France goes to war with ISIS: Start of World War 3?

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: soulwaxer
I have no doubt at all that the Paris attacks, as well as the bombing of the Russian airliner, were designed by Western intelligence. The timing is perfect.

What a simple worldview. A view where there are no bad people, except Western Intelligence.

I beg to differ. I think that there are violent and brutal people who revel and thrive in brutal places and who like nothing better than killing people. Most of the killing in the Middle East and North Africa has been Muslims killing Muslims in a cycle of denominational violence that's been going on for ages. The Wets is in the middle and suffer the occasional bit of fall-out.

I thought reality had gone on holiday from ATS until you wrote the above. What I find astonishing is that some folks have no problem believing despite no evidence that western intelligence (normal people who live in normal streets in truth) have no problem organising mass murder of their neighbours at venues that they also visit from time to time BUT are incapable of believing that a religious fanatic can do the same in the 21st century despite their being a history of such events for thousands of years !

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

What with 20 bombs. The French asked for it by attacking ISIS at the beginning of the month for "self-defence" purposes. Like Russia they just got a bloody nose.

War sucks.

All nations need that " wave of indignation to sweep across the nation" IE.. Pearl Harbor....Gulf of Tonkin...911...France just got their wave of indignation. As I have said in the past & it needs repeating......Religion in one form or another is gonna kill us all. It's all theatre of life and we all are the cast.

I find it both inspiring and amusing that France, who has been comically referred to as "...a bunch of frog-eating surrender monkeys" since WWI, has so quickly and clearly demonstrated the correct response to an act of war. I can only hope king obama was taking notes because sooner or later there WILL be a test, almost certainly on American soil again.

I hear chatter from the SC patriots around here... the way France can actually respond to the attacks in Paris is to warn all the residents of a town in Syria called Dabiq (near Aleppo Syria) to evacuate within 14 days or be evaporated in the Nuclear explosion


snip from Atlantic Magazine:

...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 Rome’s Waterloo or its Antietam.
“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.”...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. Western media frequently miss references to Dabiq in the Islamic State’s videos, and focus instead on lurid scenes of beheading. “Here we are, burying the first American crusader in Dabiq, eagerly waiting for the remainder of your armies to arrive,
The Prophetic narration that foretells the Dabiq battle refers to the enemy as Rome...

source 'Atlantic' Magazine from months ago


let France test one of their nukes to see if they are still valuable/viable weapons and 'burn' the Jihadists as they seek to 'burn' the non-Muslims--- let Dabiq become the metaphor for the demise of the Caliphate armies in contradiction to Islam lore that Dabiq is the grave for western civilization in total...


that's the morning coffee talk here in SC

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: soulwaxer
I have no doubt at all that the Paris attacks, as well as the bombing of the Russian airliner, were designed by Western intelligence. The timing is perfect.

What a simple worldview. A view where there are no bad people, except Western Intelligence.

I beg to differ. I think that there are violent and brutal people who revel and thrive in brutal places and who like nothing better than killing people. Most of the killing in the Middle East and North Africa has been Muslims killing Muslims in a cycle of denominational violence that's been going on for ages. The Wets is in the middle and suffer the occasional bit of fall-out.

I am not saying that Western intelligence agents carried out the attacks. I am saying that they wilfully created the circumstances to make them to happen. They and their allies funded and supplied IS, and created the propaganda that helped recruit IS terrorists. It's what they do.

Compare these attacks to the London bombings in 2007 and the attacks of 9/11. The London bombings happened at a time when Blair's support for military action in Iraq had plummeted. They were exactly what he needed. Just as the Paris attacks are exactly what President Hollande (and the rest of Europe) needed to enrage the public and support all-out war. Listen to Hollande's war speech and compare it to Bush's speech after 9/11.

If you study the history of false flags, the pattern becomes quite obvious.

You are comparing internal conflicts in Africa and the Middle East to a completely different animal.

soulwaxer

Not unless a major power is coming forward to defend ISIS.
Russia came forward to defend Serbia, Britain and France came forward to defend Poland. These were both pre-known alliances, and the reaction should have been predictable.
But who's coming forward for ISIS? If they were an important client-state of China, for example, then an attack on them would certainly be asking for trouble.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: conspiracytheoristIAM

a reply to: Ghost147

How many countries can be involved in a regional conflict, as in Syria, without this escalating into ......? I can't see any diplomatic solution , if France ramps things up. Is there any stopping what seems inevitable ?

It depends. Here's an example.

America's "Vietnam War" is usually called "The 2nd Indochina War" globally. The US had backed France's attempts to re-conquer Indochina in the "1st Indochina War", but the Vietcong kept beating France. So the US used the false flag "Gulf of Tonkin incidents" to jump directly into the situation. The US, French, South Koreans, and Australians were just some of the countries fighting against the Vietcong.

But the Vietcong had help from the Chinese and North Koreans, among others. And remember, there were far more casualties in the Vietnam War/2nd Indochina War than in anything we've seen in the War on Terror. Yet that war was never considered the start of World War 3.

You'e forgetting a few important details about the Viet Nam conflict. While both sides in this conflict had numerous backers, as you point out, Americans and Russians and Chinese were not in country fighting each other. In Syria we have Americans, Russians , French along with Assad's troops and a multitude of splinter rebel factions rubbing elbows right next door to Israel.

I won't even get into your claim of North Koreans in the Viet Nam war....it was North Vietnamese troops supplying and fighting along with the Viet Cong. I was there from March "67 to end of Oct. "68.

If you can't see the differences between the Viet Nam conflict and what is developing right now in Syria, nothing I can say will change your mind.

so if they enact article 5 that compels all NATO states to join with them? im not sure how that will work considering Isis is not a country but a terrorist organization... the west declared war on terror more than a decade ago and that war has never even come close to ending so in what way do isis differ from any other terrorist organization in that regard...

i think it's just silly publicly declaring war on Isis because the war on terror still rages on and surely they are part of that, it just seems like more window dressing for the masses... something for the media to latch onto to let us all know that they are not being idle...

im no expert in any of this, it just seems very strange to me that they are specifying isis when in fact this war began more than a decade ago...

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Egg Chicken Egg Chicken Egg Chicken Egg Chicken


France more active than rest of the west in tackling Syria

First targets in Syria in late September. And...

On 8 October, France attacked an Isis training camp in Raqqa, capital of the group’s self-proclaimed caliphate in north-eastern Syria. It was believed to house foreign fighters, including French nationals, but Hollande denied they were targeting a specific individual.

Also...

In all, France has carried out about 1,300 sorties in Iraq, with 271 airstrikes destroying more than 450 terrorist targets. Only a few strikes have been carried out in Syria. It is using six Rafale multi-role fighter jets stationed in the United Arab Emirates and six Mirage 2000 fighters deployed in Jordan.

That might explain a few things.

I recall that USA designed ratio of coalition participation...
the USA retained all the critical 'targets' and Fraance & Jordan were assigned the JV targets of little importance---

it's aka as the fox guarding the hen house--- the usa did not want the ISIS proxy army getting battered more than superficial aircraft strafing runs (no ammo depots or training compounds assigned to France as that would hurt Obamas Muslim proxy army)



as for this post:

originally posted by: Ph03n1x
so if they enact article 5 that compels all NATO states to join with them? im not sure how that will work considering Isis is not a country but a terrorist organization... the west declared war on terror more than a decade ago and that war has never even come close to ending so in what way do isis differ from any other terrorist organization in that regard...

ISIS is just the military arm of Sunni Jihadist Islam... we have the wrong target in our gunsight for a 'war on terror'
the soldiers are indeed the enemy but the Generals & politicians/leadership/organizational juggernaut are sitting in the safety of a religious building...giving instructions to the minions of /targets/operations/martyrdom etc.

originally posted by: TritonTaranis

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
WW III started when the US invaded Iraq in 2003.

That put invasion and conquest back in the playbook.

What?

Conquest means you take that territory and call it your own... Kinda like China stole Tibet and/or Russia stole 90% of its modern day territory like Siberia parts of Finland etc etc

Iraq is NOT named the U.S on any maps

WWIII never started in Iraq, it started after WWII ended in Korea

Saddam was just a soviet puppet threatening to put a dent in the petro dollar

The US or the UN or the NWO destroyed a sovereign nation's army and government and imposed its will by force over the invaded country.

Iraq was made part of the collective by conquest. Or just plain destroyed like Carthage.

Iraq was an example of policy by war, which is what WW III is.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I find it both inspiring and amusing that France, who has been comically referred to as "...a bunch of frog-eating surrender monkeys" since WWI, has so quickly and clearly demonstrated the correct response to an act of war. I can only hope king obama was taking notes because sooner or later there WILL be a test, almost certainly on American soil again.

King Obama is off his throne and out on his arse at the end of the year.

And honestly, I couldn't be happier.

originally posted by: conspiracytheoristIAM

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: conspiracytheoristIAM

a reply to: Ghost147

How many countries can be involved in a regional conflict, as in Syria, without this escalating into ......? I can't see any diplomatic solution , if France ramps things up. Is there any stopping what seems inevitable ?

It depends. Here's an example.

America's "Vietnam War" is usually called "The 2nd Indochina War" globally. The US had backed France's attempts to re-conquer Indochina in the "1st Indochina War", but the Vietcong kept beating France. So the US used the false flag "Gulf of Tonkin incidents" to jump directly into the situation. The US, French, South Koreans, and Australians were just some of the countries fighting against the Vietcong.

But the Vietcong had help from the Chinese and North Koreans, among others. And remember, there were far more casualties in the Vietnam War/2nd Indochina War than in anything we've seen in the War on Terror. Yet that war was never considered the start of World War 3.

You'e forgetting a few important details about the Viet Nam conflict. While both sides in this conflict had numerous backers, as you point out, Americans and Russians and Chinese were not in country fighting each other. In Syria we have Americans, Russians , French along with Assad's troops and a multitude of splinter rebel factions rubbing elbows right next door to Israel.

I won't even get into your claim of North Koreans in the Viet Nam war....it was North Vietnamese troops supplying and fighting along with the Viet Cong. I was there from March "67 to end of Oct. "68.

If you can't see the differences between the Viet Nam conflict and what is developing right now in Syria, nothing I can say will change your mind.

No, I meant what I said. North Koreans were also helping the Vietcong in Vietnam.

N. Korea's participation in Vietnam War specified in new dossier

North Koreans over the skies of Vietnam

And lol, the war against ISIS is nothing compared to the 2 Indochina Wars. For example, the French killed from 125,000–400,000 Vietnamese civilians and 175,000–300,000 Vietnamese soldiers in the 1st Indochina War. ISIS on the other hand, only has an estimated 30,000 to 100,000 fighters (intelligence groups typically put them at 31,000 or so).

And the French had far more casualties in the 1st Indochina War than they have from fighting ISIS, with more than 75,000 soldiers killed. If you think ISIS is bad from killing less than 200 French people, imagine the anger of killing 75,000 French people. Then there's the 2nd Indochina War/"Vietnam War", which saw millions of civilians and soldiers killed. Yet that war didn't lead to WW3 either.

a reply to: Ghost147


Have you seen France go to war?

I am not convinced IS will be that much more phased!!

Just a reminder that France was ready to go into Syria 2 -3 years ago, and had a large warplan. They bailed out with Obama.