Paris attacks.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rilot said:
However, blaming a large group of Syrian civilians for the actions of IS is not only inappropriate, but dangerous. If we start killing civilians willy nilly we will make more extremists out of whoever is left.
Click to expand...

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the Syrians really,
they kick off an un-winnable war with Assad, then when that goes to **** they run away like pussies.

ISIS walk in and (surprise!) turn out to be far worse than Assad, but instead of taking Western weapons/training and fighting back, they all skip the border into Germany for a cushy life that we all end up paying for.

They'd rather Putin/Obama do all their dirty work for them, while they sit like parasitical cuckoos in German villages, moaning about the food.

Dump the lot of them back on the Turkish border, then when Putin is done with ISIS, send them all home. Nobody wants them in Europe.
 
Raz said:
I meant the 40+ killed yesterday but yes you get my point. I mentioned elsewhere about the 200 killed in Nigeria in January but the world's focus was on je suis charlie.
Click to expand...

I feel there's a distinction - free speech vs the mindless terrorism.

I understand that, to a muslim, it is not possible to question the Koran or Allah (starting from anything but "true" logically). However I believe the je suit charlie attacks were just an excuse to escalate the war, justify terrorism and nothing todo with objection to free speech.

To me - to be able to fundamentally question anything, what is being taught and everything is the first step of validity.
 
Last edited:
Mynight said:
We're not them, by doing as they do we become what we're currently livid at.

Personally I agree with what Rilot suggests.

We can't say O were attacking you because you killed our civilians and indiscriminately bomb them. It needs to be surgical, unfortunately I dont think there is anyway of stopping this from happening in reality. Any retaliation will provide more victims to further the brainwashing ability of these groups.

Theres simply no way to detect who is an isn't an extremist. If we silence the non violent hate speakers all we do is create a two tier free speech system which will only further the feelings of resentment and thus lead to more extremists.
Click to expand...

If another country, e.g., Russia, bombed us, we would bomb them in no time, and it wouldn't just be military targets (although they would be the priority). Most likely we would bomb them on a tit-for-tat basis (i.e., if they bomb one of our cities, we bomb one of theirs). Does that logic not apply to Syria?

Again, I'm not saying we should necessarily do it, I'm just asking, could that be a more effective strategy in the long run? Sometimes in war you have to do things that aren't nice. Showing them quite clearly that if you kill hundreds of our citizens, we will kill hundreds of yours, and do it quickly, wouldn't that act as a deterrent. Because at the end of the day, looking at it militarily, they have a limited capacity to attack us. They can stage these periodic terrorist attacks, but we can get at them any time we want, so it's a game they can't win.
 
SciNeT said:
Repercussions incoming, let's hope this is the tip of the iceberg and the sign of things to come :


Poland's future minister for European affairs said his government will not accept EU-mandate quotas for refugees following the terrorist attacks in France.

https://www.rt.com/news/322051-poland-rejects-refugee-quota/
Click to expand...

This is brilliant news. Hopefully this will all unravel before any major damage is done. Thankfully the UK never signed up to the deal to begin with, but it would be a good thing for all of Europe if other EU states reversed policy on Syrian migrants.
 
kissenger said:
If another country, e.g., Russia, bombed us, we would bomb them in no time, and it wouldn't just be military targets (although they would be the priority). Most likely we would bomb them on a tit-for-tat basis (i.e., if they bomb one of our cities, we bomb one of theirs). Does that logic not apply to Syria?

Again, I'm not saying we should necessarily do it, I'm just asking, could that be a more effective strategy in the long run? Sometimes in war you have to do things that aren't nice. Showing them quite clearly that if you kill hundreds of our citizens, we will kill hundreds of yours, and do it quickly, wouldn't that act as a deterrent. Because at the end of the day, looking at it militarily, they have a limited capacity to attack us. They can stage these periodic terrorist attacks, but we can get at them any time we want, so it's a game they can't win.
Click to expand...

We aren't fighting a country though, we are fighting a silly religion
 
The West created the fore-runners of IS, the Taliban to fight the Russians in Afghanistan and as history always shows these armed people simply do not go away once they are no longer wanted. The Taliban are about to take over Afghan now. The West's actions in Iraq spawned other groups and just as in Syria they change sides frequently according to the BBC's security correspondent. Some others are definitely on one side or the other due to religious bias.
Talk of 'nuking' only shows how immature some posters are. What areas? They change quite often or are you saying the civilians do not matter?
So by bombing we would end the matter? Really. You would kill some and a load of civilians until the remnants leave the area for somewhere else and you have also created a angry civilian area ripe for recruitment for the next incarnation of IS.
There are 'boots on the ground' in the form of the Kurds but they are being bombed by turkey because of other matters.
Libya never used to have any IS until Cameron created regime change. Now it too is a mess and a threat of Europe's southern border.

The common theme is the West's meddling in affairs which leads to various terror groups. So the obvious answer is stop meddling and leave the area alone to create their own future. They can change brutal regimes if they want ,,, after all they got rid of the West's planted stooge in Iran.
 
Last edited:
woppy101 said:
There is no way they could launch such an coordinated attack in a day
Click to expand...


Easily could have, if they had people on the ground and weapons ready to go.

In fact, the targets make such a plan quite easily doable, I would argue the only reason they couldn't get inside the football stadium was due to it being such short notice.
 
Anyone else find these 'attacks' fishy? Just as Europe finds itself amidst a swathe of uncontrollable immigration from refugees from Syria - a seemingly undetected terrorist attack takes place that rocks Europe to its core and suddenly border controls are restored and Syrian passports are found in the wreckage.

Seems very convenient

RIP to the victims
 
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
 
kissenger said:
If another country, e.g., Russia, bombed us, we would bomb them in no time, and it wouldn't just be military targets (although they would be the priority). Most likely we would bomb them on a tit-for-tat basis (i.e., if they bomb one of our cities, we bomb one of theirs). Does that logic not apply to Syria?

Again, I'm not saying we should necessarily do it, I'm just asking, could that be a more effective strategy in the long run? Sometimes in war you have to do things that aren't nice. Showing them quite clearly that if you kill hundreds of our citizens, we will kill hundreds of yours, and do it quickly, wouldn't that act as a deterrent. Because at the end of the day, looking at it militarily, they have a limited capacity to attack us. They can stage these periodic terrorist attacks, but we can get at them any time we want, so it's a game they can't win.
Click to expand...


Its a game we cant win either if we cant predict these attacks. All by bombing indiscriminately would do would provide a greater recruiting pool.

A war with Russia (or similar) would be a completely different affair.

Why do we have issue with ISIS? Personally its their attacking of civilians, if they went after the people that caused them grief in the first place i.e. politicians I wouldn't be as annoyed. If we start doing the same how can we justify our actions. How can we condemn one groups actions but commit them ourselves?
 
sansnom said:
Anyone else find these 'attacks' fishy? Just as Europe finds itself amidst a swathe of uncontrollable immigration from refugees from Syria - a seemingly undetected terrorist attack takes place that rocks Europe to its core and suddenly border controls are restored and Syrian passports are found in the wreckage.

Seems very convenient

RIP to the victims
Click to expand...

Not for the dead people, no.
 
sansnom said:
Anyone else find these 'attacks' fishy? Just as Europe finds itself amidst a swathe of uncontrollable immigration from refugees from Syria - a seemingly undetected terrorist attack takes place that rocks Europe to its core and suddenly border controls are restored and Syrian passports are found in the wreckage.

Seems very convenient

RIP to the victims
Click to expand...



???

I think a better explanation is because of JJ. What are you implying anyway, that the state/establishment initiated this?

You need to get real I think.
 
glen8 said:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Click to expand...

So the best thing we can do is kill them first, right?
 
Mynight said:
Its a game we cant win either if we cant predict these attacks. All by bombing indiscriminately would do would provide a greater recruiting pool.
Click to expand...

Well that's just an assertion. It might do the opposite: it might deter them from attacking us. Neither of us knows for sure, but what we're doing now isn't working.

But let's say you're right and killing creates new recruits. Guess what we do then... kill the new recruits. They already hate us. They are already murdering our civilians by the hundreds. Taking out a Syrian city as a punishment is hardly going to make them hate us more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom