(17-Jul-2018) NOTICE: Mockforums.net will be upgraded over the next few days. During this time, there may be periods of instability. Thank you!


Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
TERRORIST ATTACKS: PARIS, MALI, AND MORE
#61
(11-16-2015, 12:38 PM)Maggot Wrote: I'm surprised people put up with the bloodshed. I would expect the people to do all they can to get them out of their town.

Its much easier to go to a western country and demand free shit, much less likely to get shot.
Reply
#62
I'm not assuming ordinary Syrian citizens willingly let their towns be overrun.

They've got several well funded/equipped terror groups, ISIL, the rebel army, and the Syrian governmental military all at odds with each other. I'm not sure Syrian civilians had a real chance of standing their ground and holding on to their towns under the circumstances, even if they'd had individual rights to bear firearms (which might have helped, at least for a while).

Still, more than 60,000 Syrian civilians have died trying to fight back or just survive. They've been killed by gunfire, mortar, Syrian airstrikes, non-Syrian airstrikes, chemical weapons, knife attacks, fire, starvation, etc... Faced with all that, I can understand why so many Syrians decided the best option was to get their families the hell out of town or out of the country.

I expect a major on-going assault on ISIL and terrorist groups in Syria is about to be launched by the multi-national coalition. It's hard to imagine that there would be significant push back against such action by the citizens of the various participating countries at this point.

I wonder who'll be ruling Syria a year from now and how many refugees will return.
Reply
#63
(11-16-2015, 01:25 AM)Mohammed Wrote: You people celebrate life, we celebrate death!

(11-16-2015, 01:25 AM)Mohammed Wrote: Gaza is the modern Auschwitz

Funny as a nation we are so appalled that this happened so long ago and how easy it was, and here it is happening in another form via suicide bombers and rebel camp training.

Thank you for your thoughts and sharing your experiences Mohammed, sorry you have to endure such harsh conditions.
Reply
#64
(11-16-2015, 02:31 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I expect a major on-going assault on ISIL and terrorist groups in Syria is about to be launched by the multi-national coalition. It's hard to imagine that there would be significant push back against such action by the citizens of the various participating countries at this point.

I wonder who'll be ruling Syria a year from now and how many refugees will return.

I have a hard time believing the current administration has the stomach for that but time will tell.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
Reply
#65
If the coalition backs increased military aggression and the Arab member nations take a leading role, I don't think the U.S. will hesitate to step up our efforts.

I think Obama is trying to avoid having Syria become another occupied failed state to be carried by (and resentful of) the U.S. for years into the future, or for the fight against ISIL in Syria to morph into a proxy war of Russia, Iran, China vs the West.

I don't want to see those things happen either. I'm interested to see what, if anything, changes in terms of coalition strategy and whether France will petition for NATO to come to its defense under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. Since France officially declared itself to be at war with ISIL, I think that a NATO call to action is technically feasible.
Reply
#66
(11-16-2015, 12:38 PM)Maggot Wrote: I'm surprised people put up with the bloodshed. I would expect the people to do all they can to get them out of their town.

You American's are just so wonderfully Gung Ho!

The birthplace of John McClane, Rambo and the Terminator. There clearly is a reason why you got those funny gun laws over there, basically to take care of shit when it happens I guess. And of course to "get them out of their towns" if the bad guys are coming, just ask the Apache's, Cheyenne's and all those other natives who got kicked out of their .... tippies?

Now Syria is a bit different. It was actually a lovely place with happy families. Iraq is different, as it was, which I believe, the logistical birthplace of Daesh, due to it's history of being constantly ravaged by invading forces for years. So it was their military and disgruntled power people that started the shit. Which then entered Syria.

Now Syria was a powerhouse of an economy. Tourism, manufacturing, agriculture, pretty much everything. Everything but ... guns. Unlike Yemen, Kurdistan, or .... America.

So there you are, taking care of your coffee shop, olive trees, or china factory, with a happy family of 4 kids or more, when all of a sudden a very large amount of well trained fighters marches into town and sets a few men with their kids alight for some public entertainment.

What you gonna do? Attack them with your cutlery? Beat them to death with your boots? Daesh was kicked out by Al Qaeda for being too cruel and brutal!! That's like being reprimanded by Hitler for being a bit too harsh on the Jews!!

Anybody seen that video of that poor 50 year old woman surrounded by about 30 of those guys with one preaching over here as she was kneeling, and then simply got shot in the head? For wearing a red jacket over her Burkha!

And it is those families that run away. The helpless family father trying to save his loved ones and having lost most probably everything.

What Daesh is trying to do is simply make the Western culture hate anything Muslim. Why? Because just like in Syria with Sunni and Shia, they can tell those Muslims then "See, come to us and you will be taken care of as those others just want to hurt you!"

Somehow it's sure working there.
Reply
#67
(11-16-2015, 11:24 PM)Mohammed Wrote: Somehow it's sure working there.


It's working so well that I heard Governors of 27 states here are refusing to accept Syrian refugees.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#68
(11-16-2015, 11:24 PM)Mohammed Wrote: What Daesh is trying to do is simply make the Western culture hate anything Muslim. Why? Because just like in Syria with Sunni and Shia, they can tell those Muslims then "See, come to us and you will be taken care of as those others just want to hurt you!"

I think you're right that Daesh benefits from anti-Muslim sentiment in the West. It helps bolster their rhetoric regarding the evil infidels, allows Daesh to attract Western recruits who are themselves disgruntled with Western society, and gets Daesh the media exposure they crave in order to grow their forces.

I don't know all the motives of Al Bagdadi and others at the very top of the Daesh chain, of course. But, in my opinion, terrorizing the West is one of the means to an end, not the end goal itself. I believe Daesh when they proclaim that the establishment of a caliphate in Syria, Iraq and the Levant is their ultimate goal. I believe they are sincerely committed to an Islamic State ruled by archaic laws and (unlike al-Qaeda) Daesh/ISIL needs the land specified in the Koran to accomplish their fundamentalist mission.

The Kurds have been kicking ass on the ground in Iraq and Syria, with the help of the U.S., France, and the coalition in the air and in advisory capacities. Key Daesh managers and propaganda figures have been assassinated. Key caliphate-marked land has been reclaimed from Daesh. I think Daesh feels they're entitled to that land and will keep fighting for it until all of their foot soldiers are dead and the new recruits dry up.

In the meantime, they'll keep terrorizing and retaliating against those who stand in their way - including Russia and the West - but by far the majority of their victims are reasonable Muslims who reject and refuse to legitimize them.
Reply
#69
If the evil Daesh is the problem, why isn't the rest of the nation of Islam rising up against them? I'm certain they would gain powerful allies in such a cause.
Reply
#70
Evil Daesh is definitely a problem, but it's one of many problems in the struggle for power in the Middle East.

There are several Middle Eastern countries participating in the anti-ISIL coalition aready.

But, there is a lot of animosity between some of the Middle Eastern countries. A lot of animosity between Shia and Sunni leaders as well. A lot of conflicting ideas about what Syria should be post-war too.

So, I think Islamic countries have failed to combine their ground forces and storm in against Daesh because they don't have an agreed-to end goal and they don't want to lose bodies only to find Syria and Iraq in the hands of Iran, or still in the hands of Assad, or puppeted by Russia or the U.S.

Plus, in my opinion, the Middle Eastern countries are used to the U.S. and Western forces leading the charge to fight the evils (real and perceived) of the world, whilst simultaneously being condemned for causing all the evils in the world.

I think Obama is saying, "not this time" and pushing for the Arab/Muslim nations to lead the charge against the evil in their own backyards. And, maybe they would if they weren't prohibited from targeting Assad's forces in the process and didn't correctly believe that crushing Daesh would benefit Assad, Putin, and Iran, at least in the short term.

One thing that bothers me a lot is how, aside from Turkey and Jordan, the countries surrounding Syria have not opened their doors to the Syrian refugees; the physical humanitarian responsibility is largely being shouldered by Europe. It reflects very poorly on much of the Arab world and its priorities, in my opinion.
Reply
#71
Correction to Post 57: reports that Salah Abdesalam was arrested in Molenbeek yesterday were false. He is believed to be the 8th Paris attacker who helped coordinate the attacks from his home in Molenbeek, but he's still on the run and is the subject of an international manhunt.
Reply
#72
(11-17-2015, 12:00 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Evil Daesh is definitely a problem, but it's one of many problems in the struggle for power in the Middle East.

There are several Middle Eastern countries participating in the anti-ISIL coalition aready.

But, there is a lot of animosity between some of the Middle Eastern countries. A lot of animosity between Shia and Sunni leaders as well. A lot of conflicting ideas about what Syria should be post-war too.

So, I think Islamic countries have failed to combine their ground forces and storm in against Daesh because they don't have an agreed-to end goal and they don't want to lose bodies only to find Syria and Iraq in the hands of Iran, or still in the hands of Assad, or puppeted by Russia or the U.S.

Plus, in my opinion, the Middle Eastern countries are used to the U.S. and Western forces leading the charge to fight the evils (real and perceived) of the world, whilst simultaneously being condemned for causing all the evils in the world.

I think Obama is saying, "not this time" and pushing for the Arab/Muslim nations to lead the charge against the evil in their own backyards. And, maybe they would if they weren't prohibited from targeting Assad's forces in the process and didn't correctly believe that crushing Daesh would benefit Assad, Putin, and Iran, at least in the short term.

One thing that bothers me a lot is how, aside from Turkey and Jordan, the countries surrounding Syria have not opened their doors to the Syrian refugees; the physical humanitarian responsibility is largely being shouldered by Europe. It reflects very poorly on much of the Arab world and its priorities, in my opinion.
The Nation of Islam is a big one. It seems that a good jumping off point would be to eradicate radicals first. Then figure out where they're going and do it in a peaceful manner. At that point the world may see the difference.
Reply
#73
If there was a Nation of Islam, it would probably be a lot easier to gain consensus and eradicate common enemies. But, there are 50 primarily Muslim countries throughout the world and their peoples and leaders don't all share common views/priorities/religious interpretations.

In the Middle East, some Shia Muslims see all Sunni Muslims as 'radicals' and vice versa. It's subjective.

But, I agree with you that if the ME Muslim countries (despite some long-standing animosities and conflicting agendas) came together to thwart clear-cut Islamic radicals like Daesh, it would improve the perception of them in the eyes of the world.
Reply
#74


What is the proper name for the terrorists? I'm feeling a little dumb for even asking that but I've seen the media refer to them by several different names at this point.
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#75
IS, ISIS, ISIL, and Daesh all accurately apply to the Islamic State terrorists, though 'Daesh' is a derogatory label.
Reply
#76
(11-17-2015, 01:28 PM)Duchess Wrote:

What is the proper name for the terrorists? I'm feeling a little dumb for even asking that but I've seen the media refer to them by several different names at this point.

"Casualties of global warming assholes".
Reply
#77


Daesh it is. Thanks!
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#78
(11-17-2015, 01:33 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: "Casualties of global warming assholes".


COGWA. Hahaha!
[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]
Reply
#79
(11-17-2015, 01:33 PM)Duchess Wrote: Daesh it is. Thanks!

Smiley_emoticons_smile

I thought it was appropriate when French PM Hollande referred to them as such in his statement following the Paris attacks.

Here's some background on the various names for the Islamic State terrorists.

Da'ish or Daesh
• What is it? A disputed acronym based on the group's full Arabic name.

• Stands for: “Dawlat al-Islamiyah f'al-Iraq wa al-Sham,” which translates to “Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.” The Levant refers to an area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Euphrates River.

• Used by: The French government, starting in September. Some Arab politicians and Arab media use the term, but the group itself doesn't recognize it. The acronym has a negative meaning because it sounds similar to the Arabic word for "sowers of discord," which are enemies of Islam.

ISIS
• Stands for: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham

• From: The extremists' invasion of Syria. "Al-Sham" can refer to Syria or the Levant.

• Used by: United Kingdom government

ISIL
• Stands for: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

• Used by: U.S. government and U.N.


The names have changed with the group's rise in notoriety and Western preferences in Arabic translation.
Reply
#80
(11-17-2015, 01:25 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: If there was a Nation of Islam, it would probably be a lot easier to gain consensus and eradicate common enemies. But, there are 50 primarily Muslim countries throughout the world and their peoples and leaders don't all share common views/priorities/religious interpretations.

In the Middle East, some Shia Muslims see all Sunni Muslims as 'radicals' and vice versa. It's subjective.

But, I agree with you that if the ME Muslim countries (despite some long-standing animosities and conflicting agendas) came together to thwart clear-cut Islamic radicals like Daesh, it would improve the perception of them in the eyes of the world.
Obviously you have your radical Islamist's and your peace loving Islamist's. Nation of Islam = peace loving Islamist"s. As I understand it, the majority of Islamist's are not the radical Jihad types. They should rise up against the Daesh.
Reply