originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
WAR SUMMIT is now gathering. Officially, world leaders are mustering.
ISIS even said 'we are here in the name of Allah, and for what you've done in Syria'...
A war? But ISIS has no nation, only some holding areas in nations it itself is attacking. I don't want to be either anti-Islamic people generally or
inflammatory, but jihadists are in most places in Europe already. How would a war work against a terrorist force within borders? Some communications
may be made via the Dark Web, giving some amount of security to terrorists, but it seems most communicating must be done in person nowadays.
What kind of war can there be against terrorists operating on domestic soil like this?
I'm loathe to compare the situation to the noble French Resistance but that kind of situation indicates a lot about what can and can't be done against
the real threat in this - an underground network who are here already. In 2nd World War France, the Resistance were most successful because the Nazis
were in the dark. It showed what can be done in secret, when the people in control don't know who to target. Even back then, Nazis had probably most
French phones tapped (not that there were many then), but it shows that those kind of communication methods amongst an underground aren't really
necessary at all. I feel horrible making a situation analogy between ISIS in the west and French Revolutionaries.
2. NihilistSanta wrote, on page 1:
"No one else finds it strange that a passport was found next to one of the suspects (from OPs source)? I don't know but that causes red flags to go
up for me. Its so convenient now all that is missing is to find another suspect clutching a manifesto. "
Yes, you have to wonder each time about your response to these kinds of things and ask when responding - "that's if this all isn't set up anyhow", or
about the extent to which it may be. It took me a long time to get to this stage. I used usually not to be able to hold the thought seriously that
serious tragedies in the news can be planned at times using complicity, or at times using further involvement, of home or ally authorities to enact
them. But now I know, I think I can say. They can be planned. Authorities in our part of the world make and also cover up much. Many are involved in
satanistic meetings and groups, agreements and rituals, and decision making which is not at all allowed in their job descriptions and is never
reported in their official work records. It can be a case of these people using the systems in the authorities, and where not everyone in power is
involved. But there are also a lot of people further down the chain of command who are involved on the ground, and can be just as secretive and
committed as those few above.
I'm not suggesting here that the Paris attacks are this - I have no idea. And they really do look like some insane jihadis, OK made by Bush and Blair
in the first place probably, just going mad on a terrorist killing spree for their cause, taking revenge for French airstrikes.
But, as NihilistSanta pointed out with the passport - it's lax and negligent actually to forget this possibility.
Of course, it's important also because the refugee passport of Greece is anyway a terrorist manifesto itself, that the killer was a Syrian refugee,
entering Europe in Greece. Just as 1000,000s of genuine refugees from war and ISIS terror itself have done.
That's a major point. ISIS doesn't want any Syrians to be able to enter Europe at all anyway, but for its own members, for creating terror. ISIS wants
to keep all normal Syrians in Syria and rule and control them by terror and real torture involving murder and mutilation. ISIS wants Europe to block
Syrians from making it to become refugees in Europe. For every refugee lost to Europe, ISIS loses a potential member of its intended new state in
Syria & Levant, another digit in its power status figures.
So the terrorist dies with a refugee passport on his person. It's probably no mistake, to them a forseeable part of the disgusting propaganda
manipulation intended to terrorise Europe against receiving more of genuine refugees, fleeing war and fleeing ISIS. ISIS would be very happy with any
general anti-refugee attitudes & acts. Most islamist extremists in the ME also believe that if Islamic people who live in the west are not "serving"
Jihadis goals, they should have to move to an Islamic state.
3. In any case:
There is no "war" or anything to become a war, which is new. It's just another strike, maybe going back to 9/11. And just mentioning that event, 9/11,
is enough to question that what was behind what you see in the news is the same as what we're being told.
What difference could there be in a current response by western countries to "war on terror"?
It's the same. (Except hopefully, it might not be as mindless and destructive and further provocative from the west, but then pigs might fly).
As the OP's post indirectly referred to, the French leader is again stating some kind of grey, blurry, indescribable kind of war (seemingly furthering
GW Bush's agenda of more than questionable appropriacy which has even nearly disappeared in Obama's leadership. Thankfully.)
Surely it's not surprising the "war on terror" would lead to these kind of things, though. David Cameron, meanwhile, from today's media, announces a
Shoot to Kill policy to terrorists in the UK (and notably, of course, to any British citizens listening of a nervous or aggressive disposition).
Subsequent to a foreign event, nothing on British soil.
It seems to me the mad Western leaders, some of whom at least in part created this whole situation, like to spar with / compete against terrorists to
be the most provocative and also to causing the most fear in Western populations.
Though despicable murders occurred in Paris, is there nothing new going on in the bigger picture? Some more heinous attacks, subsequent to an illegal
war in the ME (which though was nothing to do with France), and subsequent to some western ME air stikes. At least western nations might, just might,
get the right targets this time, in ISIS. Not like Iraq and its half a million to a million dead who had nothing to do with terrorism before the Iraq
invasion. (But now, very many of them have very much to do with terrorism, as ISIS, and not for no reason whatsoever.)
So we see - if there's talk of a war, a grey, indistinguishable war with no discernable front, it's nothing new and indeed the USA / UK can be seen to
have started that over a decade ago in respect of the then quiet people in the wider region around Iraq. (Maybe not so with Afghanistan. Maybe though,
depending on how integrated the so-called Illuminati aspect of that was with people in the US & UK govts: How much those govts were involved in and /
or lied about 9/11.) Bear in mind what we're seeing now - the insane terrorist people in Syria & Levant - comes from people significantly made that
way by Bush, Blair etc in a most evil, illegitimate Middle Eastern criminal war. As even the biggest, self-obsessed liar in the western world, Blair,
has himself admitted recently. Most importantly (especially for those who will hear no western evil re 9/11) that war and its tit for tat results
which continue to worsen was created by "using" 9/11, lying about it totally, then lying about non-existant WMDs.
edit on 15-11-2015 by bw1000
because: (no reason given)