Only way to stop those attacks is for those countries to get out of the Middle East which will never happen so expect more attacks to come.
Iraq was never a NATO mission. Iraq never attacked America. When al-Qaeda attacked America, harboured by the Taliban, France (and Canada, and most of NATO) provided large contributions to that mission. NATO stood beside America when it was attacked. There is no debating that point. America has an obligation to defend France and others in kind.
After 9/11 France was there to offer several nuclear attack submarines, a few aircraft for recon and a handful of troops to aid in the war in Afghanistan. The least we can do is contribute an attack sub to help fight ISIS.
US only has an obligation to defend France if France invokes the charter in NATO and NATO finds that it meets requirements. It is not automatic.
what world war are you taling about?
name the countries and strategy
Well, one could see how Russa and the US could agree on fighting ISIS but then disagree on what the post-ISIS structure would be, and that could escalate.
Also ISIS could attack Israel directly and that might escalate.
We are not at WWIII yet, but it is a powder keg over there (always has been, but now there are extra sparks flying around)
imo, the fact that only one of the terrorists was a refugee proves that humanitarian efforts are having and should be expected to have minimal effect on national security. who cares about the one guy who got in as a refugee when 7 guys can get in by other means? that’s an incredibly low ratio to get all riled up about. be more scrutinizing on your selection of refugees and you’ll get that ratio down to zero. denying all refugees is akin to murdering some of them. i’m not okay with letting thousands of refugees die as a result of a decision made by my leaders in a moment of fear.
the comparison isn’t “do you take one Syrian at the risk of losing 10 French”, it is “are you okay with killing thousands of Syrians to save a few, or potentially zero, French”.
i dont see the first one happening if it has not happened yet between the 2 countries. although russia is in dire financial situation.
so if isis atttacks isreal who is ww3 between?
I agree with MLA, the fact that 1 of the terrorists slipped in as a refugee proves nothing about thousands of refugees being terrorists. At least one of those guys was also native french, so maybe we should kick the French out of France too?
I get that having lots of refugees is scary. But there’s no indication that if France had not let any refugees in, this attack would have been thwarted or substantially less deadly.
How Europe will adapt without becoming a security state and abandoning privacy protections is a big question, though. I don’t see how they can do it, unless the answer is simply to put up with more attacks (which I don’t see them choosing).
Kid you are charter holder!!!
What’s the use of CFA when you can’t beat a dead horse!!
All I am hearing about France w/ their president asking for a constitutional amendment giving far more powers to attack ISIS… this reminds me of the exact response W & Cheney had after 9/11. Its ended up in over a decade & several trillion dollars spent. I would hope France would act rationally and rush into things.
I’m not going to go “full itera”, but it’s not unreasonable to argue that the frequency of these attacks in France is correlated with large French Muslim communities with direct or indirect ties to the Middle East. The Charlie Hebdo shooters, for instance, came from immirant families and established ties to Al-Qaeda through their communities. The suspects of this larger and more recent Paris attack also had immigrant ties, through refugee status, or through other means. If the overall presence of Muslim immigrant communities in France - from refugees, or from other legal or illegal means - was smaller, perhaps the influence of terrorist groups would also decrease. Even if only 1 out of 100,000 immigrants is a potential terrorist, halving the number of immigrants could also halve the number of potential terrorists.
By this logic we should be deporting all outcast white males between the ages of like 13-24 because they are far more likely to go on a shooting rampage in the US. I get the point your making, but you can extrapolate that to so many other situations that people in this country would call absurd. Its only “ok” in the minds of so many because they view muslim immigrants different than white people.
I did not suggest any policy action above. I just acknowledged itera’s point that immigrant friendly policies might increase the likelihood of terrorism.
But when it comes to policy, denying future immigration is more practical than deporting existing immigrants. France could, for instance, issue fewer visas to people from certain countries. It is not practical to single out certain demographics, since people tend to come over with families. However, it would not be unreasonable if France adopted broadly stricter immigration rules in response to this attack.
#Norway is next target!!!
^
He is back it seems.
why not create a refugee area in the middle east. Use the firepower and money of the US and its coalition to establish no fly zone, safe area for refugees in their land.
My utter lack of intelligence and knowledge of the situation makes it difficult to comprehend but allowing them in to provide the refugees with safety and security is what humanity should do. Everyone can help out someone right? We can’t just ignore these refugees knowing that vast majority of them are victims but then again the small percentage of them can wreak absolute havoc in our societies…So what is the best thing to do?
scary.
on the other hand, if we accept all refugees, the vast majority of who’s left will be terrorists then we can just carpet bomb the whole ISIL caliphate. solution!