The Street > The Lounge
Paris
manwe:
as far as I understand it the reason for the Paris attacks is that #1: European Jihadists can't get to Daesh anymore cos the Kurds control most of their borders and won't let them through (maybe even that many Western countries have started to take measures to stop the outflow of radicals.) and #2 or 3, or whatever number we're on; to lure the west into another military 'intervention' / invasion.
for them it's a win-win situation: they get obliterated - good, it'll unite the muslims and bring about the end of the world.
they win - i mean it's pretty much impossible, but that would also fulfil the prophecy.
isis is much more stringent in their 7th century application of the religion than pretty much any other faction of islam has been, comparing them to normal people that have emigrated from the region is like comparing your basic western jewish person to a hasidic jew in israel that refuses to work the light switch on sabbath.
but based on the atlantic article, it seems pretty much unavoidable that they will implode by themselves; they're some of the most hate filled antisocial arseholes ever, even by the region's extremely low standards. they have to live up to so many silly rules and prophecies, and their fans are such ardent sticklers for the scripture, that it seems impossible they won't anger them by some serious misstep sometime very soon.
JFax:
Have a hard time understanding how you can become so religeous that Wahhabism or similar becomes an option. No music, kill everyone etc. thats not a fun way to live!
alaskun:
--- Quote from: alaskun on November 16, 2015, 04:37:37 PM ---holy shit, are you kidding me -
Paris terror attacks are a victory for Syria’s Assad
--- End quote ---
more of the same bullshit.
Putin comes in from the cold: Desperate world leaders cosy up to Russian President to get him to join the fight against ISIS
16 November 2015
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3320174/Russia-offered-compromises-future-Syrian-dictator-Assad-return-joining-fight-against-ISIS.html
this is the narrative they're running with, still acting like what russia's been doing in syria for the past month and a half was bad/wrong/innefective because (they say) putin was only targeting anti assad fighters, not isis. Nevermind the fact that those fighters are repeatedly/consistently associated with/proven to be just as bad as daesh, or that isis claimed responsibility for blowing up that russian airliner with 224 people on it in retaliation for russia attacking them...
I know people will cry about a dailymail link, but I'm just pointing out the false storyline
Cole:
Clearly military intervention just isn't working. The whole airstrike campaign was a good idea in theory, but you can't beat an insurgency from the air. Hell, you can't even win one from the ground, especially in the middle east. Look at Russia, then the US and then finally NATO in recent years. I'd like to say aid is the best way to go about this, but that doesn't work with radical groups either (Hotel Rwanda, anyone?)
I just don't even know what to think about this. Like Alaskun said, it's scary. Like legitimately scary. I'm kind of at a loss here, the emotionally charged option seems like the best one and that's killing them all. It's just not practical or even possible really.
Whether or not the US or Russia or whoever have funded terror groups throughout the years is a moot point. Mostly because when it happened, the landscape of global politics (probably the wrong way to say it, but you get the gist... I hope) was wildly different. When the US was funding and training the Mujahideen, wasn't it the '70's and Russia was in Afghanistan and the Cold War was still raging? Ultimately, the US figured that the Muj weren't going to end up killing them 30 or 40 years later, that's just the cost of doing business in a guerrilla war.
alaskun:
--- Quote from: Cole on November 17, 2015, 09:42:12 AM ---Whether or not the US or Russia or whoever have funded terror groups throughout the years is a moot point. Mostly because when it happened, the landscape of global politics (probably the wrong way to say it, but you get the gist... I hope) was wildly different. When the US was funding and training the Mujahideen, wasn't it the '70's and Russia was in Afghanistan and the Cold War was still raging? Ultimately, the US figured that the Muj weren't going to end up killing them 30 or 40 years later, that's just the cost of doing business in a guerrilla war.
--- End quote ---
One of the main architects of that situation, and thus one of the creators of bin laden/911, is pushing the same exact garbage today.
Brzezinski: Obama should retaliate if Russia doesn't stop attacking U.S. assets
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/zbigniew-brzezinski-financial-times-op-ed-obama-retaliate-russia-214438#ixzz3nihyR9q9
--- Quote ---10/05/15
The United States should threaten to retaliate if Russia does not stop attacking U.S. assets in Syria, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in a Financial Times op-ed published Sunday, urging "strategic boldness," with American credibility in the Middle East and the region itself at stake.
Moscow's apparent decision to strike non-Islamic State targets and those of Syrian rebels backed by the Central Intelligence Agency "at best" reflects "Russian military incompetence," and worst, "evidence of a dangerous desire to highlight American political impotence," wrote Brzezinski, the national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter and a strong supporter of current President Barack Obama.
And if Russia continues to pursue non-ISIL targets, the U.S. should retaliate, he added.
"In these rapidly unfolding circumstances the U.S. has only one real option if it is to protect its wider stakes in the region: to convey to Moscow the demand that it cease and desist from military actions that directly affect American assets," he said.
"The Russian naval and air presences in Syria are vulnerable, isolated geographically from their homeland," Brzezinski noted. "They could be 'disarmed' if they persist in provoking the US."
The problem in the Middle East is bigger than Syria, Brzezinski wrote, and it would behoove Russia to cooperate with the U.S., who cannot as it did in the past, rely upon the United Kingdom and France to play a "decisive role" in the region.
"But, better still, Russia might be persuaded to act with the U.S. in seeking a wider accommodation to a regional problem that transcends the interests of a single state," he added.
Instead of what he calls a "new form of neocolonial domination," the United States, along with China and Russia, must act in concert to protect their mutual interests, he warned.
"China would doubtless prefer to stay on the sidelines. It might calculate that it will then be in a better position to pick up the pieces. But the regional chaos could easily spread northeastward, eventually engulfing central and northeastern Asia. Both Russia and then China could be adversely affected. But American interests and America’s friends — not to mention regional stability — would also suffer. It is time, therefore, for strategic boldness," he concluded.
--- End quote ---
Using "freedom fighters" and "moderate opposition" terror squads to topple governments, carry out proxy wars, and goad russia into more destruction.
They KNOW, and have for decades, that this will only lead to more terror attacks and wars. The blowback is inevitable, and they don't just expect it, they're actively managing/provoking it and twisting the results into excuses to punish the rest of us further
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version