Ra'Jiska said:
No more baguettes!
I can barely imagine a reprisal against IS. You'd have to wage total war and invade the country to shut the majority up and launch an espionage and kill-or-capture campaign in extremis... extremo....
Paris Attacks, Terrorism in France
- Thread starter Catholic
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
No more baguettes!
I can barely imagine a reprisal against IS. You'd have to wage total war and invade the country to shut the majority up and launch an espionage and kill-or-capture campaign in extremis... extremo....
mcwiggum said:
Why didnt iré land get reduced to pieces when it did The same? Is it because they are europeans?
Othurin said:Unless you mean the soviet invasion, no. The US invaded to try to get the ** members involved in the attack, al qaeda already existed.lorddarknes said:Invasionanother brilliant idea
invasion of afghanistan created al-Qaeda
invasion of iraq created isis
Yup soviet invasion.
Quite stable:Ambalon said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdish_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Shia_uprising_in_Iraq
I don't want to defend US invasion to Iraq here. I rather want to point out a miscalculation. People generally consider an intervention unsuccessful by just looking at bad consequences as if situation would be perfect without the intervention. An invasion against IS will not solve all problems in the region, but it's very hard for it to be bloodier than the current situation.
This is specially true when you consider that almost no important Islam leader condemn these attacks. As long as their religious leaders keep quiet when this happens, we can and should hold them accountable. Islam needs to reach the 21st century and start accepting peaceful coexistence with other cultures and religions. Or we will be forced to treat them as we treat Nazism.Dystopian said:
I want to know who are those important Islam leaders as many Islamic countries and many local religious figures condemned the attacks.Xardob said:
Examples of the opposite: After the attack on Charlie Hebdo almost a year ago most moslem leaders seemed to victim blame a lot. Their drawing of the prophet was more criticised than the acts of terror, for example, just of the top of my head, government members in Turkey. Pretty big leaders of the Islamic world, don't you think?Xardob said:
crodio said:
Ah, a leader of Iran. Feels credible. They only oppose the islamic state because sunni/shia split. Otherwise they are ****ing the same
Xardob said:
Plenty of Muslim leaders in the Muslim world and in Europe condemn ISIS and terror attacks on a near daily basis. It just never gets reported in Europe because it's not exactly news.
An Irish Noob
Recruit
Nobody wants to risk boots on the ground. It's a shame because sometimes the sword is mightier than the pen.
It does get mentioned in some articles, I've read such statements in newspapers and BBC website articles many times before, but like you say it is not exactly a huge part of the story; 'so-and-so condemns the attacks'. Such details don't tend to stick in peoples' minds.jacobhinds said:
krik said:
But you would only be invading ISIS with permission of those countries that ISIS occupy (unless you are Russia).
I doubt there will be muslims from Syria and Iraq who haven't already joined ISIS that wouldn't agree to help killing the extremists, and it won't magically turn them into extremists if you were to invade.
mdk31 said:
Misinformation. The holder of the passport was a registered refugee, but they haven't determined if the gunman was the holder of the passport (since refugee passports are apparently a commodity these days).
