150+ dead after multiple Paris terrorist attacks, ISIS to blame

[mew_nani]

Considering that the U.S.'s last big military adventure in the region helped create ISIS in the first place, the President is right in trying to avoid the "full-out war" option this time. All that ever seems to accomplish is giving terrorist groups more credibility in the minds of extremists who already loathe the West.

Well in a sense. ISIS spawned because a power vacuum was created. A power vacuum we created because we pulled out before Iraq was ready or capable of defending itself, and also because we indirectly brought war to Syria (and trained Syrian rebels and let known terrorists out of prison. What a brilliant idea.) Though to be honest I can't really understand what the plan was there. A democracy or republic is only feasible if the people are willing to fight for it and uphold it, and the first thing the Iraqi forces did when ISIS rolled into town was throw their rifles down and get the heck out of Dodge. If we had stayed they likely wouldn't have metastasized as much as they did, but since it's very clear we're just plain not willing to fight them and even dismiss them and allow them to spread, I dunno what all good staying would have done.

 

[Lizardo]

Well in a sense. ISIS spawned because a power vacuum was created. A power vacuum we created because we pulled out before Iraq was ready or capable of defending itself, and also because we indirectly brought war to Syria (and trained Syrian rebels and let known terrorists out of prison. What a brilliant idea.) Though to be honest I can't really understand what the plan was there. A democracy or republic is only feasible if the people are willing to fight for it and uphold it, and the first thing the Iraqi forces did when ISIS rolled into town was throw their rifles down and get the heck out of Dodge. If we had stayed they likely wouldn't have metastasized as much as they did, but since it's very clear we're just plain not willing to fight them and even dismiss them and allow them to spread, I dunno what all good staying would have done.

And the reason it wasn't was because the U.S. lead a poorly-handled invasion of Iraq in 2003 that de-stablized the country and created that power vacuum in the first place. It all ultimately goes back to a very poor approach by the West towards the Middle East, and it all makes for a poor argument in favor of another all-out war now.

 

[Kanzler]

Considering that the U.S.'s last big military adventure in the region helped create ISIS in the first place, the President is right in trying to avoid the "full-out war" option this time. All that ever seems to accomplish is giving terrorist groups more credibility in the minds of extremists who already loathe the West.

But the alternative can't be not fighting. That would also give credibility to the terrorists' tactics, allowing them to be depicted as shows of strength that further justify the power fantasy that these militants believe in. It would be a propaganda coup for ISIS, who have benefited from strong marketing and outreach capabilities. In fact, I think no matter how we respond, these attacks will inevitably give the extremists credibility. But, I think it's a very real possibility that diminishing our fight would give ISIS even more credibility than expanding our fight.

If ISIS is not stopped, then they will fulfil their goal of subjugating a good portion of the Middle East, giving them a power base to expand their global ambitions. The people unlucky enough to be a minority in the ISIS regime will continue to be subjected to brutal oppression.

Wars are won when you break the enemy's will to fight. ISIS, ought to be destroyed - I don't think anybody disagrees with that in principle. They may have forced our hand and presented us with a dilemma, but we still have to make the best of this situation. This is a crisis in and of itself. We should not see it mainly as an opportunity to atone for our past mistakes, if that means letting down the people of Syria and Iraq, the Middle East, and humanity at large.

 

[Chicken Fingers]

It's absolutely terrible what happened. Hopefully the world can work together and put an end to these attacks. Can't imagine how it would feel to be in that situation.

 

[Lizardo]

But the alternative can't be not fighting. That would also give credibility to the terrorists' tactics, allowing them to be depicted as shows of strength that further justify the power fantasy that these militants believe in. It would be a propaganda coup for ISIS, who have benefited from strong marketing and outreach capabilities. In fact, I think no matter how we respond, these attacks will inevitably give the extremists credibility. But, I think it's a very real possibility that diminishing our fight would give ISIS even more credibility than expanding our fight.

If ISIS is not stopped, then they will fulfil their goal of subjugating a good portion of the Middle East, giving them a power base to expand their global ambitions. The people unlucky enough to be a minority in the ISIS regime will continue to be subjected to brutal oppression.

Wars are won when you break the enemy's will to fight. ISIS, ought to be destroyed - I don't think anybody disagrees with that in principle. They may have forced our hand and presented us with a dilemma, but we still have to make the best of this situation. This is a crisis in and of itself. We should not see it mainly as an opportunity to atone for our past mistakes, if that means letting down the people of Syria and Iraq, the Middle East, and humanity at large.

It's not about atoning for past mistakes. It's about not repeating those same mistakes all over again. We – the U.S. – went down a very similar road with Iraq, and the end result of it all was the Islamic State. Clearly, another geopolitical strategy is needed.

I get that ISIS has to be destroyed, and I'm not even necessarily saying that we shouldn't fight at all. But if there's anything we need to learn from not one, but two, military debacles in the Middle East it's that military force in and of itself can't be the goal here. You're not going to break ISIS's will that way, because you'd just be feeding into the anti-West propaganda - y'know, like we did last time. If we approach the region that way, even if we were to somehow destroy ISIS, another extremist group would just replace it and we're back to square one, watching another tragedy.

What happened in Paris was really awful, so I'm not going to go into detail about this right now. But I believe that approach needs to come with a new attitude towards how we approach the region and its people.

 

[T The Manager]

And yet people call me crazy? I seen this coming miles away and it's only going to get worse. Isis is a global problem and we need to wipe them out soon but we all know Obama wont do anything. This is strictly a war of religion and they'll continue to grow stronger if they aren't destroyed. I say let them come to America, I'm sure the American's with guns would gladly put a bullet or 2 in their domes. The amount of guns and gun owners in America outweighs Isis, if you also include our military.

 

[gimmepie]

so to deviate slightly from the usual shock and horror and "oh I feel so bad for the victims" and "these people are monsters"....

Supposedly ISIS is claiming responsibility for the attacks, and claims that they won't stop attacking the French (or anyone really) who is aiding the US in attacks on them.

What I'm wondering most is how they managed to pull this off. How do you sneak a pair of bombs into a sports stadium for during a major event? Do they not have tight security at those places or what? Were the French police and intelligence agency completely unaware of these (obviously planned and coordinated series of attacks)?

Of course they didn't have border/government level security in al these places, the French aren't about to become a police state because they might get attacked. How many concerts do the CIA attend in the US?

Still, if something wasn't done at all security-wise, I'd say the government definitely had no knowledge of the impending attacks.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

It's not about atoning for past mistakes. It's about not repeating those same mistakes all over again. We – the U.S. – went down a very similar road with Iraq, and the end result of it all was the Islamic State. Clearly, another geopolitical strategy is needed.

I get that ISIS has to be destroyed, and I'm not even necessarily saying that we shouldn't fight at all. But if there's anything we need to learn from not one, but two, military debacles in the Middle East it's that military force in and of itself can't be the goal here. You're not going to break ISIS's will that way, because you'd just be feeding into the anti-West propaganda - y'know, like we did last time. If we approach the region that way, even if we were to somehow destroy ISIS, another extremist group would just replace it and we're back to square one, watching another tragedy.

What happened in Paris was really awful, so I'm not going to go into detail about this right now. But I believe that approach needs to come with a new attitude towards how we approach the region and its people.

I wonder if we even learned anything from the Vietnam war... one has to win hearts and minds, and as you say violence isn't the ultimate solution. Bombing the middle east alone will only make more terrorists of the survivors.

 

[Kanzler]

It's not about atoning for past mistakes. It's about not repeating those same mistakes all over again. We – the U.S. – went down a very similar road with Iraq, and the end result of it all was the Islamic State. Clearly, another geopolitical strategy is needed.

I get that ISIS has to be destroyed, and I'm not even necessarily saying that we shouldn't fight at all. But if there's anything we need to learn from not one, but two, military debacles in the Middle East it's that military force in and of itself can't be the goal here. You're not going to break ISIS's will that way, because you'd just be feeding into the anti-West propaganda - y'know, like we did last time. If we approach the region that way, even if we were to somehow destroy ISIS, another extremist group would just replace it and we're back to square one, watching another tragedy.

What happened in Paris was really awful, so I'm not going to go into detail about this right now. But I believe that approach needs to come with a new attitude towards how we approach the region and its people.

One of the reasons that anti-US sentiment is so high is because of the ten-year occupation. That much is out of the picture. As problematic as the 10 year state-building experiment was, there is at least a legitimate democratic government in Iraq. As for Syria, there might be a possibility of Assad holding on to power, there's a possibility that it'll be a quagmire for decades, but the US has no ambitions for occupying that area, either. So it's a very different road in that respect.

I somewhat agree that another group would just replace it. Yes, because the reason is unstable. No, because the caliphate ideology would be discredited. I'm not sure about the viability of playing the ISIS card twice. The conditions necessary to rid the world of Islamic extremism once and for all is security and stability in the region. ISIS is a major obstacle to that. For this reason, I don't believe that there is a non-violent approach. The military muscle has to be there. Military force will not achieve the long-term goals of regional stability, but it can achieve the necessary short-term goal of eliminating ISIS.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

A friend of mine told me that Europe is going to enter a civil war against Islamic radicals and those who are pushing the Islamic law, with the peoples of France, UK, Germany, Belgum, and Sweden starting to fight back with fists, speech, and guns right back at the terrorists. I'm afraid this is not the right way to solve this problem, because it could lead the Islamic group into their extinction if the non-radicals are also caught in this situation. Much like every animal species, the human race has sub-species from northwestern Caucasians to South Africans to Southeast Asians. As a few examples, European Jews became critically endangered after WW2 ended due to the Holocaust, and the Japanese are slowly becoming endangered as their population dwindles due to both their low fertility rate and an aging workforce. If Europe takes this path as their solution to deal with the Islamic terrorists, then it would only wipe out one sub-species of Islam, which is the European Islamic. Ever since the death of one of the last remaining Northern White Rhinos in the world, I began to grow worrisome towards other sub-species of plants and animals, including human races, who are decreasing in numbers, and I don't want European Islamics to suffer the same path.

 

[Sun]

A friend of mine told me that Europe is going to enter a civil war against Islamic radicals and those who are pushing the Islamic law, with the peoples of France, UK, Germany, Belgum, and Sweden starting to fight back with fists, speech, and guns right back at the terrorists. I'm afraid this is not the right way to solve this problem, because it could lead the Islamic group into their extinction if the non-radicals are also caught in this situation. Much like every animal species, the human race has sub-species from northwestern Caucasians to South Africans to Southeast Asians. As a few examples, European Jews became critically endangered after WW2 ended due to the Holocaust, and the Japanese are slowly becoming endangered as their population dwindles due to both their low fertility rate and an aging workforce. If Europe takes this path as their solution to deal with the Islamic terrorists, then it would only wipe out one sub-species of Islam, which is the European Islamic. Ever since the death of one of the last remaining Northern White Rhinos in the world, I began to grow worrisome towards other sub-species of plants and animals, including human races, who are decreasing in numbers, and I don't want European Islamics to suffer the same path.

Just to make clear, Islam isn't a race nor a nationality(unless you count in ISIS). No matter what color the skin of the person is, they can still be a Muslim; olive, white, black, yellow maybe the Avatar too and so on, they can all become Muslims. That further extends to ISIS, they in fact have members of all skin colors.

[S-HIGHLIGHT]But not every Muslim is tied with the bad ones[/S-HIGHLIGHT], so any irrational actions are simply intensifying the situations. I know people are living in real fear now, including myself. But rash decisions and actions never help, really. As normal civilians, we can only stay vigilant, like try not to go to any crowded places as possible.

 

[ORegan]

Ahhh, ISIS, one of the most despicable groups. If this doesn't make the US go on a full-out war against those assholes, nothing will until we get another president who isn't a pansy..

The sad thing is that the next US president will almost surely be all for invading whatever country is the alleged HQ of ISIS. It's election year as we all know, and each candidate will try to use the attacks to their advantage regardless of political party to gain the support of American 'radicals'. Unfortunately, the biggest idiots in the country also have the biggest mouths and use them to shout barbaric and quite frankly ludicrous opinions in unison. Granted, they are far from the majority of people, but the well mannered more stable people that do make up America aren't as loud and we might as well not exist in the eyes of most candidates.

The thing is, how exactly does one fight terrorism? Terrorism itself can be defined the highest form of mass intimidation through threats and/or violence. It's a method, a means to an end with no face, home, or identity. Anyone and everyone could be a terrorist for with any multitude of reasons to do so. It was one of the powder kegs that led to WWI(if you count assassination of someone seen as an oppressor in the eyes of the conspirators as terrorism) and false claims of terrorism cemented Hitler's power in Germany before WWII which is still arguably terrorism. When we speak of the war on terror, it's implied to be Muslim Extremists because they have been putting themselves on the global stage for the last two decades and completely overshadowing all others(such as domestic terrorism, those a little earlier may remember the American uni-bomber) due to their ferocity and the scale of their attacks.

So how do you fight extremists who believe it is their God given right and duty to force everyone into converting to Islam, kill anyone who resists, and refuse to accept the differences of others? Reason doesn't typically work mainly due to their staunch assertion to strictly following their Holy Book and take each passage very literal in some cases and disregard passages that do not enforce their agendas. Do we all convert to their strict interpretation of Islam? Absolutely not because not only would it put an end to most of the world's individual cultures and identities as well as conflict with many social norms, but doesn't secure safety as they'd be judge, jury, and executioner as to who is a true servant and who isn't. How about pulling all Israelis and non-Islamic people out of the Middle East and hope the attacks stop? Not likely as they'd just claim to be getting revenge on past misdoings. Even if it were to make them happy, they're a temperamental bunch who'd find something minor to be pissed about, like the way we cook pizza or the year's Oscar winners.

Then what about doing what we normally do and invade a country and commence the whole shooty shooty bang bang explosion method? Oh right, that's had really bad results in the past and are their call to arms for these attacks, How about we also go the extremist route and commence our own genocide of Islamic people, since no Islam means there's no Islamic terrorists? My mistake, I've forgotten that that is an insanely evil and heinous act to commit, and the death toll will be 99% innocent people who could and have achieved so much and done a lot of good. So how about a combination of the options(with exception of the genocide one, obviously)? Is it possible to reason with someone while all parties involved are pointing guns at each other? I honestly don't know. Killing the leaders would only have a Hail Hydra effect, but would it be possible to talk the lesser ranks out of terrorism and leave only fight the radicals who architect the acts of violence? I'm not entirely sure, and if there are any military analysts among us, please weigh in.

And I'd like to echo Sun's previous post that Islam is not a race, though it's undeniable that the religion is ingrained in the morals and culture of so many races in the same way Christianity is a part of the Americas(especially Latin America), though to be fair Christianity has been dwindling in the past decade. Another thing is attacks like this, the Boston Marathon Bomber, 9/11, and the Subway bombings in the U,K, in the last 20 years is making Islam synonymous with terrorism and will be a hard stereotype to shake off in the same vein that black people are associated with crime, Mexicans with drugs and illegal immigration, and the countless others we could all list. In all honesty, attacks like these are breeding more hatred towards the Islamic community, which in turn is making more of them sympathize with ISIS and the like to the point that they're easily indoctrinated into the fold to be the pawns to carry out attacks and assist in pedaling the cycle of hate.

. Sorry, I realize I've written a short essay....

 

[Kanzler]

It's difficult to fight terrorism as it had existed in the past, because their strategy is to stay elusive, undetected, and deliver the maximum impact on our will to fight because they lack the ability to oppose the means with which we fight. It's easier to fight ISIS, for the simple reason that ISIS is on a map. There are military outposts and troop movements that we can detect and destroy. There are population centres that can be cut from supply and besieged. To remove ISIS from the territory they occupy is objective, measurable, progress. Furthermore, ISIS is that caliphate on the map. To destroy ISIS is to discredit their ideology, to say that there will be no caliphate in the same way that there would be no Third Reich or Communist empire.

The problem with Islam, in my opinion, is that it has no global leadership. If there was a top leader who carried significant weight, I bet that ISIS would be excommunicated and cast out as heretics. I imagine that many Muslims carry those views but there's no official means to express them upon a global scale. I don't know if the multitude of individual fatwas would carry the same weight if there was a fatwa given by a Islamic equivalent to the Pope, but that's only a hypothetical.

Also, re: repeating the mistakes of the past. The Iraq invasion was heavily criticized in the world, and was an act of American unilateralism. ISIS currently faces a coalition of over 60 nations, and although there are major factions in the coalition that disagree with each other, they are all united in the effort to see ISIS removed from the earth. Again, there is broad international and regional support to see ISIS gone.

 

[Livewire]

Living in a country that usually makes fun of french culture and politics, it was a little heartwarming to see the sheer outpouring of support and shared experience in the days since the attack from people in the US. This could be a galvanizing, turning point and a chance for NATO/G20 nations, Russia included, to join together to defeat a common enemy here. The attacks basically reaffirms that ISIS is now truly a threat outside of the geopolitical sphere of the Middle East and I would fully support an international coalition to combat that threat, via airstrikes, drones, etc.

 

[ElCabron]

I'm really sad for all that's happening, and also scared. I don't like what's happening and it's terrifying to think such extremists could be simply in every place killing people for religion. I have always been very easy going with religions, but when you look at what some people can do for it is disgusting and depressing.

And I don't think making an attack so open and make the whole world know will help at it. Of course it's not something they could control, but thing is, ISIS is not in a particular state and has no leader whatsover. I'm on the side that think all of this is a plan to draw attention to Syria and its leader (Al-Assad). Provided it is taken out or French/America/Allies even make an attempt to harm it, we'd know what would happen. Al-Assad also blamed the frenchs for all the deaths, alleging it wasn't so smart to be cooperating with terrorists. Then, it's the little things that matters. Last I heard, US navy had some conflicts in sea with the chinese navy: the chinese navy had entered Alaska waters and the US navy had entered chinese waters without permission. Now, China also is also loyal to Al-Assad.

I have seen people asking for them (world leaders) to do something, but every step is leading to very dark days. It should be calculated, as it's not worth, at all, to kill the extremists, finish with them, but have a third world war right in. I don't want to have muslims being blamed and killed. I don't want have another holocaust, that could easily be "justified".
I honestly hope I am wrong. I'm just truly scared. Just did wish I didn't know of any of this, but since nobody is giving a damn to what's happening behind all this stuff, I think I'm just getting full of this and need to speak about it with someone else. I'm truly scared.

 

[Kanzler]

I'm really sad for all that's happening, and also scared. I don't like what's happening and it's terrifying to think such extremists could be simply in every place killing people for religion. I have always been very easy going with religions, but when you look at what some people can do for it is disgusting and depressing.

And I don't think making an attack so open and make the whole world know will help at it. Of course it's not something they could control, but thing is, ISIS is not in a particular state and has no leader whatsover. I'm on the side that think all of this is a plan to draw attention to Syria and its leader (Al-Assad). Provided it is taken out or French/America/Allies even make an attempt to harm it, we'd know what would happen. Al-Assad also blamed the frenchs for all the deaths, alleging it wasn't so smart to be cooperating with terrorists. Then, it's the little things that matters. Last I heard, US navy had some conflicts in sea with the chinese navy: the chinese navy had entered Alaska waters and the US navy had entered chinese waters without permission. Now, China also is also loyal to Al-Assad.

I have seen people asking for them (world leaders) to do something, but every step is leading to very dark days. It should be calculated, as it's not worth, at all, to kill the extremists, finish with them, but have a third world war right in. I don't want to have muslims being blamed and killed. I don't want have another holocaust, that could easily be "justified".
I honestly hope I am wrong. I'm just truly scared. Just did wish I didn't know of any of this, but since nobody is giving a damn to what's happening behind all this stuff, I think I'm just getting full of this and need to speak about it with someone else. I'm truly scared.

ISIS is in a particular state, that glob of land spanning between Iraq and Syria. Its leader is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, no relation to the first caliph known to Islam. Their biggest city under their control is Mosul in Iraq, and Ar Raqqa, captured from Syria, appears to be their capital. They are spreading their tentacles all over the Islamic world, seeking other terrorist allies in Libya, Nigeria, Kenya, Algeria, Yemen, and the Philippines.

While Chinese companies continue to equip the Assad regime as well as Iran which supports it, I really don't think that China is "loyal" to Assad. China is just China, and its government holds certain principles that we in the West might not agree with. The most relevant is that of non-intervention - the Chinese government takes the view that countries should not involve themselves in other countries' domestic affairs, and should definitely not decide which regimes get to stay and which regimes get to go. See: Libya. I don't think whichever regime ends up on top in Syria is particularly concerning to China at all. If it doesn't directly concern their interests, then it simply doesn't matter to them. It might sound alienating to us, but the Chinese government has been very consistent with that stance.

Also, there's no beef between China and the US over crossing into each others' waters. They've been doing it for decades and it doesn't mean anything in the big picture.

I'm afraid for Muslims in Europe, because Europe is not multicultural and because there are relatively more Muslims there than there are in the rest of the West. I hope there won't be much backlash over the Paris attacks.

 

[ElCabron]

ISIS is in a particular state, that glob of land spanning between Iraq and Syria. Its leader is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, no relation to the first caliph known to Islam. Their biggest city under their control is Mosul in Iraq, and Ar Raqqa, captured from Syria, appears to be their capital. They are spreading their tentacles all over the Islamic world, seeking other terrorist allies in Libya, Nigeria, Kenya, Algeria, Yemen, and the Philippines.

While Chinese companies continue to equip the Assad regime as well as Iran which supports it, I really don't think that China is "loyal" to Assad. China is just China, and its government holds certain principles that we in the West might not agree with. The most relevant is that of non-intervention - the Chinese government takes the view that countries should not involve themselves in other countries' domestic affairs, and should definitely not decide which regimes get to stay and which regimes get to go. See: Libya. I don't think whichever regime ends up on top in Syria is particularly concerning to China at all. If it doesn't directly concern their interests, then it simply doesn't matter to them. It might sound alienating to us, but the Chinese government has been very consistent with that stance.

Also, there's no beef between China and the US over crossing into each others' waters. They've been doing it for decades and it doesn't mean anything in the big picture.

I'm afraid for Muslims in Europe, because Europe is not multicultural and because there are relatively more Muslims there than there are in the rest of the West. I hope there won't be much backlash over the Paris attacks.

But it'd be wise for them to move over to Syria after the city in Iraq is taken down. Besides, most of the conflict has been concentrated on Syria, and France, Russia and USA is aiming their fire mostly there. If anything, I'd believe its their plan to get all attacks in Syria, it's their plan to take the government down and it'd be easier to show it to the world and force them asking for "something done". Besides, if Iraq is ever harmed, would not Al-Assad take its side?

By loyal, I meant they'd pair it up against any U.S movements if it was necessary. And since 1988, the issue between China selling weapons to Syria has been a matter of protest of the U.S government, and Syria is important to China due to them having a very good relationship in trading affairs. it's a interest. Besides, Russia and China also have the same views over the U.S governement and Russia said they are against and will not tolerate any oposition to Al-Assad. Still though, it'd not be very wise for China to have any issues with the west, and I'm afraid China neutrality over this might balance it off. Still, we don't want Russia into this matter as it could heavily influence what would China do.

Not when 5 China's Warships were spotted in Alaska, just when the president was there. It's still under the international law, but the reasoning was suspicious, although unclear. Whereas, US ships near China's artificial island just caused a lot of hassle which wasn't so well accepted with the chineses. Still, it's under the international law, but the reasoning is what matters.

Ye. But doesn't half of the world is already very precatious of the muslims? I don't speak for myself, but for my country and what I have seen regarding opinions over them from a few people. Some are truly scared of them for some reason, and it's not out of nothing as it has reason indeed, though I think you can differentiate from who is a extremist and which is not.

 

[Kanzler]

But it'd be wise for them to move over to Syria after the city in Iraq is taken down. Besides, most of the conflict has been concentrated on Syria, and France, Russia and USA is aiming their fire mostly there. If anything, I'd believe its their plan to get all attacks in Syria, it's their plan to take the government down and it'd be easier to show it to the world and force them asking for "something done". Besides, if Iraq is ever harmed, would not Al-Assad take its side?

By loyal, I meant they'd pair it up against any U.S movements if it was necessary. And since 1988, the issue between China selling weapons to Syria has been a matter of protest of the U.S government, and Syria is important to China due to them having a very good relationship in trading affairs. it's a interest. Besides, Russia and China also have the same views over the U.S governement and Russia said they are against and will not tolerate any oposition to Al-Assad. Still though, it'd not be very wise for China to have any issues with the west, and I'm afraid China neutrality over this might balance it off. Still, we don't want Russia into this matter as it could heavily influence what would China do.

Not when 5 China's Warships were spotted in Alaska, just when the president was there. It's still under the international law, but the reasoning was suspicious, although unclear. Whereas, US ships near China's artificial island just caused a lot of hassle which wasn't so well accepted with the chineses. Still, it's under the international law, but the reasoning is what matters.

Ye. But doesn't half of the world is already very precatious of the muslims? I don't speak for myself, but for my country and what I have seen regarding opinions over them from a few people. Some are truly scared of them for some reason, and it's not out of nothing as it has reason indeed, though I think you can differentiate from who is a extremist and which is not.

Depends how bad things in Syria get. They abstained from a UN intervention in Syria because of what happened in Libya, but they supported the Libyan intervention because, well, they felt at the time that doing nothing would be worse. I don't think Russian influence in China will be a big issue. China has its own interests for destroying ISIS because of what it means for its own Muslim population.

I'm sure that China has been selling weapons to both sides of the conflict, and they'd continue to arm which ever side wins (although not ISIS since that would directly conflict with their own interests). That's just how the arms trade work - France and Germany continue to sell arms to Russia, even though they've embargoed some of their business contracts over the Ukraine issue.

As for warships crossing territorial waters, they do it because that's what militaries do. Whether for preparedness or intelligence purposes, these acts might seem suspicious, but militaries try to train in all conditions for all contingencies. Doesn't that anyone's planning an invasion or anything consequential.

Part of the trouble is that you can't really differentiate who is and isn't an extremist. Apparently, many of these attackers and suicide bombers come from middle class backgrounds, people who go to college and appear to be the same as the rest of us. It's moments like this when calls for further surveillance get more credence.

 

[Gobln]

Closed borders are needed in my opinion.

Islam itself matters very little, the fact is : people are coming into France and most likely stockpiling weapons.

Refugees from Syria need to be handled with care however. I honestly cannot think of a world / plan that would keep the people of France safe but also aid Syrian Refugees.

 

[ElCabron]

I agree all borders should be closed. Specially in big countries.
Brazil will host the olympic games 2016 and I'm afraid the world will be here. It's a serious matter if our borders keeps wide and open, as anyone can get here in Brazil. Hopefully this changes soon.
I think every country now is ISIS' enemy.

Depends how bad things in Syria get. They abstained from a UN intervention in Syria because of what happened in Libya, but they supported the Libyan intervention because, well, they felt at the time that doing nothing would be worse. I don't think Russian influence in China will be a big issue. China has its own interests for destroying ISIS because of what it means for its own Muslim population.

I'm sure that China has been selling weapons to both sides of the conflict, and they'd continue to arm which ever side wins (although not ISIS since that would directly conflict with their own interests). That's just how the arms trade work - France and Germany continue to sell arms to Russia, even though they've embargoed some of their business contracts over the Ukraine issue.

As for warships crossing territorial waters, they do it because that's what militaries do. Whether for preparedness or intelligence purposes, these acts might seem suspicious, but militaries try to train in all conditions for all contingencies. Doesn't that anyone's planning an invasion or anything consequential.

Part of the trouble is that you can't really differentiate who is and isn't an extremist. Apparently, many of these attackers and suicide bombers come from middle class backgrounds, people who go to college and appear to be the same as the rest of us. It's moments like this when calls for further surveillance get more credence.

I might be romanticizing the situation a little bit tbh. I still think though it all depends on how China will react to every possible outcome. Its neutrality in this issue is what's worrying, since it all depends on it as soon as Al-Assad is taken down, if by France and US.
Russian decisions influence China due to them being SCO allies. If Russia decides it is time for something, China would either have to support it or then find itself in a tight situation. That's what I'm saying, it all depends on China's attitude over an hypothetical situation of Al-Assad being taken down by its opposition not named ISIS. China doesn't want a war, because it'd ruin the way it is growing. However, if the situation for it to take sides is forced, who do you think they'd side with? It's no US for certain.
Besides, we're in 21s century, maybe the world is looking for peaceful outcomes instead of war.
PS: and it still depends whether Russia would do all of this because of Syria too.

The issue with selling weapons to Syria, is that protests occurred all over the world because of that. China kept doing it. Now, the relationship between Syria and China is mostly economic, yes, but the issue is how the SCO allies' thoughts and acts are regarding this. And I don't think China would want to end relationship with them over this issue, and they'd be forced to do it based on what the hypothetical situation I have described above.

Under the international law, yes. However, it was the first movement of China like that, and US "retaliated" days after. And China didn't like it one bit.
You can't know the other intents and this might simply heat up a relationship that's already a problem. I'm not saying it matters a lot, but it's a lot suspicious to have said moves being taken for no reason at all.