The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: CC27 on November 16, 2015, 09:30:09 AM
-
LuckyTheDog (6,434 posts)
The ISIS attack on Paris was a failure
It occurred to me over the weekend that the ISIS attack on Paris was, in every way that matters, a complete failure.
As an “act of war†by a “state†– which is what ISIS claims to be – it could not have been worse. Strategically, nothing was gained. Consider the following:
-- In no way was France’s war-fighting capability damaged.
-- Even though it was a strike at France’s capital, no infrastructure or government buildings were seriously damaged or destroyed and no high-ranking government officials were killed or taken hostage.
-- The attack, while shocking, was nowhere near devastating enough to demoralize the population and weaken its will to fight. This was no fire-bombing of Dresden.
As a terrorist attack, it also failed. Even though it attacked exclusively soft targets, ISIS did not create mass casualties in the thousands, which was more than likely the goal. The number of people lost, while tragic, was less than one might expect to see if an airliner had crashed. This was not the kind of national trauma that should cause France to go berserk and overreact – which is arguably what the United States did after 9/11.
Thoughts?
Do i have to get pissed so soon today? **** YOU DUMMIE.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027349378
-
Thoughts?
You are a cretin.
-
3000 people died and he calls that over reacting on our part.
-
It remains to be seen. French combat forces were not the target, the two strategic goals were to break their will to intervene (Which did work in Spain) and to drive a further wedge between the very large Muslim minority in France and the native European population, opening the Muslims to voluntary or forced recruiting, as happened with the FLN in Algeria. The Muslim minority in France is more akin to our Black or Latino population in its proportion to the whole population, an entirely different situation than obtains here.
It remains to be seen whether it will contribute to either of these strategic objectives.
-
The ****ing DUmmie needs to go to France and help clean up blood/bandages.
When finished, the ****ing idiot can tell families how they're over-reacting.
Eff you, you effing Eff Eff. Your horse and dog, too.
Asshole.
-
Okay where is the article I thought I was responding to? :banghead:
-
Thoughts?
You're a ****ing tool, and a dull one at that.
Since the attack, terrorist leadership has most definitely been telling its membership, that a blow has been struck for allah, and how those who have died in carrying out the attack are sitting in jannah, enjoying the fruits of 72 virgins that striking a blow against enemies of the prophet has earned them.
On THEIR metric of success vs failure of tarror attacks, this was nothing but a success, because within their ideology, there is no such thing as failure. There are only lesser and greater degrees of success.
This is one reason of many, why this ideology must be wiped clean from the face of the planet permanently.
(Not that any of this would make any sense or be calculable, to you, DUmmy)
:bigbird:
CMD
-
LuckyTheDog (6,434 posts)
The ISIS attack on Paris was a failure
<inane babble>
Thoughts?
I'll defer to 11Bravo for dummie thoughts. Could not be any stupider than what this dummie had to say.
-
Inane, and dull.
2 more words in this thread that describe jugs extremely well along with her being banal.
Sorry if that was off topic.
Libs in general are not very incisive when it comes to analyzing events of the day.
-
-- In no way was France’s war-fighting capability damaged.
-- Even though it was a strike at France’s capital, no infrastructure or government buildings were seriously damaged or destroyed and no high-ranking government officials were killed or taken hostage.
-- The attack, while shocking, was nowhere near devastating enough to demoralize the population and weaken its will to fight. This was no fire-bombing of Dresden.
-- It was not an attack on France's "war-fighting capability", and was not intended to be.
-- It was not an attack on France's "infrastructure, ... government buildings, ... or high-ranking government officials", and was not intended to be.
-- The intentions of the attack come closest to "demoraliz(ing) the population and weaken(ing) its will to fight", but I don't think the terrorists imagined their attack, of itself, would such a devastating effect.
In sum, the Paris attack failed to accomplish goals it never had.
I hope the rest of LTD's evening with his recreational chemical of choicevwas better than this dumb post.