The Onion knew it years ago:
This War Will Destabilize The Entire Mideast Region And Set Off A Global Shockwave Of Anti-Americanism vs. No It Won’t
http://www.theonion.com/multiblogpost/this-war-will-destabilize-the-entire-mideast-regio-11534

11/16/2015 3:21:48 PM

There are bad people everywhere. You take any large group of people, and some of them will be criminals. Its unfair to hold refugees to an unrealistic level of expectations. You're expecting every refugee be clean or you're ready to cancel the program just because its been proven that one refugee can be a terrorist. Imagine if regular society functioned this way.

Quote :

"I don't want the refugees here. "

You're eager to create refugees but have no willingness to take care of them

11/16/2015 3:59:45 PM

Guns would be banned. Also alcohol. And cars.

11/16/2015 4:09:12 PM

Quote :

"It's a very hard issue because every instinct is to meet with force and fear but that is exactly what the goal of groups like ISIS want and need. "

I don't get how more of the right-wing don't see this. I get the feeling that they already want to keep immigrants out and this is their excuse, rather than they want to genuinely solve a problem and help people and they think this is the best way.

11/16/2015 4:44:30 PM

Quote :

"You're eager to create refugees but have no willingness to take care of them "

I was never a supporter of Iraq. So no I was not.

At this point leaving ISIS collapse on its own does not look like an option. The best case scenario is for our friends in the middle-east to roll into Syria/Iraq and eradicate them.

Second best is a Russian or EU offensive.

11/16/2015 5:58:57 PM

Taking away isis control of syria and iraq would not prevent a paris style attack. You dont need control of territory to carry out a terrorist attack.

11/16/2015 6:58:21 PM

True but it would get rid of a bunch of crazy tower heads that can't be negotiated with nor follow rational modern world reasoning.

11/16/2015 7:38:36 PM

Who will control the area that ISIS now controls? We don't like Assad. We called the PKK terrorists. We removed Saddam and the Iraqi government is allied with Iran who we've been salivating over bombing for the past decade.

11/16/2015 8:04:12 PM

I don't know about you, but I just hate unreasonable tower heads.

11/16/2015 8:26:31 PM

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/islamic-state-files-show-structure-of-islamist-terror-group-a-1029274.html

Quote :

"The Master Plan The story of this collection of documents begins at a time when few had yet heard of the "Islamic State." When Iraqi national Haji Bakr traveled to Syria as part of a tiny advance party in late 2012, he had a seemingly absurd plan: IS would capture as much territory as possible in Syria. Then, using Syria as a beachhead, it would invade Iraq. Bakr took up residence in an inconspicuous house in Tal Rifaat, north of Aleppo. The town was a good choice. In the 1980s, many of its residents had gone to work in the Gulf nations, especially Saudi Arabia. When they returned, some brought along radical convictions and contacts. In 2013, Tal Rifaat would become IS' stronghold in Aleppo Province, with hundreds of fighters stationed there. It was there that the "Lord of the Shadows," as some called him, sketched out the structure of the Islamic State, all the way down to the local level, compiled lists relating to the gradual infiltration of villages and determined who would oversee whom. Using a ballpoint pen, he drew the chains of command in the security apparatus on stationery. Though presumably a coincidence, the stationery was from the Syrian Defense Ministry and bore the letterhead of the department in charge of accommodations and furniture. What Bakr put on paper, page by page, with carefully outlined boxes for individual responsibilities, was nothing less than a blueprint for a takeover. It was not a manifesto of faith, but a technically precise plan for an "Islamic Intelligence State" -- a caliphate run by an organization that resembled East Germany's notorious Stasi domestic intelligence agency. This blueprint was implemented with astonishing accuracy in the ensuing months. The plan would always begin with the same detail: The group recruited followers under the pretense of opening a Dawah office, an Islamic missionary center. Of those who came to listen to lectures and attend courses on Islamic life, one or two men were selected and instructed to spy on their village and obtain a wide range of information. To that end, Haji Bakr compiled lists such as the following: ? List the powerful families. ? Name the powerful individuals in these families. ? Find out their sources of income. ? Name names and the sizes of (rebel) brigades in the village. ? Find out the names of their leaders, who controls the brigades and their political orientation. ? Find out their illegal activities (according to Sharia law), which could be used to blackmail them if necessary. The spies were told to note such details as whether someone was a criminal or a homosexual, or was involved in a secret affair, so as to have ammunition for blackmailing later. "We will appoint the smartest ones as Sharia sheiks," Bakr had noted. "We will train them for a while and then dispatch them." As a postscript, he had added that several "brothers" would be selected in each town to marry the daughters of the most influential families, in order to "ensure penetration of these families without their knowledge." The spies were to find out as much as possible about the target towns: Who lived there, who was in charge, which families were religious, which Islamic school of religious jurisprudence they belonged to, how many mosques there were, who the imam was, how many wives and children he had and how old they were. Other details included what the imam's sermons were like, whether he was more open to the Sufi, or mystical variant of Islam, whether he sided with the opposition or the regime, and what his position was on jihad. Bakr also wanted answers to questions like: Does the imam earn a salary? If so, who pays it? Who appoints him? Finally: How many people in the village are champions of democracy? The agents were supposed to function as seismic signal waves, sent out to track down the tiniest cracks, as well as age-old faults within the deep layers of society -- in short, any information that could be used to divide and subjugate the local population. The informants included former intelligence spies, but also regime opponents who had quarreled with one of the rebel groups. Some were also young men and adolescents who needed money or found the work exciting. Most of the men on Bakr's list of informants, such as those from Tal Rifaat, were in their early twenties, but some were as young as 16 or 17. The plans also include areas like finance, schools, daycare, the media and transportation. But there is a constantly recurring, core theme, which is meticulously addressed in organizational charts and lists of responsibilities and reporting requirements: surveillance, espionage, murder and kidnapping. For each provincial council, Bakr had planned for an emir, or commander, to be in charge of murders, abductions, snipers, communication and encryption, as well as an emir to supervise the other emirs -- "in case they don't do their jobs well." The nucleus of this godly state would be the demonic clockwork of a cell and commando structure designed to spread fear. From the very beginning, the plan was to have the intelligence services operate in parallel, even at the provincial level. A general intelligence department reported to the "security emir" for a region, who was in charge of deputy-emirs for individual districts. A head of secret spy cells and an "intelligence service and information manager" for the district reported to each of these deputy-emirs. The spy cells at the local level reported to the district emir's deputy. The goal was to have everyone keeping an eye on everyone else. Those in charge of training the "Sharia judges in intelligence gathering" also reported to the district emir, while a separate department of "security officers" was assigned to the regional emir. Sharia, the courts, prescribed piety -- all of this served a single goal: surveillance and control. Even the word that Bakr used for the conversion of true Muslims, takwin, is not a religious but a technical term that translates as "implementation," a prosaic word otherwise used in geology or construction. Still, 1,200 years ago, the word followed a unique path to a brief moment of notoriety. Shiite alchemists used it to describe the creation of artificial life. In his ninth century "Book of Stones," the Persian Jabir Ibn Hayyan wrote -- using a secret script and codes -- about the creation of a homunculus. "The goal is to deceive all, but those who love God." That may also have been to the liking of Islamic State strategists, although the group views Shiites as apostates who shun true Islam. But for Haji Bakr, God and the 1,400-year-old faith in him was but one of many modules at his disposal to arrange as he liked for a higher purpose."

11/17/2015 7:22:40 AM

Quote :

"The Capture of Raqqa Raqqa, a once sleepy provincial city on the Euphrates River, was to become the prototype of the complete IS conquest. The operation began subtly, gradually became more brutal and, in the end, IS prevailed over larger opponents without much of a fight. "We were never very political," explained one doctor who had fled Raqqa for Turkey. "We also weren't religious and didn't pray much." When Raqqa fell to the rebels in March 2013, a city council was rapidly elected. Lawyers, doctors and journalists organized themselves. Women's groups were established. The Free Youth Assembly was founded, as was the movement "For Our Rights" and dozens of other initiatives. Anything seemed possible in Raqqa. But in the view of some who fled the city, it also marked the start of its downfall. True to Haji Bakr's plan, the phase of infiltration was followed by the elimination of every person who might have been a potential leader or opponent. The first person hit was the head of the city council, who was kidnapped in mid-May 2013 by masked men. The next person to disappear was the brother of a prominent novelist. Two days later, the man who had led the group that painted a revolutionary flag on the city walls vanished. "We had an idea who kidnapped him," one of his friends explains, "but no one dared any longer to do anything." The system of fear began to take hold. Starting in July, first dozens and then hundreds of people disappeared. Sometimes their bodies were found, but they usually disappeared without a trace. In August, the IS military leadership dispatched several cars driven by suicide bombers to the headquarters of the FSA brigade, the "Grandsons of the Prophet," killing dozens of fighters and leading the rest to flee. The other rebels merely looked on. IS leadership had spun a web of secret deals with the brigades so that each thought it was only the others who might be the targets of IS attacks. On Oct. 17, 2013, Islamic State called all civic leaders, clerics and lawyers in the city to a meeting. At the time, some thought it might be a gesture of conciliation. Of the 300 people who attended the meeting, only two spoke out against the ongoing takeover, the kidnappings and the murders committed by IS. One of the two was Muhannad Habayebna, a civil rights activist and journalist well known in the city. He was found five days later tied up and executed with a gunshot wound to his head. Friends received an anonymous email with a photo of his body. The message included only one sentence: "Are you sad about your friend now?" Within hours around 20 leading members of the opposition fled to Turkey. The revolution in Raqqa had come to an end. A short time later, the 14 chiefs of the largest clans gave an oath of allegiance to Emir Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi [the Caliph]. There's even a film of the ceremony. They were sheiks with the same clans that had sworn their steadfast loyalty to Syrian President Bashar Assad only two years earlier."

The man that set this all up, Haji Bakr, is now dead. It's unclear who is running ISIS now and how close it still is to Bakr's structure, but the so-called Caliph appears to be little more than a puppet king with no real power.

11/17/2015 7:23:08 AM

So when IS conducts a coordinated attack directly on America, or within American borders, will the whole idea of "not our fight" cease? I'm all for leaving this fuckshit of a region behind, but plugging your ears and shutting your eyes does not make the problem go away.

11/17/2015 8:53:02 AM

attacks here are more likely to be radicalized americans, why does killing more muslims somewhere make that less likely?

11/17/2015 9:00:56 AM

^^ It doesn't, but that's how politics works. So more people will have to die first.

I do wonder how a UNSC vote for the magic fantasy unicorn UN war vs. a non-state entity would go at the moment. Only soft veto remaining would be the Chinese. This kind of conflict is written into the UN Charter, Chapter 1.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml

[Edited on November 17, 2015 at 9:24 AM. Reason : .]

11/17/2015 9:21:02 AM

do you think terrorism fear will be enough to force the NRA to allow some progress on gun control?

From 2004 to 2014, over 2,000 terror suspects legally purchased guns in the United States
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/16/why-the-nra-opposed-laws-to-prevent-suspected-terrorists-from-buying-guns/?tid=sm_tw

11/17/2015 9:36:10 AM

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-34840858

Quote :

"11:19 - Questions are being asked about how the gunmen might have purchased the assault weapons used in the Paris attacks. But Nils Duquet, a researcher at the Flemish Peace Institute in Brussels - which maps the illegal arms trade for the Belgian parliament - tells the BBC it would have been possible to buy such weapons in Belgium. "If you are connected to the criminal world it's relatively easy. If you're not, it's quite difficult. If there is a lot of trust between the buyer and the seller it is definitely possible to buy all kinds of firearms in the black market. What we've noticed in the recent attacks is that all of the terrorists that used these firearms had a history of criminal violence.""

[Edited on November 17, 2015 at 9:44 AM. Reason : .]

11/17/2015 9:38:20 AM

^^ no of course not. If anything they'll beat the "now is the time to protect yourself even more" drum.

11/17/2015 9:54:13 AM

Quote :

"attacks here are more likely to be radicalized americans, why does killing more muslims somewhere make that less likely?"

It wouldn't, unless those people are being directly organized by foreign terrorist groups. Influenced != Directed

[Edited on November 17, 2015 at 10:26 AM. Reason : .]

11/17/2015 10:26:19 AM

Quote :

"So when IS conducts a coordinated attack directly on America, or within American borders, will the whole idea of "not our fight" cease? I'm all for leaving this fuckshit of a region behind, but plugging your ears and shutting your eyes does not make the problem go away. "

Who's doing this exactly? The US has committed more resources towards fighting ISIS than literally any other country or faction on earth. The reason we're not sending hundreds of thousands of ground troops over there is because that is a very bad idea that has never worked in the entire history of our involvement with not only the Middle East, but any shit hole developing nation with internal turmoil. Again, not one single US combat troop has been killed by ISIS and there is no reason why it shouldn't stay that way.

[Edited on November 17, 2015 at 11:07 AM. Reason : .]

11/17/2015 11:05:48 AM

^^ so then i'm a little confused about what you are asking

11/17/2015 11:10:35 AM

^^the general public, including many people in this thread. it was a general question. Even some elected officials are in opposition to our current involvement, or increasing our involvement. I tend to think our current strategy is probably the best course of action, for now. But with the Paris attacks, I think it's a bit more unclear. And thus, I'm asking the question if IS does attack within the US, would that not be strong evidence for reevaluation of the war strategy?

^If IS were to plan, direct, travel to/recruit within, and conduct attacks within the US, would it change the equation? Would further involvement be justified in the eyes of those who think our involvement now is either not justified, or escalation of involvement is not currently justified.

I guess I took your first response as meaning attacks by people influenced by IS(such as all of the homeland attacks thus far), not a part of IS. Attacking IS in the middle east solely for those Americans that were influenced by IS's message and actions probably won't do a lot in terms of overall resolution. However, I would think that if IS were conducted attacks within the US, then attacking IS in the middle east is a much more reasonable approach, provided that US branches aren't effectively independent.

[Edited on November 17, 2015 at 12:21 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2015 12:14:44 PM

but we are already attacking IS in the middle east

11/17/2015 12:29:39 PM

Are you being purposely obtuse?

Quote :

"Would further involvement be justified in the eyes of those who think our involvement now is either not justified, or escalation of involvement is not currently justified."

11/17/2015 12:31:54 PM

I see what you're saying wdprice. I think an attack here would change the equation.

I also think there's a chance Obama is going to put troops on the ground (more than "special ops forces") eventually anyway, but he doesn't want to make any public commitments until the people neighboring IS (France, Germany, UK, Turkey, Jordan, etc.) commit troops first and agree on a mission. If we say we're sending more troops now, the other countries might be more willing to sit back and let us bear the brunt of warfare.

They may never agree on a mission because Russia backs Assad and the US doesn't, but I think even if no new attacks happen, sending troops is still on the table.

History says that won't turn out well, but neither will dropping bombs without any followthrough-- they're both not-so-good strategies I think.

11/17/2015 12:45:17 PM

I think the Paris attacks will start negotiations between US and Russia on a transition of power from Assad to another (pro-Assad) someone, I assume they have already started

11/17/2015 1:03:42 PM

Agreed. I would think that putting additional troops on the ground would be successful only if multiple nations went all WWIII, or WWIII-light. I also think that the Arab nations will have to be on that team, or they will possibly end up on the enemy side; otherwise, I don't see any chance for an outcome that changes the region. Overall, I don't foresee military action as the solution. Yes, IS needs to be dealt with, but if the past is any indicator, military action will produce only power vacuums and embolden people to rebel against outside nations that continue to meddle in their states' affairs. The solution, I think, relies solely with the governments of these nations. It would be nice if IS could be dealt with and then we "get out", but I don't know how IS is dealt with, without creating a power vacuum and creating more terrorists. And even if those two things did not happen, these aren't the kind of people to give up on their mission. They will fight over any real or perceived, or historical, issue.

11/17/2015 1:06:05 PM

I think military action is needed, but it should be led by arab states and arab states are hesitant to get too involved because they don't want any domestic issues

11/17/2015 1:18:30 PM

Quote :

"I think the Paris attacks will start negotiations between US and Russia on a transition of power from Assad to another (pro-Assad) someone, I assume they have already started "

Reports I heard on NPR this morning indicated that, in my opinion.

^Arab state combat involvement may be a double-edged sword.

Maybe some of them could take a ton of refugees while everyone else lays waste to ISIS, in exchange for some spoils and territorial influence when it's over? You'd have to be careful of arbitrarily drawing borders or influence, though, a la Iraq 1.0.

11/17/2015 1:37:12 PM

Quote :

"they don't want any domestic issues"

too late.

11/17/2015 1:46:43 PM

I thought Jordan/ Saudi Arabia/UAE has been pretty quiet since the protests a few years ago

Quote :

"^Arab state combat involvement may be a double-edged sword."

It's not that I don't understand the issue with giving up influence, I just think we've already lost too much to be effective. Maybe that wouldn't necessarily be true if the US was only a small part of a large coalition, but I think it's true if its US unilateral or with the US as the leading member of a coalition.

[Edited on November 17, 2015 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

11/17/2015 1:50:58 PM

we need to give up the idea of the british/frnech mandated borders. That is the main problem. Until we undo that travesty, there will always be instability due to the tyranny from mandated governments.

recognize the area isis controls as a country, declare war on that country and let the neighbors fight the ground war.

I'm no expert on the area, but at the very minimum you need two new nations, including a kurdistan in the north, iraq staying with its current shia government with the territory it currently controls, assad keeping the area he controls, and the rebels coming to an agreement on how to divide the rest of syria.

[Edited on November 17, 2015 at 8:02 PM. Reason : balkanization]

11/17/2015 8:01:59 PM

nah... declaring the area that isis claims as a nation would invigorate the radical muslim word that the caliphate truly exists, and then the war will never end.

[Edited on November 17, 2015 at 8:17 PM. Reason : well, without nukes, which might serve to invigorate western/russian relations...]

11/17/2015 8:16:30 PM

It is a nation though and an occupying force will never successfully occupy that area. The best hope is to find a moderate sunni leader to rule it with an iron fist.

11/17/2015 8:43:27 PM

Quote :

"declaring the area that isis claims as a nation would invigorate the radical muslim word that the caliphate truly exists"

ISIS doesn't care what the rest of the world thinks about it's legitimacy as a nation. It has control of land (which is required for a caliphate), and as long as it continues to expand, the caliphate will continue. In fact, ISIS doesn't recognize borders at all, and to do so would be considered apostasy.

11/17/2015 10:48:20 PM

I actually think they care more than you think. They crave legitimacy and recognition.

11/18/2015 9:12:00 AM

Looks like Ted Cruz is butthurt over Obama giving him the smackdown over refugees:

Obama has been critical of Cruz's proposal for handling the Syrian refugee crisis, which includes allowing in Syrian Christians, but not Syrian Muslims. The president earlier this week called that approach "shameful," adding, "we don't have religious tests to our compassion."

"Mr. President, if you want to insult me, you can do it overseas, you can do it in Turkey, you can do it in foreign countries, but I would encourage you, Mr. President, come back and insult me to my face," Cruz told reporters Wednesday morning, looking directly into the cameras. "Let's have a debate on Syrian refugees right now. We can do it anywhere you want. I'd prefer it in the United States and not overseas where you're making the insults. It's easy to toss a cheap insult when no one can respond, but let's have a debate."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/ted-cruz-obama-syrian-refugees-216018#ixzz3rri3F4mo

11/18/2015 12:43:47 PM

3pm. Near the playground.

11/18/2015 1:06:23 PM

Tuff Cruz

11/18/2015 1:46:39 PM

is favoring Christian refugees such a bad policy? I'm the last person to spout off America is built on Christianity yadda yadda, but if we're only taking a small percentage of them anyway why not take a group that faces persecution, would assimilate better, and won't be terrorists?

11/18/2015 1:54:23 PM

how do you even identify the christians? ask them to check a box on a piece of paper? serious question.

11/18/2015 2:08:26 PM

I just saw this smackdown of McCrory on facebook:

Governor McCrory,

A Syrian dental student at UNC, his Jordanian wife, and her sister were all shot in the head and killed by their neighbor who had thirteen different firearms and a concealed weapons permit.

You're worried about vetting refugees. I'm a lot more worried about how you vet the people to whom you give gun permits and licenses. Because I'm willing to bet they have killed a whole lot more Americans.

R.I.P.
Deah Shaddy Barakat
Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha
Razan Mohammad Abu-Salha


https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10206673356849840&id=1150911473&pnref=story

11/18/2015 2:10:42 PM

^ you just hate freedom, liberty, and democracy.

GUNZ ARE MY RIGHT GOD DAM'IT! If the syrians had their own guns they could have shot back! AM I RITE ?

11/18/2015 2:33:04 PM

How are people still ignoring the fact that we've been letting in refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria (and other countries)? People are only bent out of shape now because it's in the media.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21674694-america-should-reclaim-its-role-beacon-those-fleeing-persecution-and-war-yearning?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/yearningtobreathefree

750,000 since 9/11... 70,000 per year.

11/18/2015 2:38:12 PM

nobody is ignoring it. it is shameful to put americans in such danger.

11/18/2015 6:23:17 PM

I can't tell if you're joking?



We've been taking refugees for decades now... this doesn't "put americans in danger". This has a greater chance of reducing our "danger" than increasing it.

You face a greater threat (literally) from toddlers, eating red meat, lax background check for guns, driving a car, getting eaten by a shark, or being struck by lighting.

11/18/2015 8:32:46 PM

Reagan clearly hated America. Refugees and giving Muslims guns?

11/18/2015 8:37:06 PM

Good article, people are clearly afraid and factual information doesn't change their minds, guess I need to think of more emotional ways of trying to get people to calm down.

http://www.vox.com/2015/11/18/9757236/science-why-people-fear-refugees-syria

11/18/2015 10:05:12 PM

Well as it turns out, exactly ZERO of the attackers were refugees. The passport was a fake, even the police agree now, and all who were identified were EU nationals. This means the governors and GOP candidates gave ISIS exactly what they wanted in a knee jerk reaction and are unfit to lead.

11/19/2015 8:46:10 AM

Quote :

"it is shameful to put americans in such danger. "

this is the kind of statement that I genuinely can't tell if it is trolling or what someone actually believes

11/19/2015 9:05:05 AM

^^ to play devils advocate if he used a fake passport and moved embedded with the refugees it's really no different than if he was one.

Of course that scenario couldn't happen given the US plan for refugees but in Europe it's plausible

11/19/2015 9:28:26 AM