ISIS terror attacks around the world

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?

if the west just pulled back and left the middle east to fight it out would the attacks stop. I mean if the world just stood back and said do what you want to do would the terrorists stop.

sportsczy wrote: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?

Assad is the only reasonable choice for the world at this point in time.

He has agreed to concessions, and elections will be forthcoming again in the future. The rebels should participate in democracy next time, and the world should once again view monitor the election.

There's no way that the West will or should back Assad at this point... none.  I was just pointing out that a poor choice was made to start. You don't get involved in a civil war unless you go 100%, not half ass. By destabilizing Assad and not committing to fill the resulting power void, the international community opened the opportunity for extremists.

At best, the US/Russia agree to form a temporary government with peacekeeping forces after which an election occurs.  I don't think the Russians are adverse to this either.  But the US doesn't trust Russia to keep its word (i wonder why lol) and will not commit ground troops.

But getting ground troops involved is quasi inevitable now.

ISIS numbers would drop by 95% as soon as ground troops went in.

Unique wrote:if the west just pulled back and left the middle east to fight it out would the attacks stop. I mean if the world just stood back and said do what you want to do would the terrorists stop.

no it won't and the west can hardly pull back. as long as there is conflict between israel and every or almost every middle eastern country/group, its tough for the west to just pull back

two, these terrorist are animals, even if somehow the west wasn't involved, they'll find something to fight over. the key issue is elite within the minorities manipulating idiots who have nothing to lose and can't think for themselves. if it was solely a middle eastern battle, there will be mad men in such groups saying they want a worldwide caliphate and a world jihad, as they are doing now; thinking that this is the 14th century

the countries in the region have to work together to solve this problem. the problem with that is, most of them don't like each other, and they definitely don't and would probably never like nor acknowledge israel. so it makes communication, which will be key to monitoring these networks very difficult. especially since not every country in the middle east is sophisticated enough in the area of policing and logistics to tackle such issues, which are way more important than some of the  laws they spend their time to police, ...and even the countries that have access to such are unwilling to share with neighbors for security purposes

titosantill wrote:

Unique wrote:if the west just pulled back and left the middle east to fight it out would the attacks stop. I mean if the world just stood back and said do what you want to do would the terrorists stop.

no it won't and the west can hardly pull back. as long as there is conflict between israel and every or almost every middle eastern country/group, its tough for the west to just pull back

two, these terrorist are animals, even if somehow the west wasn't involved, they'll find something to fight over. the key issue is elite within the minorities manipulating idiots who have nothing to lose and can't think for themselves. if it was solely a middle eastern battle, there will be mad men in such groups saying they want a worldwide caliphate and a world jihad, as they are doing now; thinking that this is the 14th century

the countries in the region have to work together to solve this problem. the problem with that is, most of them don't like each other, and they definitely don't and would probably never like nor acknowledge israel. so it makes communication, which will be key to monitoring these networks very difficult. especially since not every country in the middle east is sophisticated enough in the area of policing and logistics to tackle such issues, which are way more important than some of the  laws they spend their time to police, ...and even the countries that have access to such are unwilling to share with neighbors for security purposes

so the best way to deal with them is to hit them head on.

@unique, i'm not a military strategist, but i think the best way to deal with them is to recognize this is a different type of war first and foremost. and citizens should understand they may have to give up certain liberties (nothing too great) in order to quell these issues. first of all, as we have seen by attacks in paris, boston, new york, kenya, nigeria, tunisia, lebanon and many areas in the world, this isn't a battlefield or territory issue. isis aren't the only radical group, if one falls another can rise

to combat that, int'l security networks need to enhance monitoring of internet networks, phone lines and anyway information pertaining to suspicious activities can be intercepted and curtailed before any attacks. this will mean the global north aligning with the global south as many nations don't have such capacities....it will also mean the global south opening up to the west (Something many don't want to do), or even to china

ground troops are good too especially with situations in places like Syria, but one needs to do their homework. when (yes i said 'when'), isis falls, you still have threats in hezbollah, al qaeda and many more groups (yes, hezbollah claim to be anti-isis now, but who knows what happens next). also, one has to take into account the economic consequences, not just for america, but europe too, considering the plummeting economy and refugee crisis. ground troops can be put to good use if properly planned and post war agendas that can benefit the region are put into place

once again, isis isn't the only enemy, there are tons of animals out there all over the region, migrating to africa and europe. so one has to take that into account when dealing with ground troops in places like syria....it has sadly become very complicated. we need proper planners, not clowns like trump (lol)

i forgot to add, monitoring and surveillance of ex-cons and guys with felonies. as we are seeing a new trend where citizens, who have been imprisoned migrate to some of these war torn areas to train and then return to their home country where they have been born and raised to cause terror. its up to the government and law enforcers to understand they have to monitor such peoples, especially those with a history of crime; but also do it in a way that doesn't violate a group of people, in this case french minorities....and that is an extremely slippery slope, and one that the community leaders of those minority groups in said country have to be able to galvanize law abiding minorities to assist in the process.....but easier said than done. any politician can come out and detail an elaborate plan, but with youth unemployment on the rise, and financial markets taking hit after hit, its tough to enhance plans

Intelligence agencies have stated that they are overwhelmed... at most, the EU as a whole can only monitor a total of 400-500 people on 24/7 basis. They have somewhere between 2.5k to 5k they need to target with this kind of surveillance. So there's nothing they can do to even reasonably cover the needed scope.

So taking a reactive approach is not feasible... the only option is proactive. What does that mean? I don't know.

tbh mate if the world was not so worried about offending muslims the problem would be much easyer to fix. we have people with a history of being extreamists and without them blowing shit up we let them run free. the police and FBI profile criminals because it works. they look at the crime. see a patten .look at the motive then then look at the people that are most likely to commit that crime. its ok saying this and that is to blame and go into a big political debate about it but the bottom line is we know who the enemy is. we know who they are and where to find them. now all we need is the balls to stop them.

Syria rebels, activists denounce IS attack on Paris
AFP | Published on November 15, 2015 10:56 MYT

Facebook Twitter Email Google whatsapp icon
Syria rebels, activists denounce IS attack on Paris
SYRIA REBELS: Forty-nine armed factions in Syria, including the powerful Jaish al-Islam rebel groups, condemned "in the strongest terms" IS's coordinated assault in Paris. - File pic
BEIRUT: Dozens of Syrian rebel groups on Saturday strongly denounced the Islamic State militant group's attacks on Paris as "against human values" in a joint online statement.

And Syrian activists, refugees, and civilians in the war-torn country expressed their solidarity with France in posts on social media.

Forty-nine armed factions in Syria, including the powerful Jaish al-Islam rebel groups, condemned "in the strongest terms" IS's coordinated assault in Paris that killed at least 129 people.

"We learned today, with great shock and condemnation, about the terrorist attacks against civilians in the city of Paris," the joint statement said.

It called IS's actions "criminal attacks that are against (Islamic) laws and human values".

Most rebel groups in Syria fiercely oppose both the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and IS, which has declared a self-styled "caliphate" in parts of Syria and Iraq.

"This terrorism does not differ from the terrorism that the Syrian people have suffered from every day for the past five years," the groups said.

They pledged to continue to "fight terrorism" and urged the international community to address the root cause of extremism in Syria.

"The real victim of the continuation of the Assad regime and its terrorist organisations is the whole world, not just the Syrian people," the statement said.

Meanwhile, Syrians around the world expressed their solidarity with the people of Paris online.

Activists from the northwest province of Idlib and from the IS-held city of Raqa overlaid their profile pictures on social media accounts with the French flag.

Residents of Douma, a rebel-held town east of Damascus frequently bombarded by Syria's regime, wrote an open letter to the French people.

"First, and before everything, we express our warm condolences to the French families who lost loved ones," the letter said.
"We condemn in the strongest of terms the targeting of civilians there and anywhere around the world," the residents wrote.

"We extend our hands to all the people that love peace and freedom, most of all the French people."

More than 250,000 people have been killed in the Syria conflict since March 2011.

http://english.astroawani.com/world-news/syria-rebels-activists-denounce-attack-paris-80928

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.

Nope that's where we disagree, i would argue that Daesh would've never existed if Saddam wasn't overthrown, i think Daesh exists mainly because of the power vacuum after the Iraq War, if Saddam was good at one thing, it was the suppression of all dissidents.

Now the west is repeating the same mistake by going after another secular dictator, you'll never know what will happen once Assad steps aside. there's a real possibility that Daesh will take over Damascus once Assad leaves because of the fact that moderates Syrian are really a thin group of people by now, most of them have joined either Daesh, Al Nusra or other larger rebel groups.

Let's face it, every time the west decided to get rid of a dictator, it didn't work and it certainly didn't brought democracy to the people and the country (Libya and Iraq) fell to chaos. i think getting rid of Assad isn't a solution, right now what Syria needs is a supervised election and Assad must be allowed to run, let the people decide on who should be the leader.

If i am not mistaken ISIS has existed for decades but where left to just voicing their opinions verbally because they were being controlled/handled by Saddam. Now they are a large cult with vast oil reserves to keep the cog wheel spinning as long as they like with people from the west joining in to make them a worldwide threat.

Alqaeda was created by the west, Isis (as they are today) were basically trained and funded by the west as well as some arab countries who have problems with shia muslims such as Saudi and Qatar. Saddam might have been hated by some Iraqis but i know many iraqi friends who say that in hindsight Saddam was perfect for Iraq. They were as strong as Iran now they are more powerless than Palestine with basically nowhere to live. Its going to take decades to build up Iraq from the ruins the west created and now there are the monsters that the west unleashed that need to be contained back to how dormant they were under Saddam. But that cant be done unless they stray away from what has made the west the current standards for ethical and democratic values. It is a tricky situation.

Unique wrote:tbh mate if the world was not so worried about offending muslims the problem would be much easyer to fix. we have people with a history of being extreamists and without them blowing shit up we let them run free. the police and FBI profile criminals because it works. they look at the crime. see a patten .look at the motive then then look at the people that are most likely to commit that crime. its ok saying this and that is to blame and go into a big political debate about it but the bottom line is we know who the enemy is. we know who they are and where to find them. now all we need is the balls to stop them.

this is quite the dumpster fire of a post

first: profiling is racist and ineffective, not really much else to say there

second: "we know who the enemy is. we know who they are and where to find them" you planning on providing some names and addresses breh? bunch of world governments working around the clock to figure out how this happened but apparently all they needed to do was ask GL

third: "now all we need is the balls to stop them" don't speak in code, say what you mean. Sounds to me like when you write "the balls" what you really mean is "to ignore concepts of human/civil rights, treat muslims as subhuman, & allow governments to kill as many as they deem necessary for an indefinite period of time"

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

Came into being in 1999 and joined Al Qaeda in 2004.  Separated from Al Qaeda in 2014.  Al-Baghdadi, who's really been the figure who has developed and morphed ISIS into what it is today, became its leader in 2010. They were nothing before him.

Hail USA for creating Al Qaeda
Hail USA for turning Iraq into the state
Hail USA for making civil war worse in Syria

USA

Watchful protector, silent guardian.. Dark knight

So what's the excuse for the 1000s of years of killing before the US got involved?  Was that the US' fault too?

God forbid people taking responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming others.

This has existed for a long long time. Only reason it's becoming an international phenomenon is social media and being able to communicate freely via the internet. Before, they were isolated and had no voice that could be heard.

Well you have to put it into historical context, at that time funding Al Qaeda was justified, they were fighting to stop the spread of communism, and the plan actually worked, it led to Soviet Union's downfall.

But the problem with these policies is the unintended consequences that comes back to bite you in the future.

sportsczy wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

Came into being in 1999 and joined Al Qaeda in 2004.  Separated from Al Qaeda in 2014.  Al-Baghdadi, who's really been the figure who has developed and morphed ISIS into what it is today, became its leader in 2010. They were nothing before him.

Al-Baghdadi was in American captivity in camp Bucca 2009. Less than a year later he becomes the leader of ISIS.

I understand France has - which would be the first time in the history of the EU - called on the union's article of asking other member states for military aid? Or did I misunderstand?

halamadrid2 wrote:If i am not mistaken ISIS has existed for decades but where left to just voicing their opinions verbally because they were being controlled/handled by Saddam. Now they are a large cult with vast oil reserves to keep the cog wheel spinning as long as they like with people from the west joining in to make them a worldwide threat.

Alqaeda was created by the west, Isis (as they are today) were basically trained and funded by the west as well as some arab countries who have problems with shia muslims such as Saudi and Qatar. Saddam might have been hated by some Iraqis but i know many iraqi friends who say that in hindsight Saddam was perfect for Iraq. They were as strong as Iran now they are more powerless than Palestine with basically nowhere to live. Its going to take decades to build up Iraq from the ruins the west created and now there are the monsters that the west unleashed that need to be contained back to how dormant they were under Saddam. But that cant be done unless they stray away from what has made the west the current standards for ethical and democratic values. It is a tricky situation.

You are really making my brain hurt right now.

It's amazing how you are describing Saadam reign as stray from "western ethics and democracy"

Go do some reasarch on Saadam, go look up how many lives that he killed. Genocides and killing up to 300,000 thousand lives is not a stray from Western ethics and democracy.

Stray from western ethics and democracy is internet+media censorship, free speech, election, etc.

Maybe you are not aware Saadam did prefer Sunni over Shia and Kurds. Your friends and their family were probably the haves rather then the have nots in Saadam reign. If they were not negatively effected I don't think they give a flying f**k how many Kurds or Shia Saadam killed. That scenario happens in every tyrant society.

Btw Iraq is finished, its existence should have never been. The British is responsible they decided from one line to another they called it Iraq and that was that.did they care about the ethnic group? Nope

Really sad how so many politicians are using the Paris attacks as an excuse to be against taking in Syrian refugees, when this is exactly what they're running away from.

thousands of years of killing, now we're just rewriting history dude

i cant believe we are victimizing the aggressors this is ridiculous. take one look at iraq and syria and tell me that the people actually support isis. now not only is the west killing innocent civillians in already war torn cities, ISIS is continuing their slaughter of innocents as well.

sportsczy wrote:So what's the excuse for the 1000s of years of killing before the US got involved?  Was that the US' fault too?

God forbid people taking responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming others.

This has existed for a long long time. Only reason it's becoming an international phenomenon is social media and being able to communicate freely via the internet. Before, they were isolated and had no voice that could be heard.

problem is that the people in those countries are too entrenched in their community/tribal disputes that have lasted centuries... and/or there's too much corruption in their political systems so they have no ability to call for unity.  It's a bit insane.

On one side, they don't want western intervention.  On the other side, they're too dysfunctional to operate and beg for western intervention when everything collapses.

I can guarantee you that the US would love to have nothing to worry about in the middle east. Nobody here wants the US to intervene but they're forced to despite it being a very poor political decision.

It's interesting to me that people acclaimed the US leaving Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc so that the people there could figure it out themselves... but now that it's become an absolute disaster, they want the US to intervene. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.