world

Syria's Assad blames France as Arab world condemns Paris attacks

60 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2015 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

60 Comments
Login to comment

US has demonized Assad with their puppets countries. The US also created chaos in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and are so happy with their "uprising". Guess what? The world is by far more worse with the removal of Ghadaffi, Saddam, and even Barack. Yet they are still pushing Assad out of power, Oh wait, Assad is with the Russians and Iranians so its very dangerous. So who is the real world terrorist? Thee great almighty USA.

-14 ( +14 / -28 )

He's not wrong, although I'm pretty sure Assad has expressed his condolences to the affected beforehand.

In a statement issued in English, he called on the international community to “eliminate all kinds of terrorism… including all regimes which patron and finance it; on top of which is the regime of Bashar (al-)Assad.”

That statement goes to show that the Syrian opposition are nothing but a bunch of liars. He's selling the idea that Assad is the one who's funding and supporting these terror acts....

3 ( +10 / -7 )

ISIS could not and would not exist without Western, including France's support of the Jihadist uprising in Syria.

Not to belittle the horror, but what Paris just endured, Baghdad has been enduring on a weekly basis for the past 2 years.

13 ( +21 / -8 )

Tragedy aside, it is easy to overlook the fact that France has gone uninvited to another country and is bombing them on a daily basis. So some form of retaliation and payback should not come as a major surprise. If French bombers were attacking your country each and everyday what would you do? Shrug your shoulders? Thank them?

1 ( +8 / -7 )

The monsters that the west created to undermine Syrian government now turn against the west. How ironic is that?

8 ( +16 / -8 )

That's why Assad doesn't have nice things.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Assad is right, western leaders have lots of blood on their hands.

-3 ( +9 / -12 )

I wonder why there hasn't been much news about the bombings in Beirut yesterday?! It was the same culprits withe an equal number of casualties! Where is the outrage and support for them on traditional and social media?

I didn't see people showing support with the Lebanese flag or Kenyan flag months back Facebook or around the world. Where was the Western leaders speaking out against these crimes?

You know France still makes 14 African countries pay taxes for slavery and colonization.

I sympathize with the victims, but I have an issue with selective outrage. This must all be put into proper contexts.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

"The monsters that the west created to undermine ( the ) Syrian government"

The West didn't create them.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

ISIS themselves said it was a reaction to France's involvement in the reason:

“The stench of death will not leave their noses as long as they remain at the forefront of the Crusaders’ campaign, dare to curse our prophet, boast of a war on Islam in France, and strike Muslims in the lands of the caliphate with warplanes that were of no use to them in the streets and rotten alleys of Paris,” it said.

The west needs to get out of the Middle East ASAP. Leave them to their civil/holy war.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Silvafan, I agree. The "civilized" west doesn't give a crap about the weekly deadly terrorist attacks in africa/middle east/SEA, only when it hits one of their own countries.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

The west needs to get out of the Middle East ASAP. Leave them to their civil/holy war.

But that won't stop them from wanting to kill you or me or the west or all Christians and Jews. So it doesn't matter, you take the fight to them and wipe them out. ISIS needs to be dealt with once and for all.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

But that won't stop them from wanting to kill you or me or the west or all Christians and Jews.

To some degree you're right, but it also takes away their reason for wanting to do it. And left to themselves, they'll keep themselves busy. Why paint a bigger target on our backs?

you take the fight to them and wipe them out. ISIS needs to be dealt with once and for all.

Any other impossible things you'd like to propose? Look at this France attack - they came and they bombed and attacked, and there was nothing France could do about it. You can't wipe them out, you can't deal with them because it just take a few guys to cause destruction, death and fear. And if you try to take them out, they'll do exactly what the Viet Cong did in Vietnam - fall back and blend into the population. And then they'll go to the west and do another France. Over and over and over.

Blood begets blood, aggression begets aggression.

This is a holy/civil war within Islam. Let them sort it out. Our interference only directs their attention towards us.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

"This is a holy/civil war within Islam. Let them sort it out."

If we let them sort it out, do you think we'll be able to live without fear of wacko Islamist terrorist attacks?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

If we let them sort it out, do you think we'll be able to live without fear of wacko Islamist terrorist attacks?

There is a false premise to this comment - you seem to be saying that we will be able to live without fear of wacko Islamist terror attack if we interfere. But interference will only increase the likelihood of wacko Islamist terrorist attacks. If we react logically, rather than hysterically, we'll aim for risk mitigation. We can never live without fear of wacko Islamist terrorist attacks, but we can certainly take actions that will lower the likelihood of them happening.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

"We can never live without fear of wacko Islamist terrorist attacks, but we can certainly take actions that will lower the likelihood of them happening."

So, we shouldn't just let them sort it out then? Which is it?

0 ( +2 / -1 )

Both. The actions we should take are to get out of the Middle East, and let them sort it out.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

To some degree you're right, but it also takes away their reason for wanting to do it. And left to themselves, they'll keep themselves busy. Why paint a bigger target on our backs?

Paris wasn't big enough????

Any other impossible things you'd like to propose? Look at this France attack - they came and they bombed and attacked, and there was nothing France could do about it.

France as well as the Brits and everyone else should have waged war and cleaned out this hornets nest of ISIS fighters, take the kid gloves off and mow all of these jihadists down and at least put some fear, concern and apprehension into the minds of these radicals that they at least will think very deeply before launching an attack.

You can't wipe them out,

No, but you can kill as many as possible.

you can't deal with them because it just take a few guys to cause destruction, death and fear.

You can minimize the threat if you increase the surveillance, profile people more, listen to increased chats, follow suspicious behavior and do whatever it takes to neutralize any possible threats.

And if you try to take them out, they'll do exactly what the Viet Cong did in Vietnam - fall back and blend into the population. And then they'll go to the west and do another France. Over and over and over.

And then you don't stop, don't give in, you deport as many radicals as you can, go into all the Muslim only areas where these radicals live and clean it out completely take these neighborhoods back.

Blood begets blood, aggression begets aggression.

And eye for an eye!

This is a holy/civil war within Islam. Let them sort it out. Our interference only directs their attention towards us.

Sure, if they leave us alone, but that doesn't seem to be the case and if they can their fellow Muslim neighbors can get their radicals under control and refuse to take action, then we need to do it for them

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Serrano: So we shouldn't let them sort it out then? Which is it?

I can't speak for Strangerland but if you actually read what he said, the actions he is referring to, were for the US to pull out of the ME.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Damascus considers all its opponents—including peaceful activists and non-Islamist groups—as “terrorists”. There was never any peaceful activists in Syria Just as there was never any peaceful activist in Libya. There are only armed western organized gangs that killed most of civilians if they were suspect of agreeing with the government. They are all terrorist regardless what makes them to be so.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@Serrano "The West didn't create them"

Actually, the West did it and the current activity of Islamic terrorists in the world is a direct result of western long-standing ugly policy in ME region. Everyone knows that Osama bin Laden was a tool in American hands, fighting in Afghanistan for U.S. imperialistic interests against Soviet troops. Later he started to play his own game, targeting his former masters-owners. Then Americans with help of their loyal and boneless European sidekicks destroyed Iraq and Lybia. Former stable states were converted into natural hell holes. Dictators who could rule their states, keeping relative stability, were replaced by plain thugs and anarchists. Sane people around the world were laughing, listening to utterly idiotic plans of another one U.S. Top Imbecile-in-Chief about establishing Democracy and Freedom among uneducated members of medieval tribes, armed by Kalashnikov rifles and RPGs. Only Egypt escaped that destiny, refusing to follow U.S. plans and regaining chaotic situation under control. In Northern Iraq and Syria so-called "moderate rebels" under direct help of the USA and Europeans quickly formed a core of current ISIS. And recently they also turned their weapons against their masters and creators, just like Osama bin Laden had done years ago.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

but you can kill as many as possible.

It's weird that you would be quoting them at a time like this.

Or wait, maybe you're just preaching the same thing they are.

Sure, if they leave us alone, but that doesn't seem to be the case and if they can their fellow Muslim neighbors can get their radicals under control and refuse to take action, then we need to do it for them

That's the point - we can't do it for them. And the futile effort in attempting to do sonwill only lead to the deaths of more westerners.

Make no mistake. Meddling in the Middle East will lead to more terrorist attacks and deaths of westerners in the Middle East than entirely withdrawing from the region will.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Make no mistake. Meddling in the Middle East will lead to more terrorist attacks and deaths of westerners in the Middle East than entirely withdrawing from the region will.

Well, we just disagree, you believe in running and capitulation to the enemy and I believe in using ANY viable and possible means necessary to thwart and neutralize ANY threat of radical Islam. No matter how long it takes, they will give in, nor should we, if we do, we are all dead!

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Time to stop referring to or calling IS, by that name, IS infers that they are a "state" or as they like to say a caliphate, they are not. They are killing people all over the places, more Muslims have died at their hand than non-believers and they will continue until they are crushed.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

No magic wand is going to stop the radicals. Leaving them alone won't stop them from coming to us, because no matter what you may believe, they're always going to find a reason to attack the evil west or each other regardless. They've been at this for CENTURIES.

It would be nice if we cold all just say, "To hell with the ME!" but as long as we're sucking greedily at the oil from their teats this is going to go on and on and on until either the oil runs out, or we finally get a better and renewable source that can replace oil. There are actually quite a few alternatives for oil, but once again, the folks wit' da money are da folks making da wars.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

He is the last power figure left in that region who can bring some stability. Go ahead, western countries, remove him. Let the region became a unchecked playground of Saubi wahabism. I'm sure that will help!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Assad never sent agents to terrorise Europe, or blew up civilian airlines, or waged war on the west. Something to keep in mind when we hear the politicians constantly telling us he is the problem and must go.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

you believe in running and capitulation to the enemy

No, I believe in leaving themselves to themselves, and not antagonizing them simply so the military industrial complex can get richer and richer, at the cost of non-Muslim lives.

I believe in using ANY viable and possible means necessary to thwart and neutralize ANY threat of radical Islam.

Do you also believe in unicorns and tooth fairies? Because if history has shown us anything, it's that it's impossible to thwart and neutralize radical Islam.

No matter how long it takes, they will give in

Kind of like how the Viet Cong did in Vietnam, and how the Taliban did in Afghanistan?

nor should we, if we do, we are all dead!

No. We will never all end up dead, but more and more of us will end up the victims of terrorist attacks like happened in Paris the other night.

Leaving them alone won't stop them from coming to us, because no matter what you may believe, they're always going to find a reason to attack the evil west or each other regardless.

Leaving them alone may not stop them from coming to us. But not leaving them alone drives more and more of them to join radical groups like ISIS, which leads to more and more terror attacks against the west. So while leaving them alone may not stop the attacks altogether, it will reduce the number of them, and stop driving some moderates to join in the fight against us.

It would be nice if we cold all just say, "To hell with the ME!" but as long as we're sucking greedily at the oil from their teats this is going to go on and on and on until either the oil runs out, or we finally get a better and renewable source that can replace oil.

Yes and no. We can take their oil without bombing their people.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

No, I believe in leaving themselves to themselves, and not antagonizing them simply so the military industrial complex can get richer and richer, at the cost of non-Muslim lives.

Good, that is capitulation, while you leave them alone, they plot to kill you. Ask the Kurds, the Yazidis and the thousands of Christians that lived in the region that didn't do a damn thing and were brutally murdered tell them that, see how much traction that talk gets. But if the Muslims kill us, that's acceptable? Because that's what's going to happen and that is what exactly happened the other day.

Do you also believe in unicorns and tooth fairies? Because if history has shown us anything, it's that it's impossible to thwart and neutralize radical Islam.

Israel is doing a good job at it since 1948 they didn't destroy the Jihadists and never will, but they are more reluctant to fight them and they know Israel will never back down and will always take the fight to them if it must and rightfully so.

Kind of like how the Viet Cong did in Vietnam, and how the Taliban did in Afghanistan?

If you take of the restraints of the Rules of Engagement, you wouldn't have to worry about being PC.

No. We will never all end up dead, but more and more of us will end up the victims of terrorist attacks like happened in Paris the other night.

How do you know? You now have a crystal ball? Tomorrow is never promised to ANY of us, you don't know when your time has come, none of us, but at least I don't want it to come at the hands of a Jihadist! So really we could all end up dead.

Leaving them alone may not stop them from coming to us. But not leaving them alone drives more and more of them to join radical groups like ISIS, which leads to more and more terror attacks against the west.

True, so I will not run and hide, I will stay and fight and prove to them, not in my country, if they want to take their Jihad back in their own turf, I could care less, but leave the rest of us innocent people alone and if you don't and if we have to root you out to do so, so be it!

So while leaving them alone may not stop the attacks altogether, it will reduce the number of them, and stop driving some moderates to join in the fight against us.

I don't believe that BS for a second, NO WAY! Hasn't happened yet and never will!

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

that is capitulation, while you leave them alone, they plot to kill you.

No, it's risk minimization. You leave them alone, they may plot to kill you. You interfere, and they do plot to kill you, with more of them doing the plotting and killing than if you leave them alone.

Ask the Kurds, the Yazidis and the thousands of Christians that lived in the region that didn't do a damn thing and were brutally murdered tell them that, see how much traction that talk gets.

Look where they live - in the region. They have to be there, it's their home, and therefore their problem. The west doesn't live there. It's not our home, it's only our problem because we've made it that way.

if the Muslims kill us, that's acceptable?

No, it's not acceptable, but they are going to kill more of us due to our interference, than if we leave them alone to solve their own problems.

Israel is doing a good job at it since 1948 they didn't destroy the Jihadists and never will

Exactly, they never will.

If you take of the restraints of the Rules of Engagement, you wouldn't have to worry about being PC.

That answer doesn't even remotely match the comment you quoted before it. The fact is the Viet Cong and the Taliban both proved that you cannot eliminate a guerrilla enemy. They fall back, blend in, then kill from the shadows. As the Parisians just found out. They had no clue this was coming, ISIS suddenly jumped out of the shadows and caused havoc. No amount of attacking in the middle east could have prevented this. None.

more and more of us will end up the victims of terrorist attacks like happened in Paris the other night.

How do you know? You now have a crystal ball?

I know because ISIS told us themselves: "The stench of death will not leave their noses as long as they... strike Muslims in the lands of the caliphate with warplanes"

They say it clearly - keep attacking them, and they will keep killing us.

at least I don't want it to come at the hands of a Jihadist! So really we could all end up dead.

That's the thing - you likely won't end up dead whether we maintain our interference in the middle east or not. But your warmongering will likely end up with others dead. You're inability to recognize that you are as much a problem as ISIS will lead to the deaths of innocents.

I will stay and fight

No you won't, you're a grown up adult. You will send other people's children to fight.

leave the rest of us innocent people alone and if you don't and if we have to root you out to do so, so be it!

Again, you cannot root them out, and you cannot make them leave innocent people alone. But what you can do is antagonize them and provoke them into attacking more innocent people than they would if you just left them alone.

Hasn't happened yet and never will!

Hasn't happened yet, because the West hasn't ever stopped meddling in the Middle East, and as long as you continue your warmongering, it never will.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

If you quit bombing them, Funkmeister, they'll leave you alone. It truly is that simple.

What would you do if a stranger from across town stuck their nose into a dispute you have with your next door neighbor, took their side and killed one of your family?

The constant cycle of revenge starts like like that.

To stop the killings, you have focus on the cause, not the symptom.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Bass: You take the fight to them and wipe them out. ISIS needs to be dealt with once and for all.

(Some how I doubt you're volunteering yourself for that costly task, yet you expect others to sacrifice their lives for you.)

(It's interesting that you feel that Israel has been doing a good job since 1948. Have they wiped out any extremist groups completely? Do they ever have peace for more than one month at a time? Do they feel safe in their own state? One thing is for sure, an eye for an eye mentality has added to a vicious, repetitive cycle of violence since 1948, far from being able to say they are doing a good job. The only ones who are happy about repeating the same cycle of violence are the Military Industrial Complex and it's investors.

If you want to truly deal with ISIS once and for all, go after the countries and individuals who are continuously funding ISIS, even if they are considered "allies". If that was the focus, their days would be numbered, that would be the best responce to the tragic violence in Paris.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

In a statement issued in English, he called on the international community to “eliminate all kinds of terrorism… including all regimes which patron and finance it” So we would need to eliminate several western nations, US in first place.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Where is Zichi for his cool commentary when we need him?

Assad dead will be worse than while alive.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"US has demonized Assad with their puppets countries. The US also created chaos in Iraq, Libya, Egypt and are so happy with their "uprising". Guess what? The world is by far more worse with the removal of Ghadaffi, Saddam, and even Barack. Yet they are still pushing Assad out of power, Oh wait, Assad is with the Russians and Iranians so its very dangerous. So who is the real world terrorist? Thee great almighty USA."

I didnt know why this comment have that much dumbs downs. It not only have much of true, but it show something very important and clarifying: before the wars West made in middle east we didnt have the violence and terrorism that we have today. West itself is who generated the problem and made it grow until it go away its hands.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Oops.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Assad is correct, much as the writer of the article does not seem to like that.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

ISIS needs to be dealt with once and for all.

How many times have we heard statements like that? Substitute ISIS with Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Gaddafi, and now Assad. We can attack them, weaken them, and even remove them from power, but the circumstances in which they gained power in the first place don't go away. The problem just comes back with a new label.

Assad dead will be worse than while alive.

Very likely. Which is why I fail to understand why western leaders such as Hollande insist that Assad can't be part of any solution for Syria.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

If it's France's fault they got bombed in Paris, then is it Russia's fault they (seems) got bombed in Egypt

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Everyone can stop the finger pointing, take a deep breath, remember the people who died, and THEN go kick the firggin butts of the people who are responsible for so much pain and agony throughout the world.

Whatever the reason Daesh came about, what every the reason, whomever is to blame, discussing and pointing fingers at each other does NOTHING to stop them.

If you quit bombing them, Funkmeister, they'll leave you alone. It truly is that simple.

This is the (fill in the blank with whatever adjective you see fit for the situation) thing anyone could suggest. You are willing to legitimatize Daesh by thinking that stopping the bombing will stop them,. That is NEVER going to happen.

Their goal is to take the world back to the time of the crusades. Wake up! Stopping the bombing is not going to stop them.

Turn their "areas" into a parking lot...that will stop them!

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Yubaru: Turn their "areas" into a parking lot...that will stop them!

(So you actually think it's possible to exterminate all of ISIS with bombs? And that every last one of them group together in just a few "areas"? They don't even have their own state, do you propose to bomb the hell out of ever country they're in?)

(The only way they will ever be beaten is to STOP all countries and individuals who fund them.)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The idea that ISIS can be bombed out of existence is ridiculous. Kill them all off with bombs and you just make new enemies out of the relatives of the innocents who get killed when bombing ISIS. They then pick up the mantle of terrorism, and pick up where ISIS left off, continuing the cycle. Blood begets blood, violence begets violence, hatred begets a hatred.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

So you actually think it's possible to exterminate all of ISIS with bombs? And that every last one of them group together in just a few "areas"? They don't even have their own state, do you propose to bomb the hell out of ever country they're in?

Grow up you ignorant ass. Learn to read between the lines. The only way to stop these terrorists is to reply in kind.

You want to kiss their ass? Fine they WILL cut your throat. But you are a keyboard commando, nothing more, nothing less.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The only way to stop these terrorists is to reply in kind.

You may actually be correct in one regard - if the west could sneak some suicide bombers into ISIS, it may potentially cause them to break up out of fear. But attacking with armies and planes will simply make them hide.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Terrorist attacks??? Really??? How does Europe stop ISIS? Rather easily, actually, Fight fire with fire. As most of you know, I'm not inclined to support democracies anywhere, which I liken to mob rule. So, don't go to war in some foreign country like Syria or Iraq or Afghanistan. Institute MARTIAL LAW.

An authoritarian government, intent on maintaining law and order (as Kaddafi was in Libya and Hussein was in Iraq and Assad is in Syria and Khamenei is in Iran and and Xi is in China) is another thing. And ISIS is pushing all of Europe in this direction of authoritarian rule; then, soon enough, the US will feel the urge to delimit the "rights of new immigrants" with the next wave of suicide bombers within America's borders.

Instead of a democratic government, bound by a constitution ensuring the rights of the individual against the rights of the citizen at large, a law-and-order government WILL teach would-be terrorists the full extent of their brash suicidal impulses. Yes, you may be dead and -- God forbid -- in Paradise with your 70 virgins, but your family will be forced to answer the charge that they were complicit in your crime and that, as accessories before the fact, they bear full responsibility for your actions.

Yes -- your mother and father, your aunts and uncles, your grandmother and grandfather, your brothers and sisters -- they all knew or suspected to some extent that you would commit these crimes. They protected you from the authorities by not telling of the horrendous deed you would commit against humanity. And, as such, they are guilty and must shoulder the ultimate penalty for your crime.

Charged as accomplices to terrorist attacks, with the responsibility to prove their innocence (instead of the courts proving their guilt), they are marched into court and, after televised hearings to galvanize the Muslim population, sentenced to death by firing squad (for those over age 16) or life imprisonment in their home country (for your younger brothers and sisters). Soon, uncles and cousins and little brothers are coming out of the woodwork to condemn your actions before you can blow yourself up. Soon, you have no safe haven, because all the Muslims around you, especially your own family, are possible snitches hoping to protect their own lives.

That's how you stop suicide bombers, not with drone attacks and boots on the ground. These miserable excuses for Allah-loving people don't care about themselves, but they care about their loved ones. How will they feel about their 10-year-old sister languishing in a Syrian prison cell among hardened criminals? For the rest of her life. Yes, you will stroll around Paradise with your 70 virgins, a beautiful condition for yourself which you purchased with the misery and horror of your family left behind on earth.

That's how you eliminate Isis!!!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Kind of like how the Viet Cong did in Vietnam, and how the Taliban did in Afghanistan?

Anyone who has studied military history would know that guerilla forces can only survive the long term by one of two ways, first they have such a large majority of the population on their side that the numbers simply overwhelm the state or two they have the support of an outside state. For example the Vietcong had the support of the North Vietnamese but more importantly for the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong they had the support of the Chinese who had sent over 150,000 soldiers into North Vietnam for the purpose of maintaining and rebuilding infrastructure that was destroyed by USA airstrikes; meaning they were able to rebuild what was destroyed as fast as the USA was able to destroy it, another key component was the amount of arms and ammunition the Chinese were sending to the North Vietnames and the Vietcong. Finally the Vietcong were pretty much destroyed as a strategic threat during and after the Tet offensive.

The Taliban have only been able to survive because of Pakistan, everyone knows this. Without the Pakistani government, especially ISI, the Taliban would not be where they are today.

The American soldiers of the US war for independence were only really able to survive the British because of the military and logistical support provided by Spain, Netherlands, and France.

The idea that ISIS can be bombed out of existence is ridiculous. Kill them all off with bombs and you just make new enemies out of the relatives of the innocents who get killed when bombing ISIS. They then pick up the mantle of terrorism, and pick up where ISIS left off, continuing the cycle. Blood begets blood, violence begets violence, hatred begets a hatred.

Just like how if you support the strong authorial governments of those countries will just create enemies out of the citizens who resent the government and will take up arms and the mantle of terrorism and pick-up where ISIS left off right?

We bombed out the existence the NAZI's, we bombed out the fascists in Italy. We bombed out the ideology that created the Japanese society that let to the second world war in the pacific.

To some degree you're right, but it also takes away their reason for wanting to do it. And left to themselves, they'll keep themselves busy. Why paint a bigger target on our backs?

Where do you draw the line? Lets say we leave them alone and they still kill you because you mock their religion/ideas or you dare speak out against their human rights abuses, what then?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Wulfe N.Straat "How does Europe stop ISIS?"

It is impossible for Europe to do anything while there are millions of moslem migrants in many European countries let alone moslem enclaves here and there.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

No, it's risk minimization. You leave them alone, they may plot to kill you.

What's the charter of the Caliphate?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

You interfere, and they do plot to kill you, with more of them doing the plotting and killing than if you leave them alone.

Pure and utter BS. There is NO WAY that will happen. So how about you taking a trip to Syria or Iraq and tell them you want to be friends with them and want to live in peace, I guarantee you, you be on TV wearing an orange suit in a few days with a masked guy behind you wielding a knife and a video camera.

Look where they live - in the region. They have to be there, it's their home, and therefore their problem. The west doesn't live there. It's not our home, it's only our problem because we've made it that way.

So how do you explain them coming to France and how do you explain the radical behavior of the French born radical Islamists.

No, it's not acceptable, but they are going to kill more of us due to our interference, than if we leave them alone to solve their own problems.

And they will still kill us, so I am a firm believer we should use every tool at our disposal to eradicate the threat.

Exactly, they never will

Nor will they Israel. Even if they have to do a preemptive strike to make sure the Jewish people survive.

That answer doesn't even remotely match the comment you quoted before it.

Apologies, Siri mistake.

The fact is the Viet Cong and the Taliban both proved that you cannot eliminate a guerrilla enemy.

A different time, different scenario and the US was strongly bound to the Rules of Engagement. This time, you're seeing less of that.

They fall back, blend in, then kill from the shadows. As the Parisians just found out. They had no clue this was coming, ISIS suddenly jumped out of the shadows and caused havoc. No amount of attacking in the middle east could have prevented this. None.

That doesn't mean you give up. And thank God, the French are waking up and I hope the Russians come in and everyone comes together to make a real coalition to crush and kill as many of the ISIS jihadists as possible.

I know because ISIS told us themselves: "The stench of death will not leave their noses as long as they... strike Muslims in the lands of the caliphate with warplanes"

They say it clearly - keep attacking them, and they will keep killing us

If the US took that position 70 years ago, the outcome would have been totally different for the US and its allies.

That's the thing - you likely won't end up dead whether we maintain our interference in the middle east or not. But your warmongering will likely end up with others dead. You're inability to recognize that you are as much a problem as ISIS will lead to the deaths of innocents.

That's the price of war. You don't give up. You need to have the will and you desire to defeat the enemy the same way the enemy wants to defeat and destroy you.

No you won't, you're a grown up adult. You will send other people's children to fight.

As it has been for thousands of years and will always continue until the end of man.

Again, you cannot root them out, and you cannot make them leave innocent people alone. But what you can do is antagonize them and provoke them into attacking more innocent people than they would if you just left them alone.

Leave them alone, they win, not engaging them, they grow stronger, day by day, the caliphate grows and the window of opportunity to kill them narrows and becomes more difficult, if not virtually impossible if not dealt with.

Hasn't happened yet, because the West hasn't ever stopped meddling in the Middle East, and as long as you continue your warmongering, it never will.

I'm not saying we will completely stop them, but we can greatly diminish their fighting capabilities and keep taking out their senior command structure. You don't give up, you fight and fight to win.

(Some how I doubt you're volunteering yourself for that costly task, yet you expect others to sacrifice their lives for you.)

Don't be so surprised. You don't know anything about me or my past and let's just leave it at that.

(It's interesting that you feel that Israel has been doing a good job since 1948. Have they wiped out any extremist groups completely?

They don't have to, but the same is the opposite and since the rest of its enemies can't destroy it, the radicals wish just came true with this deal, our president helped Iran to make. So Obsma might very well the person that helped destroy Israel.

Do they ever have peace for more than one month at a time?

Do you ever have the guts to not be PC and confront the reaiities of real evil in the world?

Do they feel safe in their own state? One thing is for sure, an eye for an eye mentality has added to a vicious, repetitive cycle of violence since 1948, far from being able to say they are doing a good job. The only ones who are happy about repeating the same cycle of violence are the Military Industrial Complex and it's investors.

They will never give up their homeland, nor should they.

If you want to truly deal with ISIS once and for all, go after the countries and individuals who are continuously funding ISIS, even if they are considered "allies". If that was the focus, their days would be numbered, that would be the best responce to the tragic violence in Paris.

That's already to an extent being done, that's just one part of it.

How many times have we heard statements like that? Substitute ISIS with Saddam Hussein, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Gaddafi, and now Assad. We can attack them, weaken them, and even remove them from power, but the circumstances in which they gained power in the first place don't go away. The problem just comes back with a new label.

Could be, but that doesn't mean that you just have to submit to terrorism. Because even if you don't want to pick a fight with someone, that someone may want to pick a fight with you.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

they are going to kill more of us due to our interference, than if we leave them alone to solve their own problems.

And they will still kill us, so I am a firm believer we should use every tool at our disposal to eradicate the threat.

It's impossible to eradicate the threat. So what you are preaching is actions that will never be able to achieve their desired goal, with the result being more deaths of Westerners.

Real responsible there.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

What really baffles me is that you honestly believe in your heatprt that these people will just stay where they are and leave us alone and we will be ok and the world will fall back into tranquil peace and harmony, it's just stunning.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

What really baffles me is that you honestly believe in your heatprt that these people will just stay where they are and leave us alone and we will be ok and the world will fall back into tranquil peace and harmony, it's just stunning.

There's your problem - you are only able to see the world in black and white. If it's not A, then it's absolutely all B.

I haven't said they will leave us alone, what I've said is that more of us will die if we don't leave them alone, than if we do. I haven't said that the world will fall back into tranquil peace and harmony, I've said that we will have less death in our part of the world if we leave them alone than if we don't.

Your responses are all about anger, hate, and kill kill kill. Your responses will cause them to feel anger, hate, and kill kill kill. The problem is that anger, hate and kill kill kill don't do any good for anyone anywhere. It just breeds more hanger, hatred, and killing killing killing.

Risk mitigation is about finding the path that leads to the least risk and death, not the route that leads to the best feelings of revenge.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Really, so what would you suggest? What do you think all the world leaders should do?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Western military should entirely withraw from the Middle East.

Stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia.

Stop giving money to Saudi Arabia.

Stop buying oil from ISIS.

Sanctions on anyone who buys oil from ISIS.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Stop buying oil from ISIS. Sanctions on anyone who buys oil from ISIS.

That is absolutely correct. And I would add: stop arming and funding ISIS and other terrorists.

Doesn't it make you wonder why they haven't tried these easy solutions. It's as if they did not want to go after ISIS, but instead just want to get rid of Assad, at all cost.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Strangerland: Sanctions on anyone who buys oil from ISIS.

Around 300 black-market trucks a day moving oil across the Turkish border. Who's going to be sanctioned?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Strengerland:

" Western military should entirely withraw from the Middle East. Stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia. Stop giving money to Saudi Arabia. Stop buying oil from ISIS. Sanctions on anyone who buys oil from ISIS. "

Who would have thunk... a post from Strangerland that actually makes sense, as far as it goes. However, the above alone is not enough. In addition, if the West wants to survive, we need:

stop islamic immigration into the West outlaw political islam re-align foreign policy to support secular governments and to stop all support for Shariah governments start a Manhattan-style massive project to develop alternative energy sources to crude oil

Now, that would turn ship around. But don´t hold your breath for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some seem to not realize that the real reasons for all of this, are the economic and strategic interests of western elites; for western leaders the dead of innocent people is not a priority, that’s why they won’t change their foreign policy even if they have to sacrifice their own people and much much more people in middle east, these interests are the same for what since the beginning they made and supported all the middle east’s wars. If we are at a point that even leaving them alone they still could harm us, is only because the west have already harmed them too much. Nevertheless our capacity to protect our own territories will be enough if we stop bombing and making their lives miserable. But unfortunately the real objective of western elites is not the peace as I said in the beginning, and they will try to convince people of what some of you express: They are our enemies… They will come for us if we leave them alone… etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Miguel Lozano:

" Some seem to not realize that the real reasons for all of this, are the economic and strategic interests of western elites; for western leaders the dead of innocent people is not a priority, "

So do you think Non-Western elites are any different? For non-western leaders the death of innocent people is a priority? Seriously?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

WilliB: I ve never said that for non-western leaders the death of innocent people is priority. Its just that happen that the ones that nowadays have taken the imperialist role are western nations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For way too long, the 'West' has taken the position that it has the god given right to determine the legitimacy of the government of the states of the world, based solely on their alignment, or lack thereof, with the 'West', and then justify the use of violence and terrorism to overthrow those governments they've decided are illegitimate. Lately, though, those they've subcontracted to commit the violence and terrorism (alQeda, DAESH, and the brutal antidemocracy regimes of the ME that are America's allies) have been increasingly deciding that the god given right doesn't need to be first interpreted by the 'West', but actually includes the 'West' on the list of illegitimate governments that have to be toppled by terrorism.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites