In The News

[The Alien Predator]

And the fallout could affect thousands of innocent people not only in Syria, but in the surrounding countries too.

[Hubbs]

How Europe feels?

https://anongalactic.com/50000-march-in-poland-against-immigration/

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/618943/EU-flag-burned-Poland-Warsaw-Brussels-chants-eurosceptic

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/11989250/EU-flag-burned-as-tens-of-thousands-join-Warsaw-nationalist-demo.html

Mass protest march in Poland, up to 70,000, they burn the EU flag, they march against immigration into Europe and Poland.

[HuDaFuK]

One thing I will say, you can't help but feel this is gonna screw the whole Schengen plan several EU leaders are so keen on.

Making it easy for people to move between EU states is all well and good in principle, but when you start including all these countries that just don't have the rigorous border checks that the more developed nations can implement and maintain, it just means threats will slip through where security's lax and move on to the nations they want to target. Which by all accounts is exactly what happened with at least one of the attackers in this instance. Came in through Greece them moved on to France.

[THE CITY HUNTER]

You just have to take a look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

to understand how f* the situation is.
Funny to see that USA is allied to al-Qaeda after 9/11 because they oppose Syrian government.
It's also very indicative how many Jihadists' group are being supported by France, USA & co.

They might be the new ISIS in 10 years so simply destroying Isis isn't the answer.

Exactly first they have to be defeated through psychologically  and economic ways then the roots can be taken out also iraq needs a strong firm ruler not a puppet ruler.Also Muslims must do more not just condemn and do nothing they must do more.

[Hubbs]

Rolling Stone and Salon destroyed on Twitter as they make absurd liberal statements such as this...

[THE CITY HUNTER]

Rolling Stone and Salon destroyed on Twitter as they make absurd liberal statements such as this...

There was one twitter page that got the date wrong i think it was 11/11(article)

[PVTDukeMorrison]

I see people I know in real life that are scared that ISIS will attack the US and take over the world. They may be evil and horrible, I don't see them being powerful enough to take over the whole world anytime soon.

If people keep leaving Syria they'll take that over cos no ones gonna be left in the country to stop them lol!

If people keep leaving Syria; ISIS will have no one to operate the country and it's infrastructure. Does no one think about things like that? None the less ISis should be dealth with and yes that will take boots on the ground.

It would take a lot more than just boots bud. Unfortunately no country has the stomach to do what is necessary to properly defeat an insurgency.

Explain. Cause at the moment I'm reading that as nerve gassing the entire f**king nest or nuking the site from orbit. I just want to be sure I get where you're coming from. By boots I mean a full military invasion along with significant causalities.

Unfortunately, despite how much I would love to turn that whole region into glass, it's a lot more complicated than that. What I meant is that if a full on invasion were to take place in Syria it won't be like Normandy, think more Afghanistan 2.0, and the whole time we'd have to stay away from Assad's territory and the big Russian bear he has at his side.

So lets say we do invade, we have full boots one the ground from multiple different nations. At first IS is confident and actually attacks with a mix of conventional forces and guerrilla tactics. After a few weeks of their forces getting decimated by the first modern army they've ever had to face, they realize they aren't as good as they thought, so they now go full blown Taliban. They blend in with the local populace, bury IEDs in roads to hit convoys, that sort of shit. As long as we have the current counter insurgency doctrine, they've won. What we would need to do is hit hard, unfortunately that brings civilian casualties, and the moment a picture of a dead Syrian boy in a bombed out house ends up on twitter we become the bad guys, and the homefront is shot.

So to prevent that, the government controls the media, only what they want the people to see about the war gets through. So now we're in Syria, bombing the mosques and hospitals IS is using as weapon caches, this will no doubt bring about anger from the local population, and more will start to join up with ISIS. How do we deal with this?Well, the only way to completely destroy their ideology would be to kill every single one of them. But wait, now you just killed a little boys father, this kids gonna want to get revenge, now we have to kill him to, and everyone else that supports them. This includes women and children. If Iraq and Afghanistan taught us anything, it's that hearts and minds approach does not work, the Taliban are still strong in Afghanistan, and their numbers are still growing. We would have to police the local population, make them believe that what's happening is their fault, I'm talking full treaty of Versailles.

So lets say it's a success, we've bombed them to hell and all that remains of ISIS is a few pockets of barely functioning resistance. What do we do about the leadership in the country? We could take out Assad, risk WW3 with Russia, and try to enforce a Western democracy with a permanent military presence (Because that worked so well everywhere else), or we could use the other option. Unfortunately, all the people in these regions seem to understand is the sword, and dictatorships seem to be the only political option that works in these regions. So we let Assad stay, give him some funding under the table and let him and his forces keep the locals under control. Now we have every liberal arts graduate saying that we support a blood thirsty tyrant. If Assad is evil, then he's a necessary evil.

It's shitty, but this is the only way I can see a full blown invasion work out. Keep in mind you have all these "refugees" in places like Germany and France, I'm not so sure they'd support any sort of ground war.

[THE CITY HUNTER]

I see people I know in real life that are scared that ISIS will attack the US and take over the world. They may be evil and horrible, I don't see them being powerful enough to take over the whole world anytime soon.

If people keep leaving Syria they'll take that over cos no ones gonna be left in the country to stop them lol!

If people keep leaving Syria; ISIS will have no one to operate the country and it's infrastructure. Does no one think about things like that? None the less ISis should be dealth with and yes that will take boots on the ground.

It would take a lot more than just boots bud. Unfortunately no country has the stomach to do what is necessary to properly defeat an insurgency.

Explain. Cause at the moment I'm reading that as nerve gassing the entire f**king nest or nuking the site from orbit. I just want to be sure I get where you're coming from. By boots I mean a full military invasion along with significant causalities.

Unfortunately, despite how much I would love to turn that whole region into glass, it's a lot more complicated than that. What I meant is that if a full on invasion were to take place in Syria it won't be like Normandy, think more Afghanistan 2.0, and the whole time we'd have to stay away from Assad's territory and the big Russian bear he has at his side.

So lets say we do invade, we have full boots one the ground from multiple different nations. At first IS is confident and actually attacks with a mix of conventional forces and guerrilla tactics. After a few weeks of their forces getting decimated by the first modern army they've ever had to face, they realize they aren't as good as they thought, so they now go full blown Taliban. They blend in with the local populace, bury IEDs in roads to hit convoys, that sort of shit. As long as we have the current counter insurgency doctrine, they've won. What we would need to do is hit hard, unfortunately that brings civilian casualties, and the moment a picture of a dead Syrian boy in a bombed out house ends up on twitter we become the bad guys, and the homefront is shot.

So to prevent that, the government controls the media, only what they want the people to see about the war gets through. So now we're in Syria, bombing the mosques and hospitals IS is using as weapon caches, this will no doubt bring about anger from the local population, and more will start to join up with ISIS. How do we deal with this?Well, the only way to completely destroy their ideology would be to kill every single one of them. But wait, now you just killed a little boys father, this kids gonna want to get revenge, now we have to kill him to, and everyone else that supports them. This includes women and children. If Iraq and Afghanistan taught us anything, it's that hearts and minds approach does not work, the Taliban are still strong in Afghanistan, and their numbers are still growing. We would have to police the local population, make them believe that what's happening is their fault, I'm talking full treaty of Versailles.

So lets say it's a success, we've bombed them to hell and all that remains of ISIS is a few pockets of barely functioning resistance. What do we do about the leadership in the country? We could take out Assad, risk WW3 with Russia, and try to enforce a Western democracy with a permanent military presence (Because that worked so well everywhere else), or we could use the other option. Unfortunately, all the people in these regions seem to understand is the sword, and dictatorships seem to be the only political option that works in these regions. So we let Assad stay, give him some funding under the table and let him and his forces keep the locals under control. Now we have every liberal arts graduate saying that we support a blood thirsty tyrant. If Assad is evil, then he's a necessary evil.

It's shitty, but this is the only way I can see a full blown invasion work out. Keep in mind you have all these "refugees" in places like Germany and France, I'm not so sure they'd support any sort of ground war.

Agree with you Invading forces must learn form their mistake.They should copy what the UK did in the Maylan emergency the only time communists were defeated also in Northern Ireland.I think only UK and Pakistan should be sent (they do have a lot of experience)Forget the UK only Muslim countries should send boots in the ground.If they do send western countries to intervene i think they should only send the guys that are Muslim(550 solders in the UK army that are Muslim)read this article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12504162

[PVTDukeMorrison]

I see people I know in real life that are scared that ISIS will attack the US and take over the world. They may be evil and horrible, I don't see them being powerful enough to take over the whole world anytime soon.

If people keep leaving Syria they'll take that over cos no ones gonna be left in the country to stop them lol!

If people keep leaving Syria; ISIS will have no one to operate the country and it's infrastructure. Does no one think about things like that? None the less ISis should be dealth with and yes that will take boots on the ground.

It would take a lot more than just boots bud. Unfortunately no country has the stomach to do what is necessary to properly defeat an insurgency.

Explain. Cause at the moment I'm reading that as nerve gassing the entire f**king nest or nuking the site from orbit. I just want to be sure I get where you're coming from. By boots I mean a full military invasion along with significant causalities.

Unfortunately, despite how much I would love to turn that whole region into glass, it's a lot more complicated than that. What I meant is that if a full on invasion were to take place in Syria it won't be like Normandy, think more Afghanistan 2.0, and the whole time we'd have to stay away from Assad's territory and the big Russian bear he has at his side.

So lets say we do invade, we have full boots one the ground from multiple different nations. At first IS is confident and actually attacks with a mix of conventional forces and guerrilla tactics. After a few weeks of their forces getting decimated by the first modern army they've ever had to face, they realize they aren't as good as they thought, so they now go full blown Taliban. They blend in with the local populace, bury IEDs in roads to hit convoys, that sort of shit. As long as we have the current counter insurgency doctrine, they've won. What we would need to do is hit hard, unfortunately that brings civilian casualties, and the moment a picture of a dead Syrian boy in a bombed out house ends up on twitter we become the bad guys, and the homefront is shot.

So to prevent that, the government controls the media, only what they want the people to see about the war gets through. So now we're in Syria, bombing the mosques and hospitals IS is using as weapon caches, this will no doubt bring about anger from the local population, and more will start to join up with ISIS. How do we deal with this?Well, the only way to completely destroy their ideology would be to kill every single one of them. But wait, now you just killed a little boys father, this kids gonna want to get revenge, now we have to kill him to, and everyone else that supports them. This includes women and children. If Iraq and Afghanistan taught us anything, it's that hearts and minds approach does not work, the Taliban are still strong in Afghanistan, and their numbers are still growing. We would have to police the local population, make them believe that what's happening is their fault, I'm talking full treaty of Versailles.

So lets say it's a success, we've bombed them to hell and all that remains of ISIS is a few pockets of barely functioning resistance. What do we do about the leadership in the country? We could take out Assad, risk WW3 with Russia, and try to enforce a Western democracy with a permanent military presence (Because that worked so well everywhere else), or we could use the other option. Unfortunately, all the people in these regions seem to understand is the sword, and dictatorships seem to be the only political option that works in these regions. So we let Assad stay, give him some funding under the table and let him and his forces keep the locals under control. Now we have every liberal arts graduate saying that we support a blood thirsty tyrant. If Assad is evil, then he's a necessary evil.

It's shitty, but this is the only way I can see a full blown invasion work out. Keep in mind you have all these "refugees" in places like Germany and France, I'm not so sure they'd support any sort of ground war.

Agree with you Invading forces must learn form their mistake.They should copy what the UK did in the Maylan emergency the only time communists were defeated also in Northern Ireland.I think only UK and Pakistan should be sent (they do have a lot of experience)Forget the UK only Muslim countries should send boots in the ground.If they do send western countries to intervene i think they should only send the guys that are Muslim(550 solders in the UK army that are Muslim)read this article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12504162

The only problems with that are:
A) Muslim countries are really bad at fighting wars.
B) A good chunk of them are in a state of war already.
C) Not enough Muslims are in allied military's to create a sizable fighting force.
D) Everyone would cry racism because only Muslims are being sent in.

[Ratchetcomand]

I don't think nuking is a solution as it'd cause far too much damage not just to the Middle East, but in other places. Nuclear fallout will spread wherever the wind blows it towards.

Dropping nukes on anything is a bad idea. It was way different when the US did it on Japan 70 years ago. if we pull off a "Operation Unthinkable" on ISIS then it would kill millions of people and would likely cause other countries to step in to start a nuclear war. Nukes are always bad and we never needed them in the first place since Japan would have lost WW2 seeing that they would have surrender to the Soviet Union,

[DoomRulz]

I fear for the safety of Muslims in Europe. Hell, even here in Canada there a problems. Just today, in Peterborough, about two hours from where I live, a mosque was targeted by arsonists. Things will only be worse before they become better.

[whiterabbit]

There are no good solutions at all. Which is why there is a massive evacuation of the country.

@PVTDukeMorrison: Yea I agree with your outlook and that such a situation is very real in any invasion. However perhaps this will become the first all drone war. What I mean is that there is a reason we were developing such technology and this is it. Kind of like the movie Screamers in a way, for a fictional type of analogy. Just let those things patrol the sky and seal of the country. It's a better way of avoiding direct conflict with the Russians. Stupid Putin may actually want a war anyways. So it is not a good idea to put forces on the ground.

[Ratchetcomand]

If people keep leaving Syria they'll take that over cos no ones gonna be left in the country to stop them lol!

If ISIS becomes too big then they will fall faster. The bigger they become, the faster they fall. The Ottoman Empire, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union all end up falling down after how big and powerful they become. ISIS will never take over the world since there too many militaries on Earth that vastly outnumbers ISIS. Other countries haven't seem to bother with ISIS since it's not their problem.

[razeak]

It's a shame what happened in Paris. I hope everyone involved pays. The Mizzou crybabies are ridiculous.

[x-M-x]

I fear for the safety of Muslims in Europe. Hell, even here in Canada there a problems. Just today, in Peterborough, about two hours from where I live, a mosque was targeted by arsonists. Things will only be worse before they become better.

Yea it isn't fair, not all Muslims are bad... but when shit goes down... any MUSLIM in ANY COUNTRY is a target.


They better hide and stay indoors while this whole thing blows over.


Muslims in Paris schools work etc are the most to be targeted this week.