PARIS

[MoValley John]

There are 1.7 million Muslims living in or around Paris. 8 of them did this.

So, how do you "defeat" ISIS? You can't go capture their capital. ISIS is a religious ideology, it doesn't have a capital. You can't blockade their country or storm their borders. They don't have either. Do you kick 1.7 million Muslims out of Paris? If so, how do you do that? You can't attack their "army", particularly in Europe or the USA. The "enemy" Muslims look just like the "friendly" Muslims, and it just isn't politically correct to exterminate everyone with a specific religious belief just because a miniscule number are the "enemy".

This is an entirely different type of "war" than we are prepared to fight.

We might bomb the entire Middle east back to the Stone Age, but it only took 8 to carry out this attack. You'd have to kill every single one, and all those there who aren't ISIS would be exterminated as well.

More than eight of them did this. Eight that we know of, did this. Secondly, every country needs to harden their borders. Immigration needs to be selective and citizens need to be able to arm and defend themselves.

All that wouldn't completely prevent it, but it would greatly help.

[MoValley John]

Maybe you are unprepared, but I can guarantee there are plenty who are prepared to defend themselves and their families.

I am.

[pinstripers]

In the 1930's and 40's, I wonder how many Germans actually belonged to the Nazi party? A small minority, I imagine.

[shocka khan]

What happened in France can happen here. Those Latin Catholics you see could bring revolution with them. I'm not saying we shouldn't allow immigration, we should, but our current policy is crazy. Then again, you are in good shape, they pull that **** in Texas, concealed carry would stop it in five minutes.

San Francisco, on the other hand, is on the short list of easily attacked American cities.

We also have Pops, my soon-to-be 95 year old father and WWII vet with 19 guns on the border, protecting Arizona.

[Aargh]

There's a lot of saber rattling going on and a lot of "Kill 'em all - let God sort it out". We've seen that military in the area doesn't bring about any stability. It might actually make things worse. Making people who have nothing to lose very angry empowers them to do exactly what happened in Paris.

Elections absolutely do not work. Iraq should have made that very, very clear. When elections are lost in the Middle East, the losers just go buy guns and bullets.

Have economic methods been explored? Perhaps target their sources of funding and arms. See if those can be cut off or limited. It didn't take much ammo or materials to do what was done in Paris.

Bombing the entire area back to a primitive state and just starting over has the problem of leaving 19 million Muslims in Europe and 3 million in America more militant than they are now.

Is there an acceptable number of deaths from a permanent military occupation force in the Middle East? Is there an acceptable cost of funding that? There is zero tolerance for terrorist deaths outside the Middle East. A military presence in the Middle East would lead to loss of lives there, and might do nothing to reduce the loss of lives outside the Middle East.

I don't claim to have answers to these difficult questions. Neither military action nor elections seem to be effective.

[shockmonster]

ISIS holds territory. ISIS has an army. ISIS has an infrastructure that makes decisions to recruit others throughout the world to fight for them. Some of them come to ISIS and others are asked to kill others in other countries. The sooner that you defeat the idea that they have an Islamic State, the sooner you take away the idea that they are superior and the romanticism that goes with it.

We don't have to defeat them by ourselves. They are a threat to other countries too but their is a leadership vacuum when we do not engage and show others that we are IN too. We have to be smarter in what we do but we know for sure that LEADING FROM BEHIND doesn't work.

[Dave Stalwart]

We will be in once we have a catastrophe of our own. I guess we're just gonna wait till every country including ours gets hit to finally do something.

Terrorism is such a crazy topic. It used to be that you identify your enemy, defeat them and take their territory or whatever it was that you wanted.
Now, with terrorism, there is no enemy to even fight. You just have to let them hit you over and over again and listen to people debate about how not to deal with it. Dealing with it means the potential for tons of collateral damage on YOUR hands. Not defeating it means tons (probably more) of prolonged collateral damage on their hands. Either way, innocent people will probably be sacrificed.

So I guess we've decided that the ability to say we didn't physically cause the collateral damage is more important than trying to protect as many people as possible from evil. Or the ability to say we didn't call anyone out or judge anyone's beliefs is more important than the people who will die.

At some point you have to call something what it is and deal with it. I have no idea how off the top of my head but after what just happened, a little shock and awe sure feels like a nice idea.

Maybe I'm all wrong, but let me just be angry and say what I want right now...

[shocka khan]

There's a lot of saber rattling going on and a lot of "Kill 'em all - let God sort it out". We've seen that military in the area doesn't bring about any stability. It might actually make things worse. Making people who have nothing to lose very angry empowers them to do exactly what happened in Paris.

Elections absolutely do not work. Iraq should have made that very, very clear. When elections are lost in the Middle East, the losers just go buy guns and bullets.

Have economic methods been explored? Perhaps target their sources of funding and arms. See if those can be cut off or limited. It didn't take much ammo or materials to do what was done in Paris.

Bombing the entire area back to a primitive state and just starting over has the problem of leaving 19 million Muslims in Europe and 3 million in America more militant than they are now.

Is there an acceptable number of deaths from a permanent military occupation force in the Middle East? Is there an acceptable cost of funding that? There is zero tolerance for terrorist deaths outside the Middle East. A military presence in the Middle East would lead to loss of lives there, and might do nothing to reduce the loss of lives outside the Middle East.

I don't claim to have answers to these difficult questions. Neither military action nor elections seem to be effective.

They make a ton of money smuggling oil, so to do that, you need to cut their supply lines. The Yazidi's did that for us this week at Sinjar. We need to make sure they hold the ground captured this week.

Then we need to cut off their alternate supply lines so they can't reroute and/or capture the oil fields.

If we can do that, the only thing holding them up will be the Wahabi's and the house of Saud's a little tight on cash right now.

[wu_shizzle]

Can we at least stop with the politically correct narrative that military age men from Islamic countries are refugees deserving of American support?

[MoValley John]

Can we at least stop with the politically correct narrative that military age men from Islamic countries are refugees deserving of American support?

This isn't going to happen. We are asked to stop the "partisan" politics on this issue because what happened in France is nothing more than an indictment of liberal policies both in the US and internationally. The liberal base really only wants to pause, regroup, retool the message, and double down on everything they have done. By the time Meet the Press goes to air, we will have the new liberal talking points, including why it's important to bring them all in.

[pinstripers]

The worst thing that could happen to the Dems at election time would be for this to occur again.

[pinstripers]

In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Beneficent






Allah (ta’ala) said, They thought that their fortresses would protect them from Allah but Allah came upon them from where they had not expected, and He cast terror into their hearts so they destroyed their houses by their own hands and the hands of the believers. So take warning, O people of vision [Al-Hashr:2].

In a blessed battle whose causes of success were enabled by Allah, a group of believers from the soldiers of the Caliphate (may Allah strengthen and support it) set out targeting the capital of prostitution and vice, the lead carrier of the cross in Europe — Paris. This group of believers were youth who divorced the worldly life and advanced towards their enemy hoping to be killed for Allah’s sake, doing so in support of His religion, His Prophet (blessing and peace be upon him), and His allies. They did so in spite of His enemies. Thus, they were truthful with Allah — we consider them so — and Allah granted victory upon their hands and cast terror into the hearts of the crusaders in their very own homeland.

[Aargh]

Can we at least stop with the politically correct narrative that military age men from Islamic countries are refugees deserving of American support?

I think that's one of the most politically incorrect concepts that exists today. When you have a group of people who have sworn death to you, you don't invite them into your country. I don't want to put myself (or anybody else) into the position of sorting out the good ones from the bad ones, so just close the borders to all Muslims.

If all these refugees would have been forced to stay in the areas they abandoned, maybe there would be a resistance force operating behind the front lines working to take their persecutors down.

We feel so guilty for having put Japanese-Americans into camps during WWII, that now we even consider inviting our enemies to come into our country.

You want to enter this country? We take you to a gentleman's club, show you the naked women, have a drink with you, eat some pork rinds, and give your wife an examination that goes way past what TSA does at airports - in public.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a39727/paris-attacks-middle-eastern-oligarchies/

[Rlh04d]

There are 1.7 million Muslims living in or around Paris. 8 of them did this.

So, how do you "defeat" ISIS? You can't go capture their capital. ISIS is a religious ideology, it doesn't have a capital. You can't blockade their country or storm their borders. They don't have either. Do you kick 1.7 million Muslims out of Paris? If so, how do you do that? You can't attack their "army", particularly in Europe or the USA. The "enemy" Muslims look just like the "friendly" Muslims, and it just isn't politically correct to exterminate everyone with a specific religious belief just because a miniscule number are the "enemy".

This is an entirely different type of "war" than we are prepared to fight.

We might bomb the entire Middle east back to the Stone Age, but it only took 8 to carry out this attack. You'd have to kill every single one, and all those there who aren't ISIS would be exterminated as well.

A few things:

1) As John pointed out above, very little chance 8 people accomplished this.

2) Your last point is correct, and it's a major part of the problem. Even if you killed every single person in the Middle East, you would create new terrorists elsewhere. Terrorism as an ideology can't be defeated just by wiping them out, because every bomb we drop on a terrorism training camp has the possibility of killing an innocent man walking by, leaving his wife weeping and his children swearing vengeance. This is why terrorism is difficult to fight -- fighting it often creates more. The bigger the gun we use, the more chance for collateral damage and escalating terrorist creation.

3) I disagree that this is a different type of war than we're prepared to fight. Many of us are prepared to fight it. The problem is the American public at large have the memory of hamsters, bouncing from one hot story to the next. It takes a devastating attack against the Western world for us to pay attention, and who knows for how long. This is not a war we can fight and win with a populous that bounces back and forth between caring and not caring. Public sentiment over the last few years has been entirely against increasing the chances we can win this war.

4) ISIS does have boundaries, and in some ways you can "blockade their country" as you said. ISIS is not Al-Qaeda. ISIS even has a capital -- Raqqa, Syria. You cannot look at ISIS the same way as AQ, because it's not simply a terrorist organization. It's also a revolutionary army, and in many ways that creates new weaknesses that AQ, in it's decentralized structure, did not have.