The ISIS threat to Europe

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, Awol said:

It's not, IMO, the thin end if the wedge.

 

I think it might be, Jon. Because of the reasons you go on to explain - the changed nature of the world and the fear of "war" against non-nations who don't "play by the old rules".

Some actions will be necessary. I don't think that bombing Syria is one of them. I think that to an extent the west is still abiding by "the old rules" (though the targeted drone strikes on Jihadis are probably not "old rules" acts [whether anyone agrees or disagrees with carrying out the strikes].

I also think that (changing the subject a bit) the pressures on the planet and resources of the sheer numbers of human beings on it will lead to the increased potential for old style wars over oil/water/minerals/territory. There will still be a need for the west to protect itself and others from more traditional threats, too.

[snowychap]

22 minutes ago, Awol said:

Situations where domestic freedoms have been reduced during and then reinstated after wars are not uncommon in our history - and we are currently talking about a 90 day period of emergency powers in France. It's not, IMO, the thin end if the wedge.

In this 90 day period where these domestic freedoms are intended to be removed because France have said they are at war, they still intend to host the climate conference at the end of this month. According to Valls, the planned demonstrations/protests/marches and other events will not go ahead and it will be 'pared back' to the negotiations.

That, to me, sounds like the thin end of the wedge and something that plenty of other nations also holding events such as that (or economic summits or whatever) might well find an easy and ideal approach.

[Rugeley Villa]

 britain and america need to stop pussyfooting about with russia and form a proper coalition to wipe these out. forget about assad and concentrate on the real threat that is isis.

[limpid]

1 minute ago, Rugeley Villa said:

 britain and america need to stop pussyfooting about with russia and form a proper coalition to wipe these out. forget about assad and concentrate on the real threat that is isis.

And then the next threat can come from Assad's religious movement which will be using our own weapons against us. Cracking plan.

[Rugeley Villa]

Just now, limpid said:

And then the next threat can come from Assad's religious movement which will be using our own weapons against us. Cracking plan.

explain more? was assad a threat to us seriously?

[limpid]

5 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

explain more? was assad a threat to us seriously?

Why past tense? You just said we should side with him militarily (by attacking ISIS). He will then be a threat both inside and outside of his country. We will also have alienated the Saudis in the process. We are currently funding Al Quaeda which is why they aren't launching terror attacks (on us) at the moment. I can't see a good result if we change sides.

[Davkaus]

11 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

 britain and america need to stop pussyfooting about with russia and form a proper coalition to wipe these out. forget about assad and concentrate on the real threat that is isis.

You expect to 'wipe out' ISIS using force, and for them not to immediately be replaced by even more people driven to extremism by what they see as western aggression?

That has a great track record for success.

Personally, I'd rather leave them the **** alone. Keep poking the wasp's nest, and we'll keep getting stung.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Davkaus

[gharperr]

10 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

 britain and america need to stop pussyfooting about with russia and form a proper coalition to wipe these out. forget about assad and concentrate on the real threat that is isis.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/16/g20-barack-obama-and-vladimir-putin-agree-to-syrian-led-transition

theyve started i guess?

[Rugeley Villa]

3 minutes ago, limpid said:

Why past tense? You just said we should side with him militarily (by attacking ISIS). He will then be a threat both inside and outside of his country. We will also have alienated the Saudis in the process. We are currently funding Al Quaeda which is why they aren't launching terror attacks (on us) at the moment. I can't see a good result if we change sides.

always willing to learn. why are we funding al quaeda? obviously i know putin is an allies with the assad regime and thats not going to change. i also know assad was attacking his own people but why is he a threat outside of his country? either way we still need to form some kind of a coalition with putin.

[Rugeley Villa]

6 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

You expect to 'wipe out' ISIS using force, and for them not to immediately be replaced by even more people driven to extremism by what they see as western aggression?

That has a great track record for success.

Personally, I'd rather leave them the **** alone. Keep poking the wasp's nest, and we'll keep getting stung.

fair comment but do you think isis really should be left alone to do what they want? how else can they be stopped.

[limpid]

Just now, Rugeley Villa said:

always willing to learn. why are we funding al quaeda? obviously i know putin is an allies with the assad regime and thats not going to change. i also know assad was attacking his own people but why is he a threat outside of his country? either way we still need to form some kind of a coalition with putin.

We are in opposition to Assad so we are funding the people fighting him. Who do you think will fill the void left when ISIS is destroyed? Perhaps you think Assad will just let some new group set up country next door. Remember this will be an Assad with lots of "left over" weaponry. Like after the Gulf War.

[Rugeley Villa]

4 minutes ago, limpid said:

We are in opposition to Assad so we are funding the people fighting him. Who do you think will fill the void left when ISIS is destroyed? Perhaps you think Assad will just let some new group set up country next door. Remember this will be an Assad with lots of "left over" weaponry. Like after the Gulf War.

no surprises there then. i always forget that we are as bad as the terrorists groups.

[LondonLax]

8 hours ago, BG_Villa_Fan said:

Of course they would carry a passport. Whether it's real or fake is another question. 

First, if they're stopped by the police they can show documents, otherwise it'd be even more suspiocious. Then, they throw the passports on the ground before they detonate themselves or get detonated by others - this is why passports are intact. Passports could lead investigation on the worng track and/or could also be a proof to those who ordered the attacks. Usually those who are blown up have families who get benefits or get debt relief, etc. 

I imagination if you have a belt full of explosives strapped round your waist and an AK-47 over your shoulder the police officer questioning you is not going to wait around whilst you reach into your backpack for your id  

[VILLAMARV]

All this stuff about the passport - Genuine question. Don't you need to carry I.D. in france legally all the time in the form of ID cards?

[Rugeley Villa]

if a passport can survive 9/11 then it can survive the paris attacks 

[a m ole]

6 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said:

if a passport can survive 9/11 then it can survive the paris attacks 

Mine fell apart in the **** washing machine. Cameron's Britain.

[chrisp65]

4 hours ago, ermie123 said:

Imagine not being able to say "Happy Christmas", because it offends people.  I am a Jew and I celebrate Christmas why wouldn't I?  It's a time of peace and family and great nosh.  I even cook the dinner in our house and wear a Santa suit (claret and blue of course). 

I remember! Weren't you the guy that said he isn't allowed to wear a skullcap in treorchy because of the threat of muslim attack? 

That'll be Treorchy with a population of 7,000 where the muslims control the streets. Is this the same somewhere you aren't allowed to say Happy Christmas?

I don't find that entirely credible.

As that's the only bit of your end of days doom laden stuff I can personally assess, I'll have to treat much of the rest of it with the same amount of credibility. Yes, there are dangerous places, yes there is crime. It's a serious enough situation not to have to go full fantasy drama queen. There are plenty of strong points that can be made about security or liberties. But I do not recognise the end of western civilisation as you describe it. 

[LondonLax]

4 hours ago, ermie123 said:

France was warned 6 months ago that this may happen.  People are burning the Koran in Paris now.  If you have been to Paris then outside the city centre and into the immigrant parts it is very dangerous to go even in the daylight and its the same in parts Germany, Belgium and Holland are the same.  In parts of Gothenburg in Sweden rapes and violent crimes have gone up 300% since immigration and they are facts!  Malmo is also very unsafe for Jews and has no-go areas for the police.  In parts of Scandinavia women now dye their hair from natural blonde to dark for safety.  This the beginning of the death of Europe.  The lights are going to go out for a third time.  And all the time people are being socially destroyed just for saying what they think.  Political correctness will be the death of us in the West.  It's time to open our eyes and say the truth!

Have a watch of this video ermie. It sums up what a lot of people are concerned about when these terrorist event happen. 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2015 by LondonLax

[maqroll]

That photo of Obama and Putin should strike fear into ISIS. With France and the UK as well, hopefully we can obliterate them. 

The tricky part happens after that. Like what to do with Assad. 

We could end up in a geopolitical quagmire with Russia propping up Assad while looking lustily at Iraqi oilfields and threatening our position in the broader Gulf region.

 

[Villaphan04]

Several states in the US are no longer accepting refugees.