Coordinated attacks ongoing in France

Many times war isn't necessary.

But sometimes it absolutely is.

I know (for example) that I would choose war before I would let those perverted filth near my daughters. And, given a chance to subjugate my daughters, to turn them into objects for pleasure with no rights at all, I think that ISIL would if it could. No amount of asking and/or reasoning would stop them. They do this, it's what has happened and what is happening. If it came to this I would have to accept their evil intent or fight.

I think that sometimes war is thrust upon us, it is the lesser of two difficult choices.

I think that regarding the subject at hand, we need to understand that Islamic Fundamentalism is such an evil and we will have to decide soon whether it really is enough of a threat to go to war over (real war, not maybe war).

In this way, Islamic Fundamentalism is like crabgrass. They/it isn't going away (no matter how many times we try nicely).

We've got to decide (the West needs to decide) whether we're going to put up with them and their annoyances (and, at least to date their attacks - even the attacks of September 11 - are only annoyances in that they have never threatened the existence of our country).

If we're not going to put up with them then we need to decide to defeat them, period. No more "dabbling."

Defeating them is impossible unless we understand that they won't fight "man to man." We'll never defeat them unless we take the fight to them under rules of engagement that understand that "innocent" civilians will die, and that that's just tough sh#t (innocent civilians are after all dying already, it's just not us killing them).

We did this, as just one example, in France in WWII - the Allies killed many, many French civilians (usually by bombardment) while liberating France (and they were our allies). It was, at that time, considered a "cost" of doing such nasty business. And it worked.

But the Germans were a mortal threat to us then. Islamic Fundamentalists aren't now.

That could change in a heartbeat though (and if it changes - if they become an actual, mortal threat - then watch how fast changes occur to the rules of engagement).

[bold added in this citation]

I'm no lefty, but I'm sure as hell not a righty either. And, unlike The Chief, I don't pretend to know all the solutions in Syria.

But I do know and understand the difference between conventional troops and unconventional forces. I even know what a regiment is (in "normal" and British and Russian parlance BTW) and how it differs from a demi-brigade (which is a uniquely French military unit). I can think for myself too, instead of parroting the "anger-of-the-day" while pissing on everyone else who posts if their opinions are different by any scintilla at all.

As western ground intervention in Syria begins to seem conceivable, one wonders how it would play out. Here's a scenario that I believe is possible as one element of such an intervention. In part I base these ideas on the article in The Atlantic already described above:

"What ISIS Really Wants" by author Graeme Wood.

Here's the link again:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

I am a civilian. I don't have any special connections in the military, I have no contacts with or access to classified information. I've never lived in the Middle East. I don't have any unique way to judge the quality of this article, other than decades of studying history, emphasizing military history. I am so shallow in my interests that two thirds of all the reading I do is non-fiction, military history.

Based on these non-qualifications, my feeling is that Wood's article is very accurate in it's analysis. He certainly put a lot of work and thought into it.

Key in for a moment on the following comments from Wood's article:

"For certain true believers—the kind who long for epic good-versus-evil battles—visions of apocalyptic bloodbaths fulfill a deep psychological need.

The Islamic State has attached great importance to the Syrian city of Dabiq, near Aleppo. It named its propaganda magazine after the town, and celebrated madly when (at great cost) it conquered Dabiq’s strategically unimportant plains.

It is here, the Prophet reportedly said, that the armies of Rome will set up their camp. The armies of Islam will meet them, and Dabiq will be Ro“Dabiq is basically all farmland,” one Islamic State supporter recently tweeted. “You could imagine large battles taking place there.” The Islamic State’s propagandists drool with anticipation of this event, and constantly imply that it will come soon. The state’s magazine quotes Zarqawi as saying, 'The spark has been lit here in Iraq, and its heat will continue to intensify … until it burns the crusader armies in Dabiq.'"

"Now that it has taken Dabiq, the Islamic State awaits the arrival of an enemy army there, whose defeat will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse.
There's a lot more in the article, but this is the internet, and no-one reads longer excerpts (hell, no-one is going to read this anyway; just this is too long for the internet)."

If Wood's take on this city of Dabiq is accurate, western forces should accommodate ISIS. We should insert western ground forces into Dabiq ("take it back" in a manner of speaking). At minimum this would humiliate ISIS. At maximum they would "have" to take it back again themselves. And they can't take it back without using conventional military tactics. At least mostly conventional tactics.

What could work better to kill ISIS? "Make" them come to us, attack us. We wouldn't have to root them out.

Again, at minimum such occupation would highly embarrass "the Caliphate." At minimum this would establish an operating base in the country for further, western, anti-ISIS operations.

Those who know their military history might find the scenario (especially if the French Foreign Legion is used, which it should be) similar to Dien Bien Phu in 1954. But only the concept's start is similar. Unlike 1954, the west would have virtually unlimited, highly accurate fire support, and unlimited logistics support. And this enemy is no Viet Minh (limited ability to re-arm, many fewer troops and weapons, and very different terrain).

Negotiating with ISIS won't work. Killing them will be necessary if we decide to intervene. Taking this "holy" city might work as a way to make them come out of the woodwork and attack us (it seemed to work nicely at Kobani).

If I had the choice, I'd put in one French battalion equivalent, one British battalion equivalent and two US battalions, with supporting troops (for example, to receive logistics, some armor, military police to work with civilians and the like). And, although the main "killing" would be by defensive operations, offense would also be used (from patrols on up).

At the risk of interfering with the name calling and know-it-all ism, I have a serious question and comment.

First, it appears that these attackers were "Islamic terrorists," they were acting in the "name" of Islam (perversions of it really), and they fully intended to die in their acts ("suicide bombers/attackers").

Second, can we, by any means, deter Islamic suicide bombers/attackers? Seriously, can we dissuade people from making such attacks?

Third, if we cannot deter such attacks, can we punish the attackers for their barbarity, for acting outside all codes of morality?

I question whether we can deter. And how does one "punish" someone who is dead?

As I have thought about these questions these last three days, one small idea has come to me. An idea that might (deep, deep maybe) dissuade some, and might be a worthy punishment (for whatever good punishment will do now).

I feel like it would be totally legitimate to find whatever body parts are left of each of these barbaric and perverted "attackers." And then to take all of what's left of each and bury it. In one grave. With a pig. For ever and all time with a pig.

This idea may not be politically correct (I don't really give a rat's ass about PC, but PC might affect whether it would actually ever be done). But why not? They don't deserve any respect. They've forfeited any human concern or kindness that they had coming to them. They deserve to have their memories and their "beliefs" despoiled and their hopes for an afterlife taken from them. Utterly taken from them. If they really do "believe," being buried in this fashion would be a just and appropriate end.

They took everything from people who are actually innocent. They deserve whatever we can think of that comes close to dealing them the same fate.

Those attacks in France were done by evil people,
and nothing can justify what they did.
Justifying them just makes them more determined.

That's not what I interpreted from Philo's cartoon above.
I sure read justification from it.
I'm curious to what you read from that cartoon, Norman.

Bates Motel is missing it's proprietor, Norman.
Time you got back to work.

So, tell me what you get out of it, Norman.

That definitely is a contender for the Hath Wrought Purple Prose Medal.

Because they are justified, by us taking their resources, installing puppet dictators, funding
their enemies, and drone bombing their children, Chaz.