text
All fine and dandy, except you are forgetting one simple thing that completely disregard everything you just said. my 9/11 being "Pearl Harbor' remark was a reply to this:
It seems to me like the Paris attacks were, from the standpoint of someone who is not an apocalypse cultist, the worst decision strategically they could conceivably make. Like, starting a land war in Asian part of Russia in winter to attack Pearl Harbor-tier bad.
When i write "Peal Harbor" in quotes, it means i know very well the two are not comparable, yet for the argument sake and in order to save up space and relief my self and others of the burden of writing over and over again "A strategic decision supposed to lead to the utter defeat of the perpetrators", which was how the Pearl Harbor analogy was presented (Again, an analogy not conceived by me in this context), i am willing to keep it.
Tell that to the Tamil Tigers.
I do agree though that military action alone is generally ineffective at ending a terrorist organization. But combined with the right mix of diplomacy and PR, it's an effective tool. People are less inclined to join a group that gets its ass kicked hard and constantly. It's ISIS's military successes in Iraq and Syria that have been the most effective recruiting tool. Everyone wants to be on the side of a winner (especially in that part of the world).
And Hafez al Assad managed to suppress the Sunni insurgency in Syria in the 70's through sheer force, so? Both the 70's Sunni insurgency and the Tamil tigers were fairly only regional disputes, both were involved of mainly local actors fighting against other local actors and both involved far more than Air strikes and special ops.
That's why Al Qaeda's still regularly performing successful terror attacks in Europe and the US right? Same as ISIS?
It may not be possible to completely eradicate ISIS like that but we can certainly disrupt their chain of command, demoralize them, destroy their materiel and their income sources, etc.
Don't ever kid yourself thinking the attacks on Europe and/or the US were end goals by themselves. it is true a 9/11 in the U.S is extremely unlikely, however, the question you should ask in this context is not whether the threat is imminent or not, but what makes that threat imminent or not. the answer is not that it's low chanced because Al Qaeda aren't active anymore, the answer is that its low chanced because the U.S is spending billions and disrupts its own citizens daily lives protecting itself from it.
Also, is our historic memory so weak as to forget ISIS is Al Qaeda in Iraq? just a few pages ago i linked a document that ISIS use as manifesto, a document that is extremely popular among their soldiers and is said to be mandatory for their leaders, a document that was written by Al Qaeda. who cares if they broke up and sometime fight each other in Syria. These are the same ideologies only with slightly different implementation methods. they are the same enemy in the same war.
Poll
17 (21.8%)
Author
Topic: The Paris Attacks (Read 58239 times)