Reply With Quote
Europe is easier.
So not really. We had Boston which seems the way to go. No real network.
Thank Obama for keeping you safe
Europe is easier.
So not really. We had Boston which seems the way to go. No real network.
Is our intel better than EU?
True leaders succeed. In real life. Not schoolyard. You are an ignorant fool on real life world matters.
Turkish soccer fans booing and chanting allahu akbar during "moment of silence" in friendly match
http://blog.sfgate.com/soccer/2015/1...paris-attacks/
S of the earth doing s of the earth things.
NATO member and US ally
obama
Lol article saying "many fans" when it was basically the entire stadium
Proximity makes Europe easier.
Paris already has had Muslim riots out in the poorer exterior neighborhoods.
So I don't see it as a surprise. There is a very large Muslim population in France that has a history of feeling disenfranchised.
I know a lot of people hate this guy, but somewhat prophetic
French security forces in gun battle in northern Paris
CNN reporting that a source is telling them that Abdelhamid Abaaoud is dead.
US and aus or the allies dont want to put soldiers on the ground
but why not park all your navy fleets on its coastline and just pummel them to the dark ages, or wait its already a hole...
Now France wants Poland to send their troops to ing Africa, to ing french ex-colony, meanwhile bull ing that "those were frenchmens who killed frenchmens". Hypocrisy at it best.
Now saying it may or may not be him.
But either way, raid nabs 7 of the psychos and it may include him.
Bravo, French police!
Saying the above ass and his fellow brainwashed were about ready to move on another operation.
An Apocalyptic Death Cult Has Its Limits
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
—Voltaire
Years before Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden, this column argued that al Qaeda was capable of “theatrical acts of mass murder,” but was not a military threat to the United States.
The phrase infuriated some readers. Back then tough guys talked about fighting “Islamofascism,” supposedly a totalitarian ideology linking bitter enemies such as Iran and al Qaeda (but never Saudi Arabia, where the oil and money are, and where almost all the 9/11 conspirators originated) in an alliance to destroy Western Civilization.
Nobody says that any more.
My point was simple. Fascism was a poor analogy. Pundits’ Churchillian fantasies aside, what made Nazism “uniquely dangerous wasn’t merely Hitler’s hypnotic ideology. It was German militarism and hyper-nationalism run amok.
Islamic extremists control none of the world’s 60-odd Muslim-majority nations. They have no army, air force or navy. They pose no military threat to the integrity of the United States or any Western nation.”
Nor does ISIS, al Qaeda’s more flamboyant and equally murderous rival. Last week’s appalling atrocities in Paris, Beirut, and Egypt underscored that reality in the bloodiest possible way. Almost everybody anticipates similar attacks in the United States. We must pray that they fail. However, as President Obama has said, a terrorist willing to die can murder innocents in restaurants as easily as in Connecticut classrooms.
Yet for all the fury and despair these attacks have evoked—I think of a little Parisian girl named Charlotte and her family—ISIS cannot and will not prevail. It’s less a political movement than an apocalyptic death cult, and definitely not an existential threat to the United States, France, or Russia.
Sane leaders would know better than to antagonize three of the world’s most powerful military establishments at once.
ISIS’s self-anointed “Caliph,” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is not that kind of leader. Think David Koresh or Jim Jones with a militia and a Koran instead of a Bible. Theologically, ISIS is to Islam as the Ku Klux Klan is to Christianity, by which I mean they’re a crackpot, deviant sect. But they’re even crazier than that.
Madness, however, has never prevented cult leaders from gaining an enraptured following. If anything, the converse appears true.
It’s a fact of life Orwell recognized in a 1940 review of Hitler’sMein Kampf: “Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to people ‘I offer you a good time,’ Hitler has said to them, ‘I offer you struggle, danger, and death,’ and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet.”
Writing in The Atlantic, Graeme Wood explains ISIS’s hypnotic appeal to dispossessed and humiliated young men:
During the last years of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the Islamic State’s immediate founding fathers…saw signs of the end times everywhere.
They were anticipating, within a year, the arrival of the Mahdi—a messianic figure destined to lead the Muslims to victory before the end of the world….
For certain true believers—the kind who long for epic good-versus-evil battles—visions of apocalyptic bloodbaths fulfill a deep psychological need.
It almost goes without saying that you can’t make treaties with such people. They can only be defeated.
The question is how? And at what cost?
Confronted with a newly belligerent press corps in Turkey recently, President Obama spoke mockingly about taking action that would “somehow in the abstract make America look tough or make me look tough.”
“When you listen to what [GOP candidates] actually have to say,” the president said, “what they’re proposing, most of the time when pressed they describe things that we’re already doing. Maybe they’re not aware that we’re already doing them. Some of them seem to think that if I were just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference, because that seems to be the only thing that they’re doing, is talking as if they’re tough.”
Mother Jones blogger Kevin Drum went down the list of the GOP candidates’ suggestions, but found nothing new:
There’s a lot we can do to defeat ISIS, and most of it we’re already doing.
Airstrikes? Check.
Broad coalition? Check.
Working with Arab allies? Check.
Engage with Sunni tribal leaders? Check.
Embed with the Iraqi military? Check.
There’s more we could do, but often it’s contradictory.
You want to arm the Kurds and create a partnership with the Iraqi government? Good luck.
You want to defeat Assad and ISIS? You better pick one.
You want to avoid a large American ground force and you want to win the war fast? Not gonna happen.
Yes, Obama’s “red line” in Syria was a strategic blunder; his “junior varsity” remark was y and ill-advised. Also, Vladimir Putin’s right: The Assad government’s bad, but ISIS is far worse.
However, ISIS has turned to terror because it’s gradually losing the ground war, and the Caliphate is shrinking.
La belle France is not.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/an-apoca...s-its-limits/#
I somewhat agree that ISIS is still a ragtag army. They are getting help from al qaeda IMO and certain governments Intelligence Agencies. They also losing the war at the.moment and have been since Russia came in.
Truth is France got caught with its pants down. How in the the French government is avoiding criticism is beyond me
America gets caught with its pants down with repeated mass slaughters in schools, theatres, churches. How you rightwingnuts avoid criticizing (white) America is beyond me.
Well intercepting lone wolf attacks is next to impossible. But a highly organized terrorist attack shouldn't be IMO not in this day and age.
Here come the passport truthers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b08cda348aac73
Darrin is terrified of refugees, because the Repugs lied to him
There's more practical places for these refugees to go.
your heartfelt sympathy for the refugees' practicality is wonderful.
How "practical" do you think it is for European countries to accept, finance, care for, house, feed 100Ks of Repug refugees while you rightwingnuts refuse to accept ANY Repug refugees?
Just raise everyone's taxes. -B.Sanders
So when Chechens used coordinated bombers in various Moscow sites this was...
When a bomb was planted right under the nose of the Russians and Egyptians this was...
No country that is free is immune. So Russia and China should be less vulnerable, But not immune.
Boots and Hater both fail to realize this problem arises from on major theme: The rights of the individual v. The rights of the society. Freedom/privacy of the individual come under attack when a society is punished for not knowing everything about individuals. Individuals then suffer a backlash from extended surveillance powers granted to the state. This pendulum has been rocking back and forth in democratic societies for a long time.
And it is discussed in democracies, but escapes our resident propagandists. Hater and Boots are just like religious nuts. They want clear answers, obvious right and wrong, and will apply their need for a binary world to ANY difficult situation. This type of simplistic analysis, this almost religious zealotry, is the worst kind of thinking.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
