Those savage barbarians are not a complete new in human history. Their crimes against innocents are not too a complete new in contemporary era. The new is the hugeness of their cruelty, the vastness of their hate against everything and everyone Muslims inclused. This missed from dark ages… And a bad new is too the crazyness (or worse: the dark interests) of some western countries that, already in the past, have refurbished and feeded up these cutthroats.
Here their last prowess:
http://www.lastampa.it/2015/02/26/multimedia/esteri/isis-campagna-contro-larte-distrutte-opere-assire-a-mosul-p8BymBMFtQG7hHBij2hHYJ/pagina.html
http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/mondo/2014/notizia/milizie-isis-distruggono-la-moschea-di-giona-era-frequentata-da-cristiani-_2059459.shtml
Paris.
And how badly has ISIS been going on home ground lately?
I repeat my view that ISIS goes viral for publicity when it’s losing on its home ground.
What does ISIS achieve by Paris, and the various pin*****s it will inflict on Western nations in future?
Just makes it look bigger, and more powerful, than it is, when it’s losing on home ground.
Here’s a thought or three.
France lost, from memory, something like 20,000 civilians following D Day.
Given ISIS’s Saudi sponsored Sunni death cult determined to kill everyone who isn’t ISIS or of their primitive mentality then, apart from a few unfortunates such as sex slaves held by ISIS, everyone in its occupied territory is ISIS. Which makes it a free fire zone, and with vastly less innocents killed than in France after D Day.
Yes, there are all sorts of historical and cultural and other aspects to explain why the Middle East and Central Asia are shitholes of unsurpassed misery. Some of those reasons relate to Western intervention in those areas, but in the end the fact remains that they are shitholes because of the religious and cultural practices of the locals which are entrenched in their ancient beliefs and practices unaffected by Western influences.
The Taliban didn’t shoot and try to kill Malala Yousafzai because of Western oppression. They did it because their version of Islam and local culture can’t stand the idea of girls being educated. Probably because it would make girls better educated than than the male drones who think it’s a good idea to kill schoolgirls. And possibly the same male drones whose cultural practices extend to raping boys as part of their magnificent culture.
As far as I’m concerned, these bastards all live in a free fire zone.
But, no, the major powers don’t see it that clearly. For example, Western soldiers were prohibited from stopping Afghan warlords engaging in their ancient tradition of anally raping young boys.
The Western powers support rather than condemn the seventh century Islamic regime in Saudi Arabia because of its oil, while simultaneously condemning the seventh century Islamic regime in Iran.
If ever there has been a post-WWII time for a total war it’s against Islamic state, and a modest force of Western powers could show these bastards what it’s like to be on the wrong end of a total war.
But it won’t happen because the West will restrain itself on various politically correct and national advantage grounds.
In which case, the West deserves everything that ISIS et al will deliver to it as part of their total war over the next few decades, or centuries.
Meanwhile, rather than wiping out ISIS, Western nations devote their resources to the rather ineffectual task of trying to identify resident and incoming ‘terrorists’ (i.e. religiously inspired mass murderers) as just dealing with the pin*****s rather than the factory making the pins.
Since the good old Roman approach of flattening/burning/enslaving/killing is, for various reasons, impractical for the “intervening powers” in Syria and Iraq etc., I am not in favour of further “intervention”. This is likely to be inadequate and counter-productive, on all recent evidence. That having been said, following the utterly dastardly events in Paris (one of my favorite cities, apart from Dublin), I did entertain the idea that it would be nice if the French could round up a brigade composed of their (rightly) feared paratroopers and Foreign Legionaries - the lads who have been holding much of North Africa together in recent years - and drop them right in the middle of ISIS-land. The poisonous towelheads would never know what hit them … Vive la France ! JR.
Not so much impractical, as politically and economically unattractive to Western nations persisting with their morally ambiguous attitude to the Saudis etc etc in pursuit of economic advantage.
Neither am I, on the qualified basis that it would be the West doing its usual ‘fight with one or both hands tied behind its back’ and wasting time, money, resources and worst of all our people on pointless feel good exercises like bringing democracy to cultures which won’t accept it before the end of the current century, if ever.
Only because the West hasn’t fought a total war since WWII, and accordingly has lost either every war or every post-war occupation since. EDIT: Exclude Falklands, which was pretty much a total, and successful, war by Britain on a small scale.
Exactly what I’ve said to many people in the past few days.
Of course, the FFL isn’t what it was in the 1950s and 1960s when it had some really hard bastards from WWII, many not from an Allied background.
What the French really need is to unleash the WWII Goums against ISIS.