I can only figure that they are hoping for a different outcome. If they thought they were assured of dying, they might well have responded differently. I'm not going to judge.
Do you think ISIS attacked France because they're not losing ground in Syria and seeing a large number of their recruits flee back home? This is an act of desperation.
Hollande may still not have been the target. If you want to cause maximum casualties with a bomb, you're going to have an easier time inside a packed stadium than outside. Not saying they wouldn't have made an attempt if opportunity afforded a chance, but it's pretty clear their plan here was maximum death rather than symbolic damage.
ISIS has gained a lot of ground not lost it. Yes, yesterday the Kurds took one village but most of the fighting has been against the Syrian moderates with the SAA and ISIS taking ground from the moderates.
What is it with dead terrorists carrying around their passports? They must be using them as bomb-proof material since these fucking things always seem to survive bomb blasts, airplane crashes etc.
I actually completely support the Foreign Policy article's call for creating an open coalition including Russia, which is obviously why I suspect that won't come to pass. Handled properly, this terrible tragedy could serve a purpose to de-escalate tensions between Russia and NATO.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/1...ic-state.html?referer=https://www.google.com/ The NYT is saying it is likely there will be a "more aggressive US policy" in Syria. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/paris-terror-attacks-chilling-moment-6834077 First British victim identified.
Honestly right now all the United States needs to do is to chill out and stop whining about Russia bombing Al-Nusra and the Islamic Front, pour in the troops and let them say hello. They aren't bombing what they term the SDF or the Kurds. I'm sure Russia would be more than happy to keep throwing bombs at ISIS as well. Then when all is said and done you can get rid of Assad as a person - hell, trial him for all I care - and then they can try to work out a solution all parties can live with. You know, including the Syrian people. Say what you want about the butcher Assad but he isn't bombing civilian airplanes, suiciding stuff into buildings, bombing subway trains, shooting up Paris and threatening war on Western civilization as we know it. At least, there's that. Pipe dream? Yeah, probably...
This thread is too depressing. I need to stop obsessing about it. I think I will go get a pistachio gelato and a cup of coffee and just hang out listening to music at the cafe or something.
Do you know how many civilian deaths Assad is responsible for? Or do you just not give a shit, because they're only Syrian civilians and not proper European ones?
Best guess is they thought they'd get France to back down like Spain after Madrid. But that was a war unsupported by the Spanish people; they (rightly) considered it unjust. ISIS, on the other hand, clearly needs to be dealt with. If they weren't before, they are definitely at war with Europe now, and arguably NATO.
We need to take on these attackers at the cesspit of despotism they came from - Brussels. The suggested responses, though they could eliminate ISIS in Syria and Iraq, still don't address all the other ISIS affiliates in Libya and throughout the region, and show only that we're willing to attack the Islamists with guns and bombs but are still terrified of attacking Islam with words. This problem won't end until Westerners have no problem telling Muslims that they're following a lying rapist pedophile false prophet inspired by Satan.
True, but a natural reaction. No one in Europe is bothered by dead Syrians, Iraqi's etc. When attacks occur close to home then people start getting angry. As for everyone getting together to take out ISIS...it's not going to happen. Why? because the powers that be don't want ISIS gone. Hell, even Russia who were being lauded as the ones to defeat ISIS have been targetting the other rebels groups more than ISIS. There's a reason why the US, Europe, Turkey, Russia and the Arabs have only put in a half-hearted effort to fight ISIS. What that reason is, fuck knows but someone powerful obviously has a use for them and needs them around.
No, I'm thinking at this stage the option resulting in the minimum of bloodshed required to stabilize the country is the plan I laid out. One autonomous Kurdish region within Syria and the rest controlled by the current Syrian state apparatus preferrably with Assad removed from power. For your information I've been beat up now and again by fascists since I was eight for liking people of the "wrong" skin color and the "wrong" origin.
Back Assad? Yes, supporting murdering scumbags in the Middle East because they're currently killing the people we want dead has never, ever, not once nosiree, EVER turned around and bitten us in the ass. The fact both our asscheeks are covered in puncture wounds consistent with the size and shape of human incisors and molars is in fact a completely unrelated issue.
Remember what you wrote here when your flapping your gums over Republicans when there is another mass shooting.
Jesus Christ. I am advocating strategically backing the Syrian state apparatus which just so happens to be controlled by the Assad regime at this moment, as it has been since 1970. You know, the Syrian Arab Army, the Supreme Constitutional Court, the Syrian People's Council. But sure, go ahead building your strawman, I'm too tired to debate it.
But it is precisely this state apparatus that is responsible for most of the death and destruction in Syria.
And American leftists continue to prove they are stupid beyond all doubt..... http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...-complain-about-paris-stealing-the-spotlight/
True but there's only so much Russia can do. Russia's main priority is to first stabilize the government and that means primarily fighting Al-Nusra, the Islamic Front and allied factions at first since these are the ones who have been the major threat to the Alawite heartland. They're currently involved in heavy fighting precisely against ISIS, but you need more than the relatively small force they've deployed in order to win a war. They're mostly running close air support and that's it. Now, why they haven't done more, could be many reasons. Being cheapskates. Not wanting all the hoopla that would come with a massive intervention. Secretly being unwilling to truly annihilate the opposition, even if I think that unlikely. In one sense yes, in another sense no. The state apparatus is a tool. It's a question who's wielding the tool and if said tool can be modified. I don't advocate its destruction.
The Syrian regime was secular, and Christians, Sunnis, Shias, Alawites, and Druze lived together. Unfortunately the Sunnis were eaten up with crazy, so since the 1920's the government had made sure they couldn't take over and kill everybody. During the Arab Spring (Thanks Hillary) the government finally lost control. It's been ugly ever since. Recall that Assad wasn't destined for leadership and instead went to Britain and became an eye-doctor. When he took power his first moves were to reform the police state and give people freedom of speech. That went badly really fast and he had to crack down again. His regime has to be repressive because his country is filled with genocidal monsters.
Well sure, we all saw how well that went in Iraq. But the bolded part is a very big if; and if you back the apparatus you back the regime that holds it at present.
http://news.yahoo.com/two-men-linked-paris-attacks-registered-migrants-greece-195255102.html A second attacker identified as a fake Syrian refugee. On a different note, the pistachio gelato was excellent, the cafe Americano only so so, but I also bought a bottle of guanabana juice which was great (like a cross between strawberries and banana with a hint of citrus). I highly recommend.
