Paris

[Narcoleptic Insomniac]

That Atlantic article was a great read.
How should we understand the Paris attacks within the context of the article?
If the immediate goal of ISIS is to expand the caliphate's borders and its ultimate goal is to trigger the countdown to judgment day then I see the point of the attacks being to provoke and compel the west to send ground troops to Syria so they can have their prophetic battle at Dabiq.


Edit: that tank woman is doing it for me.

[Prodigal Son]

I don't expect violence to stop. How do you make ideas susceptible to bullets?

[Narcoleptic Insomniac]

You can't.

But anyway, the idea is that if the west sends troops and IS get their asses kicked into oblivion at Dabiq it'd be a huge blow to their ideological platform because the prophecy would obviously not be realized. On the downside, they or others like al-Qaeda could spin it and use it as alleged proof that the west is trying to destroy all Muslims. And of course there's the recent historical precedent telling us that us invading countries ends up badly for everyone.

[condrbkr]

Do you really think the majority of ISIS is a bunch of brainwashed idiots who do it to fulfill a sense of prophecy? Really? They're people too. The same people who buy into all that prophetic nonsense are the same people who join the our military to kill ragheads and get their freedom hard ons. I'm sure a lot of them are doing it cause that's who the new shot callers are and they don't want to piss off a group that isn't afraid to kill one of their own. Maybe ISIS offers a job in a land where unemployment is extremely high and the way they see it is that fuck I'm probably not gonna ever engage in a land battle so why not. The same reason we can be disgruntled with our own system is probably the same way they see theirs. The difference is that here we have an ability to have discourse without believing that our heads are gonna get cut off.

There is this customer at work we call Saddam cause he has an uncanny resemblance to Saddam Hussein. He says he used to be a district chief to the police force involved with Taliban-era Afghanistan. He doesn't seem like the guy that buys ideological nonsense saying that he's both an alcoholic and gambler(which is heavily looked down upon in Muslim culture) but when he brought up his former of line of work, he talks like all that was just an opportunity to advance his own family. He's still an asshole though cause he blames everyone for his inability to ever win scratch offs and his drinking and driving and constantly pissing in the parking lot, and being a pompous douche in general. The reason I bring it up, he's for the most part a regular guy and I imagine there are a lot more like him than religious zealots hellbent on bring an apocalyptical end.

[JFax]

Huffinton article

Very good read, thank you for the link

[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]

holy shit, are you kidding me -

Paris terror attacks are a victory for Syria’s Assad

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]

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.

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

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.

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

[JFax]

It seems like the only way to maintain a sort of normal society in the area is through strong dictatorships. Egypt is still struggling tobget democracy up and working without creating terrorist factions, but if they succeed it would be a beacon of hope

[manwe]

To be honest no self contained revolution (the American Revolution doesn't count cos they were kicking the colonisers out), that I can think of anyway, has ever led to a democratic government.

Democracy is fycking hard, not even most of the west has a handle on it and countries like the us have been at it for 200+ years. So I have to somewhat agree with alaskun, despite his shady sources, that a lot of the deliberate western destabilization of the region seems either ridiculously optimistic, stupid, or, let's be real, malicious as fuck. It's pretty crazy to even suggest that creating a democratic regime out of nothing would have been a realistic or genuine goal for the invasions.

But now I think we just have to deal with the mess they created. Wait until Isis implodes, wait until things start to get better or worse on their own, and generally not fucking meddle anymore. As it is this is more destructive than old school colonization.

[JFax]

At first glance it would be logical to re-split the geopolitical division of countries that was made after WW1, the Sykes-Picot agreement.

A Kurdish national state would most probably be a really stable country. Its semi-autonomous in Iraq I think and if Assad falls it could probably be a possibility here too. I bet Turkey wouldnt be too thrilled about it though.

Then it would be an issue about what to do with Shiites and Sunni, if these could be divided into different states. Not sure if it would be a super idea, but it seems like the tension between the groups is what makes new democracies like Iraq fail. Could perhaps be an option, I mean, Pakistan India happened! They arent really the closest of friends though, and I forsee a bit Sunni/shia war in the decades to come.

[alaskun]

Agence France-Presse ‏@AFP 53 minutes ago
#BREAKING Lavrov says pre-conditions on Assad departure 'unacceptable' for joining forces against IS


after all the g20 pleasantries we're still trying to make the whole thing about taking out assad...

[alaskun]

George Takei Fears NSA Spying Will Lead to Something Much Worse

+

Justice Antonin Scalia says World War II-style internment camps could happen again

another credible person saying what happened in ww2 could happen again...

"how do we fix self-radicalized lone woofs, domestically?"

video- General Wesley Clark Promotes Internment Of 'Radicalized' US Citizens

july 18 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaPwqokBn9M

 Roberts asked him what we needed to do about "self-radicalization" which seems to be the short-hand for a Muslim (as opposed to a white supremacist or a conspiracy theorist or just some nut) who reads some crazy stuff on the internet and decides to go out in a blaze of glory:

    Clark: We have got to identify the people who are most likely to be radicalized. We've got to cut this off at the beginning. There are always a certain number of young people who are alienated. They don't get a job, they lost a girlfriend, their family doesn't feel happy here and we can watch the signs of that. And there are members of the community who can reach out to those people and bring them back in and encourage them to look at their blessings here.

    But I do think on a national policy level we need to look at what self-radicalization means because we are at war with this group of terrorists. They do have an ideology. In World War II if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn't say that was freedom of speech, we put him in a camp, they were prisoners of war.

So, if these people are radicalized and they don't support the United States and they are disloyal to the United States, as a matter of principle fine. It's their right and it's our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict. And I think we're going to have to increasingly get tough on this, not only in the United States but our allied nations like Britain, Germany and France are going to have to look at their domestic law procedures.

ron paul on it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX3vtBrx5F8

Last week, Retired General Wesley Clark, who was NATO commander during the US bombing of Serbia, proposed that “disloyal Americans” be sent to internment camps for the “duration of the conflict.” Discussing the recent military base shootings in Chattanooga, TN, in which five US service members were killed, Clark recalled the internment of American citizens during World War II who were merely suspected of having Nazi sympathies. He said: “back then we didn’t say ‘that was freedom of speech,’ we put him in a camp.”

He called for the government to identify people most likely to be radicalized so we can “cut this off at the beginning.” That sounds like “pre-crime”!

some of you will remember him from this 2007 clip where he admits america had planned to (deceptively) take out 7 counties after 9/11...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

Real Reason for Syria War Plans, from Gen. Wesley Clark

September, 2012

In this stunning but little-known speech from 2007, Gen. Wesley Clark claims America underwent a “policy coup” at the time of the 9/11 attacks. In this video, he reveals that, right after 9/11, he was privy to information contained in a classified memo: US plans to attack and remove governments in seven countries over five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

He was told: “We learned that we can use our military without being challenged …. We’ve got about five years to clean up the Soviet client regimes before another superpower comes along and challenges us.”

“This was a policy coup…these people took control of policy in the United States….”

he said this earlier this year...

General Wesley Clark: "ISIS Got Started Through Funding From Our Friends & Allies"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHLqaSZPe98

feb 2 2015

Adding that "they recruited the zealots and religious fundamentalists," Clark says 'we' create "Frankenstein."

and it's exactly what people like me have been pointing out/paying attention to for years, and what Putin brought up at the g20 two days ago...


Putin: ISIS financed from 40 countries, including G20 members
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96k_8ywt22g

16 Nov, 2015

 President Vladimir Putin says he’s shared Russian intelligence data on Islamic State financing with his G20 colleagues: the terrorists appear to be financed from 40 countries, including some G20 member states.

During the summit, “I provided examples based on our data on the financing of different Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) units by private individuals. This money, as we have established, comes from 40 countries and, there are some of the G20 members among them,” Putin told the journalists.

Putin also spoke of the urgent need to curb the illegal oil trade by IS.

"I’ve shown our colleagues photos taken from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil and petroleum products," he said.

“The motorcade of refueling vehicles stretched for dozens of kilometers, so that from a height of 4,000 to 5,000 meters they stretch beyond the horizon," Putin added, comparing the convoy to gas and oil pipeline systems.

It’s not the right time to try and figure out which country is more and which is less effective in the battle with Islamic State, as now a united international effort is needed against the terrorist group, Putin said.

Putin reiterated Russia’s readiness to support armed opposition in Syria in its efforts to fight Islamic State.

"Some armed opposition groups consider it possible to begin active operations against IS with Russia's support. And we are ready to provide such support from the air. If it happens it could become a good basis for the subsequent work on a political settlement,” he said.

“We really need support from the US, European nations, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran,” the president added.

Putin pointed out the change in Washington’s stance on cooperation with Moscow in the fight against the terrorists.

"We need to organize work specifically concentrated on the prevention of terrorist attacks and tackling terrorism on a global scale. We offered to cooperate [with the US] in anti-IS efforts. Unfortunately, our American partners refused. They just sent a written note and it says: ‘we reject your offer’,” Putin said.

“But life is always evolving and at a very fast pace, often teaching us lessons. And I think that now the realization that an effective fight [against terror] can only be staged together is coming to everybody,” the Russian leader said.

yet we're still acting like putin is a crazy aggressive murderer because "he's not helping remove/kill the president who isis wants dead?"


What's the difference between a refugee center and a detention facility?  What about the fact that US media for the past few years has been stating repeatedly that radicalized white conspiracy theorists are a bigger threat than ISIS or other terror groups.
What happens if americans start physically acting out against refugees? Somebody is going to have to be cordoned off for somebody else's safety, and it's really creepy how the media/splc/feds have been turning harder against people who talk about other people doing bad things, than they do against the people who actually do the bad things...

look at the people in germany getting raided/arrested right now for just saying mean things about migrants.  look at the tension between races in paris.  none of this is happening by surprise, it's being forced on us, and I believe it's going to get ugly.