Attacks on paris 13/14.11.2015

[Bloated Slutbag]

Aha, so that's why they don't attack them. They haven't decided what's enemy's name yet.

That's one possibility. It can't help that no one can figure out what side anyone is on. Am I to advocate degrading the "bitter enemy" of ISIS because, in one reading, that bitter enemy is ISIS? It would be a shame if, in so degrading, I were doing ISIS [insert definition here] a favor.

[l.b.]

Aha, so that's why they don't attack them. They haven't decided what's enemy's name yet. Let's debate it. For a year or two.

Who is 'they?' The Russians have already conducted literally hundreds of air strikes on IS targets

[Andrew McIntosh]

http://mic.com/articles/128768/what-would-it-actually-take-to-destroy-isis#.QePqTsfdy

This is what it's come to -

"Removing the group from Iraq and Syria will likely be impossible, but forcing them to crumble from a pseudo-state back down to a traditional terrorist group would be a serious accomplishment."

A serious accomplishment...
Not to mention -

When it comes to attacking targets in the West, ISIS is incredibly versatile. The group's decentralized command structure allows sympathizers from around the world to join the resistance. ISIS is adept at using social media and producing propaganda that appeals to disaffected Muslims in the West, empowering sympathizers to carry out attacks without establishing a deep relationship with ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In other words, ISIS provides the tools and the training, and leaves the rest to the attackers.

Even if all these objectives could somehow be achieved — and that is a colossal "if" — the underlying political dynamics shaping the Middle East that led to the rise of ISIS would remain or worsen.

Fourteen years and trillions of dollars haven't produced a stable Afghanistan; rebuilding Syria will be even more difficult and challenging.

[Theodore]

Aha, so that's why they don't attack them. They haven't decided what's enemy's name yet. Let's debate it. For a year or two.

Who is 'they?' The Russians have already conducted literally hundreds of air strikes on IS targets

"They" i mean US / EU / NATO and their pussy leaders who for first time have the chance to unleash a "fair" / "justified" war and they don't do it. They just keep talking, and talking, to "organize" the attack and bullshits like that. They only want to save time, while praying to not be any other terrorist attack by ISIS soon, so the whole thing be forgotten again, like it was more or less all these years. Also waiting for the Russians to do all the dirty job while they, from their forums, will accuse them for "human rights" violations, collateral damages, bombing "civilians" etc. At the end, when Russians + Assad's army will have almost destroy ISIS, US / EU / NATO may do some bombings too [The pussy way - drones], so they can have a word about Syria's future. That's what i believe will happen.

Meanwhile "They" have conversations and support ISIS best friend + partner, Turkey.

[Bloated Slutbag]

Also waiting for the Russians to do all the dirty job ... when Russians + Assad's army will have almost destroy ISIS

That's one conclusion. Some have suggested that the waiting is for Russia to fail,  and the comorbid hope that failure may serve to de-lube the cozy relationship with bumchum Bashar. (Something like this has already played out with our righteous Turk.) Russia doesn't seem terribly keen to commit troops in any event.

[Zodiac]

Russia doesn't seem terribly keen to commit troops in any event.

Would not quite smart to do so, would  it ?

[tiny_tove]

well, they learnt the lesson after they invaded Afghanistan.

[tiny_tove]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz3oWmDUW1Q

[tiny_tove]

France still under attack

http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/mondo/speciale-attacco-a-nizza/foto/nizza-decine-di-vittime-falciate-dal-camion_3003429-2016.shtml
http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2016/07/15/nizza-guerra-sul-lungomare-camion-sulla-folla-e-colpi-di-mitra-84-morti-molti-sono-bambini-cronaca-ora-per-ora/2906891/5/#foto

84 dead, hundreds of wounded.
been in Nizza many times in my youth...

[david lloyd jones]

a man and a lorry. can hardly get more low tech than that in terms of bang for buck effectiveness.

[calaverasgrande]

That is the problem with asymmetric warfare.
As the west puts together a very expensive, top heavy military threat to ISIS. All ISIS has to do is get a disillusioned guy to drive a truck into some non-military targets. All over the world are dissillusioned guys with access to trucks, various janitorial chemicals which can be combined in the wrong way, and in the United States, large capacity firearms.
The west is not willing to pointedly attack soft targets in the way that ISIS does. Not sure that ISIS even has such soft targets to be held dear honestly.
Even if NATO gets off it's collective ass and rolls down to Iraq/Syria with their full air power in effect, they will still have to mop up the remnants with boots on the ground. Exactly the type of conflict which there is not political will or economic backing for.
And if there were, that is exactly what ISIS wants. A big romantic east vs west conflict. In technicolor.
Honestly the Pentagon needs to go back to working on that gay-bomb idea they had back in the 60's.