Attacks in Paris Stadium, concert hall

Sorta kind of describes it. The split between Shia and Sunni came a lot sooner than the split between Catholic and Protestant. We're talking within a generation.

It all comes down to who Mohammed really appointed as his successor, and who is therefore the real Moslem. The early Shia Imams are revered as saints, unlike protestants like Martin Luther who are just seen as men who saw through the bullshit of the Catholic church.

I agree with you there. I didn't watch it either, barely have caught up on the after debate talk. She was wrong for saying that and I don't agree with her. As you said, sickening. When we were attacked people didn't say, well, it is not our fight. There has been one American identified so far but that is not the point. I am sorry for her loss as well all the loss and injuries of Parisians.

I don't think this thread should be turned into something other than the Paris attack, but just wanted to clear up Hillary's statement.

here is what she actually said and she is right

Yes.



I hope so.

The demonstrations may be because the demonstrators genuinely oppose the murders.

Do you think he would have had noticeably different security policies compared to France's present leadership?

Assad is little different from Hitler. I'd rather die than accept him as Syria's legitimate leader. Some things you just can't do.

I love how you have cast me as the quintessential right-wing bogeyman, a conglomerate of all the acts and comments you've found reprehensible in American conservatives. I guess it might be something of an honor to be someone's archetype.

I won't ask you to provide evidence that I ate freedom fries and cursed Chirac, first because I know it doesn't exist and second because I know you would respond with some vapid comment like "I'm not going to do your research for you."

However, you have, unknowingly, touched on a point worth discussing: The nature of alliances.

It is true that I have been critical of the French government whenever it was in the hands of anti-American leftists and due to personal experience I'm not particularly fond of Parisians, but I never had nor ever would suggest that France or Paris "deserved" this attack and I am as horrified by it as anyone else. I don't think it's necessary for us to constantly repeat in this forum that our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their loved ones and the French people in general. I've done so and once is enough.

I do think France, at times, has not been, geo-politically, a very good ally of the US and I'm certainly not going to apologize for feeling that way or expressing that opinion. I'm sure the French who have been critical of the US don't feel that they have violated the terms of our nations long standing alliance and I would agree with them.

National alliances are not "going steady," an engagement or a marriage, they are agreements between countries to have each other's back. What situations might invoke the promised support will vary depending on the strength of the alliance and people will have differing expectations, but one situation which no one will question is an attack on one of the nations. A national alliance is nothing if the nations do not support and come to the assistance of one another when an attack, like Friday's, occurs.

A national alliance is not as strong as a familial bond but it can be similar in the sense that most people who have difficulties with family members put them all behind them when the family member comes under attack from someone outside the family.

What can we do as France's ally; in response to this attack? Certainly we are already sharing intelligence, but perhaps that can be enhanced. France doesn't need financial assistance to rebuild whatever was destroyed in the attack, but if they did such assistance would be appropriate, and the attack is over, our defensive assistance is not required.

What we the people of America can provide are expressions of sympathy and support. It seems like very little but I can recall after 9/11 how much I appreciated any and all such expressions from people in other nations whether they were directed to me personally or to our country.

What our government can do is to support France in whatever action it decides it must take as a result of this attack whether it is in terms of providing intelligence, logistics, equipment, or direct military involvement. What it shouldn't do is announce this is France's fight or, worse, criticize whatever steps it decides to take.

I've just commented on what you've said.

It's not just a difference in outlook, that I can accept. We can't even agree on what's happened.

You're still labouring under the illusion that isolating Iran with Dubya's axis of evil speech was a smart political move. In view of the monumental cock up since then you can't be taken seriously if you won't recognise what a huge error that was.

As for right wing bogeyman, your first comment on this thread was to quote Obama only to discredit him.

That was your first impulse when you heard of the tragedy.

I guess that makes you a nice guy and I just can't see it.

Let's not forget that the US-UK invasion of Iraq, which France was opposed to, is precisely what led to the rise of ISIS.

And yet France gets no credit from Daesh . I have a theory on that actually, I think they want to get EUROPE, and they sense that France is very weak right now. We know about the economic problems and we know about how young French think they need to go elsewhere for jobs and we know about the general depression in the society. And we know that the political parties suck and Hollande in particular is unloved and untalented. France and Germany founded the EU, and France is gettable right now, they are the foundation of the EU, so go get the French.

Just a theory , we shall see.

Actually, the "Coalition of the Willing" that invaded Iraq the second time, included many other nations, including Australia (Australians were also opposed to invasion), and one of our guys was operational manager, much to our chagrin. After it became obvious to everyone that the US/UK intel was all bogus, and the invasion had been part of the NWO agenda, almost every other nation bugged out. Australia got strong-armed by the US VP Cheney, into "staying the course" whatever the **** that meant.

As for the "rise of ISIS", it's no secret that Daesh is another paramilitary mercenary force under the wing of the CIA. Used to destabilise Libya before "liberation" of the nation's gold, if not her people.

It is to me. Why would the CIA do that, and what is the evidence that they did?

Why Hawk? After years of Obama claiming to be targetting IS (IL) Daesh, their incursions into Syria increase. Russia launches strikes against them, and in one 48 hour period, sends them packing.

It's no secret that Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Iran, are on the NWO agenda for political takeover. Assad was in their sights just weeks ago, and now we have France in the mix.

Are you following Fox nooz? Or using your own rationale?

Are you still thinking Al Qaeda is the enemy? They've been on the books as mercs since their inception as the Mujahideen.

You must have overlooked this interview on another thread.

And then the Protstants merely substituted entirely new and improved bullshit. You out gunnin fer Catholics today? get any?.

The first militant schisms of the "Catholic Church of Rome (of the PT)" actually predated the very existence of Islam by several hundred years. So there really is no clearly identifiable "Irreducible Catechism" of Christianity.Sorta like "The Life of Brian" here the first plit in hi church was when he dropped his sandal and the event was interpreted in two separate Catechetical "schools" of the mob.

All I was doing was pointing out how much deeper and more significant the division between Sunni and Shia is. Both major splits in Christianity happened much later and were mostly to do with the authority of Rome, not what Christianity actually is,

Is it though? How do you think Turkey will react or Saudi Arabia? These regional players do not want Assad to remain. Any settlement that keeps him in power will be undermined from the beginning.

AS far as they're concerned the major threats are Shiite hegemony and Kurdish autonomy. Radical Sunni Islam comes right down the list.

THANK YOU!


I really hope people will get this now!

There is a lot at stake!

I have heard that quite a few times, so it must be true. If it is, then the US along with others countries should do their part in concert with other countries to fight them. One of the ways to fight them is to understand them. To my uneducated mind, they seem to be different than AQ in that AQ wanted specific things, namely the west to get out of the ME. ISIS from little I understand seems more "religious" oriented which much more dangerous to my mind. (Unless of course I don't understand what I am talking about)




France Bombs ISIS Headquarters In Syria

Unfortunately, trying to understand and reason with them...is like trying to understand and reason with American extremists.

It ain't easy! And mostly, it ain't even possible.