Why do you have this ‘us’ and ‘them’ mentality? It’s strange, self-defeating and will get you nowhere. Russia and India experienced urban-style warfare and terrorism long before Paris and warned the world about it. Nigeria is waging a war on Boko Haram by themselves with limited funds. Where is this solidarity with them? This kind of tribalism is tragic. Lebanon and Turkey are on the frontlines of this mess (though maybe Turkey have only themselves to blame). We saw the absolute disaster of Syria when the ‘West’ tried to exclude Putin. This needs a concentrated global approach and even then as Former Trader noted it is not nailed on what will happen.
Yes but it’s important to note that the majority of the attackers are French nationals and France is hosting one of the least refugee populations not only in Europe but in the world. Even before the regugee crisis Paris burned at an interval of every 3-4 years like clockwork be it riots or terrorism. The manner in which their North African population is ostracrized from mainstream society is the biggest problem in France. These guys are denied national ID cards which is a must to carry at all time in France and these kind of conditions provide the perfect fermenting ground for their ideology.
France can bomb Syria all they want but unless they sort out their internal problems nothing will really change.
Also, as Formed Trader said, it might sound depressing but we will not win a conventional battle with these guys. ISIS might be barbaric but it is an extremely intelligent organization with the ex-baathists of Sadaam running the show. The best thing we can do is shrug our shoulders and turn the other cheek. Ramp up spending on counter-intelligence. Understand, that a few attacks will slip through the cracks and realize this is the world we now live in. You still have a higher chance of dying in a road accident than a terrorist attack.
There are other quirky methods we could use but I am not sure how it will be implemented. These guys thrive ont he fact that they get media attention and their names splashed all over the global news. If media organizations agree to not cover them is such a sensationalistic manner a major chunk if their incentive is gone.
It’s also important to note that this is perfect fodder for the Right. They view the world on the same stark black and white canvas as ISIS and this is what ISIS wants. If the world turns their back on the refugees then ISIS gets validation in their outlook and their propoganda will have more credibility i.e revenge for the Christian crusades and so on. In times like these, it is important to embrace the greyzone and show ISIS that they cannot create an atmosphere of fear and distrust.
Angela Merkel gets this. She deserves every bit of support she can get.
Because its us versus ISIS. They have directly threatened my country. They have attacked openly with violence the citizens of a NATO member state. How is it not is versus them? They are a state determined to create a global Sunni Islamic terror state by killing, raping and kidnapping as many of my countrymen and allies as possible. If you’re not against ISIS, you’re with them. End of story.
I wish Nigeria well in their battle against terrorism, but Boko Haram does not threaten me in my home, nor have they attacked any state for which my country has a military alliance with. If Boko Haram was an issue outside of its borders or a threat to western democracy in our home countries, then I’d support dealing with them as well.
The disaster was not excluding Putin, it was supporting the Arab spring in the first place. But now we all have to live with Obama’s mistakes and we need to crush ISIS, even if it requires 100,000 NATO boots on the ground. What you don’t seem to understand is that NATO has a mutual defense agreement, one the Americans relied on after 9/11, that demands action against ISIS in the wake of these attacks on France. I don’t expect someone outside of the democratic west to understand the cooperation between countries like France, America and my country. These agreements are in place because we value our security and mutual way of life. We have all agreed this is worth defending. So yes. It is the western democratic powers against ISIS. They have attacked us with the sworn objective to do it again. So now we are fully engaged, or at least should be.
Scatman is right, Islamic extremism, regardless of the group, is a threat to everybody including Nigeria and Russia. Simply reducing it to the attack of one group on a NATO state is foolish, even from a keyboard warrior like you. If you’re not against the threat of Islamic extremist groups like Boko Haram, you’re with them.
Anyways, nobody cares about Canada. What’s more important is what the U.S. should be doing. I’m on board with Obama’s strategy of embedding SF advisors to develop Kurdish capabilities, hopefully operations like Sinjar can continue. However, the political opposition doesn’t have the patience to give it the time it needs to work.
Anonymous has stated that they are waging a cyber-war against ISIS and are hacking into social media sites to find ISIS members. How weird will it be if they release a list of ISIS operatives around the world?
Agreed on the latter point. The first point is not shocking, connecting with like-minded individuals is the POINT of the platforms and that is what they are doing. Its the same thing teenage girls all over the western world are and I wouldnt consider them some kind of social media geniuses, they just use the platform the way it was meant to be used. I can only imagine Western powers use it about as effectively as most of the poor advertisements I read on social media.
This move is confusing at first glance to a lot of people because they’ve clearly brought sidelined forces to bare on themselves.
From what I can tell they were really struggling with lost momentum both through recruitment and on the ground and I think they were struggling with the transition from rogue mauraders to ruling government where you now have to clock in for a 9-5 and fix highways. It also looked like their hold on the local populations was waning as a result and they were beginning to cede key ground as the monotony of being contained to an area set in and they’d run out of PR stunts. That forced them to make the leap to exporting terrorism in the absense of other options. These are the final flailing actions of a organization about to burn itself out.
I agree, what the U.S. does is more critical, especially since Canada’s weak kneed PM doesn’t believe in standing up for NATO. You’d see the Kurdish minority take over Syria then? Is that realistic? What’s Obama’s end game? He has none.
Just today, there is a news story about how French police have raided the homes of over 100 known terrorism suspects, confiscating guns, bombs, and rocket launchers in the process. Maybe part of the issue is not that France (and by extension, other Western countries) cannot do a better job at policing potential terrorists, but that their laws require them to do this in a way that protects privacy, personal property and free speech of French citizens. Perhaps this event will drive the French towards less privacy and more intrusive security.
Am I the only one who believes the US should stop fighting/funding the fight on “isis” and focus on domestic problems (quasi isolatist, i know)? A pc war will never win with soliders who blend into civilians. either wage a blanket war and accept mass civilian casualities will follow, or don’t fight at all. Since the former would never pass, i tend to take the stance of why bother and focus on US problems while maintaining the necessary funding to do preventive attacks to US citizens.
So the U.S. calls on NATO allies to give legitimacy to its operations when it’s attacked, but when the same allies are attacked the U.S. should turtle and leave them high and dry?
First step would be to stop funding “moderates” in the middle east. All these groups have direct access to modern weapons via sponsorship of Russia, Iran, Suadi Arbia, Qatar and the US to fight a war each sponsoring country is too afraid to fight themselves (for good reason).
We’ve been supporting regime changes in the middle east since the 90’s and it’s gotten us absolutely no where.
World war is definitely a possibility when there is hatred towards a certain religion!!However if it happens it will be interesting to see the cartel this time around!! If the oil producing countries and their allies were to lose the war,be prepared to see another political war between the first world countries to capture the nonrenewable resource!!!
absent the validity of the iraq war, did france, a nato country, partake in that endevour? When i studied in italy, i can recall how academia, and italians alike, labeled america as this evil country. It’s never been quid pro quo with the support and it never will. Many countries alike proclaim how terrible america is, until they are in need, and then you see the quick turncoat style.
From a different perspective, these target cruise missles are extremely expensive yet I don’t believe they are effective in this style of combat. Furthermore, funding some “allies” may turn against the US in the future (havent we seen this before?). There is always going to be this anti-authority sentiment (i see it here in the states with police), I suggest no longer being the world police. instead, shrug that responsbility and focus on cancer/disease.
Hmm but everything is a matter of scale. US will never fully withdraw from these operations. However, most people would probably agree that the US has a disproportionate influence and bears a disproportionate cost for military activity in the Middle East and other regions. If the US were to reduce military presence abroad now, its NATO allies should remember all the times they criticized the US for being overly militaristic in the past.