

Very insightful article on the meaning of the term daesh: https://www.freewordcentre.com/blog/2015/02/daesh-isis-media-alice-guthrie/

tbh how far can you stretch the blame before you see that these people are just barbaric killers that just want to kill people. I cant see how ISIS in places like Africa can kidnapp and kill young girls and blame it on a war in the middle east. lets face it here. if the USA killed my family why would I want to kill young girls in Africa. if the us and british armys are to blame for this then why don't they fight the us and british armys instead of killing people that have nothing to do with it. my guess is they know allahu wont save them from MR 7.62mm nato rounds. I saw someone say once. if these people want to live in the stone age send them back there.

Betty La Fea wrote:The rebels and the Islamic state are one in the same at this point. Sure, there might have been a point where there was a distinction between the two, but that time has long gone. The Only Americans the Islamic state have ever got their hands on have been people who were given over to them by "moderate" rebels.

Russia, in helping Assad, seems to be the correct course of action for us to take at this point in time.

That is not true, although Assad would argue your point.

Supporting Assad? Supporting a mass murder is not the solution, ignoring the people is not smart. He is the reason why Daesh exist.

Supporting Assad is like forgetting how this issue all started, it started due to the people uprise against the ruthless dictator.

Blue wrote:

Betty La Fea wrote:The rebels and the Islamic state are one in the same at this point. Sure, there might have been a point where there was a distinction between the two, but that time has long gone. The Only Americans the Islamic state have ever got their hands on have been people who were given over to them by "moderate" rebels.

Russia, in helping Assad, seems to be the correct course of action for us to take at this point in time.

That is not true, although Assad would argue your point.

Supporting Assad? Supporting a mass murder is not the solution, ignoring the people is not smart. He is the reason why Daesh exist.

Supporting Assad is like forgetting how this issue all started, it started due to the people uprise against the ruthless dictator.

Assad won an election in his nation(called Fair by several BRIC nations) last year if I remember correctly. We must be careful just assuming what the people want is based on what a few in the media shows us, or an armed insurrection by foreign players.

Assad is a horrible person... ISIS is worse. There are no other alternatives. So what do you chose?

In any case, i think a military confrontation is now inevitable between ISIS and the west... with Russia/US forming a coalition based on need like in WW2. In the process, Irak, Lybia and Syria will be swooped in. The aftermath is anything but predictable. Maybe an iron curtain in the Middle East?