Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris

[AE Bravo]

You mad bro?

I tend to get mad at the mouthbreather crew on the right.

I can't seem to find the ones that aren't mouthbreathers on the internet, they go full retard anonymously.

[Papewaio]

French sure didn't treat them well outside of their borders. Also, when was the last time France elected a black prime minister?

You do know that France is a Republic right?

[a completely inoffensive name]

You do know that France is a Republic right?

Makes no difference to my point, so please answer it. Last black french president?
( I was 99% sure France had a prime minister though.)

[Brenus]

Yes, France has a PM but he is not elected.
When is the last time US has a female President?
Your question is a godwin. When the last US had a Hispano elected President, a Jew elected President? A Mormon, Asiatic? I can make the lst longer. All right, a last one for the pleasure: A homeless black women handicapped and lesbian?

But the way, it looks that the West of France is in Belgium.

[Fragony]

I tend to get mad at the mouthbreather crew on the right.

I can't seem to find the ones that aren't mouthbreathers on the internet, they go full retard anonymously.

No offense intended but no matter full retard it may be, they got a point. It's rediculous to not to take islam into the equation, something some people refuse to do (that's not personally directed at you). I am really tired of gutmenschen and islamphiles who refuse to acknowledge a simple truth, that islam isn't peace. I know that these guys are as welcome as the inquisition for normal muslims who only care aabout what's for dinner, looking away is kinda dumb

[Montmorency]

When was the last time France had an Englishman for Prime Minister?

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[AE Bravo]

No offense intended but no matter full retard it may be, they got a point. It's rediculous to not to take islam into the equation, something some people refuse to do (that's not personally directed at you). I am really tired of gutmenschen and islamphiles who refuse to acknowledge a simple truth, that islam isn't peace. I know that these guys are as welcome as the inquisition for normal muslims who only care aabout what's for dinner, looking away is kinda dumb

This approach to Islam is problematic imo, and this is why the premise of PFH's argument is a waste of everyone's time. You may be correct in assuming that Islam isn't peace even though by definition it is, but that doesn't make it the opposite either.

Islam is in the equation. It's not monolithic, not homogenous. So surely there is a problem with:

A. Islam in warzones
B. Islam in Europe
C. Islamic politics

PFH pinpointing the issue right down to Islam itself is a simplistic view equivalent to how an atheist would see someone using god to explain the universe. Ignorant and lazy. Presents more problems than solutions.

aka PFH and STFS are Statler and Waldorf, the old guys from the muppets.

[a completely inoffensive name]

My favorite Muppet has always been the Swedish Chef.

[Fragony]

This approach to Islam is problematic imo, and this is why the premise of PFH's argument is a waste of everyone's time. You may be correct in assuming that Islam isn't peace even though by definition it is, but that doesn't make it the opposite either.

Islam is in the equation. It's not monolithic, not homogenous. So surely there is a problem with:

A. Islam in warzones
B. Islam in Europe
C. Islamic politics

PFH pinpointing the issue right down to Islam itself is a simplistic view equivalent to how an atheist would see someone using god to explain the universe. Ignorant and lazy. Presents more problems than solutions.

aka PFH and STFS are Statler and Waldorf, the old guys from the muppets.

I know things aren't simple. Problem is that the multicultural left and offended muslims wants it to be simple, as a whole they accept no uncomfortable truths, and activily fascilitate the rougher edges with the circle-reasoning of an F5 tornado, everything you say is wrong, HARSH critisism is much more constructive, much more than pointing out it's complicated, I know it is complicated.

[Gilrandir]

"So much pathos! When I had expessed a similar one two years ago I was blamed as being too emotionally invested. Perhaps you suggest there should be another march which will show to the world that the French are... what will it show, by the way, and what has the CH one shown?" I was waiting for this... I am not disappointed.

If you can't find the answer, sorry, I can't fill your emptiness.

I have found the answer, but you may not like it.

Two years ago I could have posted videos and pictures of thousands of weeping people on Maidan holding candles in their hands and coffins with the fallen on their shoulders. I could have played you the heart-rending song "A duckling is floating" which has turned into a dirge since then and I can't hear it without tears starting in my eyes. But I didn't, knowing the reaction of the likes of you who would have said (as they did when I expressed my emotions): "Those are Nazis. Serve them right" and you pronounced my diagnosis - nationalistic blindness. Well, if I have one, then now I must say we are sharing the same malady.

You speak about France as a shining beacon of democracy, the last stronghold, the Minas Tirith of our times, that protects Franternite, Liberte and yadda-yadda and those are the only reasons the terrorists who are jealous in their hatred of those tenets aimed their venom at it.

This nationalistic babble doesn't give an answer to one simple question: why France? Is democracy worse in Austria or Finland? Are Fraternite and Liberte upheld less in Denmark, Lichtenstein, Great Britain or the Netherlands? If not, then why it happened in France?

The answer is the fact that you referred to: France has the largest Muslim population in Europe. France nurtured a whole generation of citizens who are easily swayed by radicals and are ready to kill THEIR COMPATRIOTS for some mythical ideas. But you want to sell us the picture of France that may have been true 50 years ago and is securely embedded into your consciousness (which you deem so immune to the influence of propaganda)? Wake up, that France is no more. Something is rotten, and this time not in the kingdom of Denmark.

But we didn't play a favorite game of yours: who benefits.

1. ISIS? Well, the atmosphere of panic and fear they wanted to cause will soon wear out, so it will only turn to their undoing and people will start to hate them more. But, frankly, when did they care? They will recklessly go on doing what they are, disregarding any strategies and adversaries.
2. Assad (backed by Russia)? Definitely yes. It is one more chance for him to say: "Hey, you do now know what ISIS is, don'tcha? And who is fighting it? Me! So stop discussing shortcomings of my regime and prop me up as Russia is doing".
3. Le Pen (financed by Russia)? Evidently yes. One more chance for her to say: "I told you so! Elect me and you will have no such nonsense from the filthy immigrants any more."
4. Putin (the president of Russia)? Three times yes. One more chance for him to say: "Forget the Crimea and Ukraine. Remember the glorious time of WWII when our grandfathers fought the Great Evil together. Back then the West wasn't too scrupulous about the Baltic states or Poland. Let's draw our swords together against the new scourge of our time and, please, lift off the sanctions, will ya?"

So it seems that the ultimate beneficiary is Putin. But what help can he render France and whole Europe, forsooth, when the latter have to fight the evil first of all WITHIN their domains where the seeds of terrorism seem to have taken roots and will bear fruit irrespective of the fact the motherplant is crushed elsewhere?

I agree that Europe has a problem with integration. But I wouldn't hold up North America as some kind of shining example. Our integration of immigrants works on a multi-generational schedule.

The USA's history has been the one of immigration, so its kind of inborn to have a knack in assimilating immigrants. But from the outset what those immigrants did was ousting the natives. Europe has a comparatively short history of admitting huge influxes of immigrants and the natives of Europe want anything but get ousted, so different purposes of Europe and the USA in regards to immigrants are obvious.

When was the last time France had an Englishman for Prime Minister?

Henry V?

[Fisherking]

You want to blame someone for the rise of militant Islam? Blame it on the US.

Blame it on Jimmy Carter. Carter wanted to replace the Shah of Iran. That worked well for him, huh? All those smart people couldn’t see that coming?
Then with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Carter sponsored and helped to give a religious focus to the mujahideen. Later it became the Taliban.

The early PLO and groups opposed to Israel were secular in nature but when a more effective weapon comes along, well.

America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where their political ineptitude could not have been better designed to create unrest and opposition.

We can skip over the Arab Spring, I mean no one could have dreamed religious fundamentalists would take over there, could they. But the Syrian uprising was also a part of that, openly supported by the US and calling for the ouster of that government with weapons and training provided to the rebels (only moderates of course).

Frustrated by public opposition to intervention in a Syrian Civil War, as well as strong Russian opposition, the US turned its attention to Ukraine, another brilliant piece of work. Then Surprise!, we have the appearance of IS. Bad Guys so evil they could be taken from a Hollywood script or a bad pulp novel.

Then, after years of war and a brief and ineffective American bombing campaign we suddenly have hundreds of thousands of refugees from most of the Islamic world (not just Syria) converging on Europe. But we are assured they are all peaceful and it is inhuman to turn them away. Of course for some reason no Islamic country will provide aid or shelter for them.

Then, this. Who could have predicted it. Paris of all places. Paris where Khomeini spent 14 years as a political exile, writing, developing his ideas, and teaching sharia law. Time Magazine’s 1979 Man of the Year.

How could French muslims ever have been radicalised.

[Gilrandir]

You want to blame someone for the rise of militant Islam? Blame it on the US.

Then we might as well blame Christopher Columbus since it was he who discovered America and thus triggered the chain of events that led to the Paris tragedy.

Instead my blame is on those who allowed and indeed supported the flow of cheap labor from Muslim countries to Europe and FAILED TO ASSIMILATE the newcomers.

[Slyspy]

Instead my blame is on those who allowed and indeed supported the flow of cheap labor from Muslim countries to Europe and FAILED TO ASSIMILATE the newcomers.

So you do in fact blame the victims of the atrocity for their own killings? Good man, nice to know.

There are two possible ways to react to this issue IMO. Taken at their extremes they are as follows:

1. Accept the odd atrocity because it is still better than sacrificing everything we are.
2. Machine gun the boats and start building the camps.

Which would you choose?

[Pannonian]

You want to blame someone for the rise of militant Islam? Blame it on the US.

Blame it on Jimmy Carter. Carter wanted to replace the Shah of Iran. That worked well for him, huh? All those smart people couldn’t see that coming?
Then with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Carter sponsored and helped to give a religious focus to the mujahideen. Later it became the Taliban.

The early PLO and groups opposed to Israel were secular in nature but when a more effective weapon comes along, well.

America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where their political ineptitude could not have been better designed to create unrest and opposition.

We can skip over the Arab Spring, I mean no one could have dreamed religious fundamentalists would take over there, could they. But the Syrian uprising was also a part of that, openly supported by the US and calling for the ouster of that government with weapons and training provided to the rebels (only moderates of course).

Frustrated by public opposition to intervention in a Syrian Civil War, as well as strong Russian opposition, the US turned its attention to Ukraine, another brilliant piece of work. Then Surprise!, we have the appearance of IS. Bad Guys so evil they could be taken from a Hollywood script or a bad pulp novel.

Then, after years of war and a brief and ineffective American bombing campaign we suddenly have hundreds of thousands of refugees from most of the Islamic world (not just Syria) converging on Europe. But we are assured they are all peaceful and it is inhuman to turn them away. Of course for some reason no Islamic country will provide aid or shelter for them.

Then, this. Who could have predicted it. Paris of all places. Paris where Khomeini spent 14 years as a political exile, writing, developing his ideas, and teaching sharia law. Time Magazine’s 1979 Man of the Year.

How could French muslims ever have been radicalised.

We can blame it on Carter, or any host of past actors in this unholy mess. But nothing of that sort will help solve the current problem, which goes beyond what people have done in the past. What's driving things now are what people are doing now. And the most immediate, most relevant driver of these idiots, in the UK at least, is the preachers radicalising the youth and the youths being radicalised. Cut that influence, by restricting who can preach here, and by keeping out those who've gone abroad to be radicalised, and you'll cut out a good chunk of radicalised homegrown terrorism. These idiots aren't the victims of western foreign policy abroad. They were raised here, with our tax money funding their upbringing.

[rory_20_uk]

So you do in fact blame the victims of the atrocity for their own killings? Good man, nice to know.

There are two possible ways to react to this issue IMO. Taken at their extremes they are as follows:

1. Accept the odd atrocity because it is still better than sacrificing everything we are.
2. Machine gun the boats and start building the camps.

Which would you choose?

Until extremely recently we outsourced the second option to our "Allies of convenience" - Gadaffi, Saddam and Assad who between them kept the lid on all this. We mainly spouted hot air and did nothing.

More recently we decided to think with our hearts and got rid of the "baddies". And lo and behold! Thousands if not millions of poor, generally poorly skilled people with extremely different cultural norms view the worst slums over here as much better than what they have over there.

And rather like the rules of war that were chosen by those who were a long way from bettlefields, the rules dealing with immigrants was written by those who started with the assumption that people would have the decency to not come over here so we could be all nice and free.

The birth rates of Africa isn't going down fast enough so even with the net emigration, diseases and wars the population is still going up. Same in Iraq and possibly the same in Syria. Until the countries where these people originate is nice enough that the trip isn't worth the bother they'll keep coming until here is nasty enough not to want to come.

There is no influx into the GCC as they might well machine gun the lot of them; similarly there is the lack of enthusiasm for Russia, or Iran.

Wherever restrictions are placed there will be many people who die just the other side of it due to buildup of people. Now they are in Europe so that is such a moral problem since we now see it on TV. Best we find new puppets to keep this nasty business where it belongs - somewhere else.

[Pannonian]

Until extremely recently we outsourced the second option to our "Allies of convenience" - Gadaffi, Saddam and Assad who between them kept the lid on all this. We mainly spouted hot air and did nothing.

More recently we decided to think with our hearts and got rid of the "baddies". And lo and behold! Thousands if not millions of poor, generally poorly skilled people with extremely different cultural norms view the worst slums over here as much better than what they have over there.

And rather like the rules of war that were chosen by those who were a long way from bettlefields, the rules dealing with immigrants was written by those who started with the assumption that people would have the decency to not come over here so we could be all nice and free.

The birth rates of Africa isn't going down fast enough so even with the net emigration, diseases and wars the population is still going up. Same in Iraq and possibly the same in Syria. Until the countries where these people originate is nice enough that the trip isn't worth the bother they'll keep coming until here is nasty enough not to want to come.

There is no influx into the GCC as they might well machine gun the lot of them; similarly there is the lack of enthusiasm for Russia, or Iran.

Wherever restrictions are placed there will be many people who die just the other side of it due to buildup of people. Now they are in Europe so that is such a moral problem since we now see it on TV. Best we find new puppets to keep this nasty business where it belongs - somewhere else.

I actually have some sympathy for those who find themselves displaced into Europe. It's the ones who were born and raised here yet turn against their home country whom I despise.

[Gilrandir]

So you do in fact blame the victims of the atrocity for their own killings? Good man, nice to know.

You misinterpret (intentionally or accidentally) what I said. Victims are the people of France, and they have my sympathy. My country has been having similar experience, it is just not that condensed, but rather protracted. Yet Ukraine too suffered from blown up buildings and railroads, peaceful demonstrations were attacked in the same way - and all of these far from the actual fighting zone. So by now we have learned well what is it to be under attack of terrorists (the ones that some people here stubbornly call rioting Russian-speaking populaces of oppressed Donbas). That is why my heart is with the victims and their relatives.

I blame powers-that-be and especially those that were responsible (in their time) for letting such a mass of immigrants in when it still could be prevented.

There are two possible ways to react to this issue IMO. Taken at their extremes they are as follows:

1. Accept the odd atrocity because it is still better than sacrificing everything we are.
2. Machine gun the boats and start building the camps.

Which would you choose?

Neither. But the atrocity is not likely to stay odd, it will happen more often once the terrorists see how easy it is. The boats with immigrants should be towed back to where they belong. Same with those who are now camped within the EU. Coast guard shouldn't allow any to land, and if they do - deport them back. Close the borders for any non-EUnians and fortify them against attempts to break through. If you choose to let the newcomers stay, make sure they are spread all over the country in far sundered places and not collected in one neighborhood all together. Own up to the fact that liberalism practised within the EU will not address the challenges from the outside.

Cut that influence, by restricting who can preach here, and by keeping out those who've gone abroad to be radicalised, and you'll cut out a good chunk of radicalised homegrown terrorism.

Do you think they will come for a permission to preach? Do you think (if they get this permission) they would disclose to you the real content of their messages? They will preach at secret meetings or at legal ones but in an unknown language, so you must be ready to start watching the Muslims (especially the youth) closely and introduce Arabic speaking censors at such meetings. That is if what you suggest is to be efficient.

[Kagemusha]

While i admit that any long term solution will be more then complicated to achieve in the area. For once we have an identified target, unlike with most terrorists.

ISIS has last today threatened that they are going to keep attacking everyone conducting air strikes against them including US and apparently these idiots think that they can scare the West with that.

If we have +30k of these lunatics in a geographically enclosed area. We should get rid of them as fast as possible, sending a message at the same time that attacking us will have its prize. After that we can work more on issues that are plaguing our own societies and try to get more lasting solutions to Middle East as well. I think joining ISIS will become lot less attractive, if it means mostly a certain death.

Hopefully the leaders of the world can set aside their differences concerning this and destroy these jihadist and not fall into apathy like many of us for example. Such apathy will just make these lunatics stronger.

[Pannonian]

Do you think they will come for a permission to preach? Do you think (if they get this permission) they would disclose to you the real content of their messages? They will preach at secret meetings or at legal ones but in an unknown language, so you must be ready to start watching the Muslims (especially the youth) closely and introduce Arabic speaking censors at such meetings. That is if what you suggest is to be efficient.

Yes, I think they will come to us asking for permission to preach, for they are foreigners with no right to abode here. Eg. the guy with a hook for a hand, who regularly preached hatred for Britain and the British. When he finally exhausted our patience and we deported him, he protested that he would be in danger back home, and only Britain offered a safe haven. Too bloody bad. We don't need his type here.

[Strike For The South]

You are very wrong about France's integration. U.S. isn't the leader in this, yes better then Australia but that is because we are borderline apartheid until the sixties.

You are talking about single cases of high born men reaching high rank in the military. You are not talking about the mass integration of millions of people from a different cultural group. It's worth pointing out both of your Steve Jobs were steeped in French culture from the time they were born.

If you think this is proof of a successfully integrated society, we may just have to agree to disagree. The same goes for all this dick measuring of high up governmental positions. 1 or 2 success stories does not translate to mass integration.

I tend to get mad at the mouthbreather crew on the right.

I can't seem to find the ones that aren't mouthbreathers on the internet, they go full retard anonymously.

Yea, you mad.

[Kagemusha]

Polands new foreign minister has made an interesting suggestion:

https://www.rt.com/news/322289-polan...ee-army-syria/

He suggest that instead taking the able bodied young men seeking asylum as refugees. Why not turn them into a liberation army and ship them back?

[rory_20_uk]

I actually have some sympathy for those who find themselves displaced into Europe. It's the ones who were born and raised here yet turn against their home country whom I despise.

I think the opposite - one lot came here and made a choice. They want to be here, they should fit in and adapt to our rules and customs.

The others are descendants of those who did and therefore had no choice. Often they have been brought up to hate where they are and often have little if any ability to leave - now even trying in in essence a criminal offence and the last of them are still in Guantanamo as heading fromt he West so such countries means that they must be bad 'uns.

[Pannonian]

I think the opposite - one lot came here and made a choice. They want to be here, they should fit in and adapt to our rules and customs.

The others are descendants of those who did and therefore had no choice. Often they have been brought up to hate where they are and often have little if any ability to leave - now even trying in in essence a criminal offence and the last of them are still in Guantanamo as heading fromt he West so such countries means that they must be bad 'uns.

I disagree with keeping them here when they have no wish to be here. Everyone, except perhaps for the hellholes they're headed to, is better off with them bothering off and never returning.

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com...islamic-state/

[Strike For The South]

Polands new foreign minister has made an interesting suggestion:

https://www.rt.com/news/322289-polan...ee-army-syria/

He suggest that instead taking the able bodied young men seeking asylum as refugees. Why not turn them into a liberation army and ship them back?

They have a meal ticket, Their homeland is as good as gone to them.

[Kagemusha]

They have a meal ticket, Their homeland is as good as gone to them.

You sure seem to be the expert. For example my country evades about half of the asylum seekers. The problem is just we have already had seven times the number seeking asylum compared to last year, most from Syria and Iraq. Now, now what could be the reason for it??

But isnt it just lot more easy to lump all Europe as one blob. Sure makes things more easy. Can i ask you what do you think about the latin immigrants coming to US?

[Strike For The South]

You sure seem to be the expert. For example my country evades about half of the asylum seekers. The problem is just we have already had seven times the number seeking asylum compared to last year, most from Syria and Iraq. Now, now what could be the reason for it??

The reason is Merkel opened the borders and tried to give them out to the member countries one by one. These wars didn't just start, you silly goose.

But let me indulge the Polish mans fantasy.

First, let us assume we have the funding for such an endeavor. Let us just assume we have an unlimited money pie. First you have to get these guys up to a level of physical conditioning. To do properly, that will take about three months. Then you have to train in certain specialties at minimum three months. That's six months, who knows where we will be in 6 months.

The EU would also have to cooperate on this. The EU can not cooperate on a damn thing and now general enthusiasm for it is waning. I simply don't see the member states coming together to do anything, try as Merkel might to make them.

So let's assume we have the money, the patience, and the cooperation. It's a PR nightmare. Some effeminate urban faux intellectual will eventually come out of *his/her/insert pronoun here* drug induced hedonism to pen a few acerbic paragraphs about how the west is simply using these poor refugees as cannon fodder for whatever imperial goal of the week we currently have.

Whose command would they be under? The EU? American? NATO? Russian? It can't be the arabs, because if it's one thing an arab led army can do, it's lose a conventional war in a truly spectacular fashion. The continued exsistance of Israel is a testament to that. Our great and wonderful investment would be squandered by general staffs that make WWII Italy look competent.

Other than that, great plan.

And of course, this is assuming you have volunteers. Which you wont because Germany>Syria, thats why these people crossed 26 peaceful countries to get there.

But isnt it just lot more easy to lump all Europe as one blob. Sure makes things more easy. Can i ask you what do you think about the latin immigrants coming to US?

I have no problem with them, growing up in South Texas I am intimately familiar with them. On the whole they tend be hardworking folks who embrace America. I am proud to count them as citizens. Americas greatest strength lies in its immigrants eventually being brought in to in a anglophone cultural fold. I have never said anything different.

[Kagemusha]

The reason is Merkel opened the borders and tried to give them out to the member countries one by one. These wars didn't just start, you silly goose.

But let me indulge the Polish mans fantasy.

First, let us assume we have the funding for such an endeavor. Let us just assume we have an unlimited money pie. First you have to get these guys up to a level of physical conditioning. To do properly, that will take about three months. Then you have to train in certain specialties at minimum three months. That's six months, who knows where we will be in 6 months.

The EU would also have to cooperate on this. The EU can not cooperate on a damn thing and now general enthusiasm for the it is waning. I simply don't see the member states coming together to do anything, try as Merkel might to make them.

So let's assume we have the money, the patience, and the cooperation. It's a PR nightmare. Some effeminate urban faux intellectual will eventually come out of *his/her/insert pronoun here* drug induced hedonism to pen a few acerbic paragraphs about how the west is simply using these poor refugees as cannon fodder for whatever imperial goal of the week we currently have.

Whose command would they be under? The EU? American? NATO? Russian? It can't be the arabs, because if it's one thing an arab led army can do, it's lose a conventional war in a truly spectacular fashion. The continued exsistance of Israel is a testament to that. Our great and wonderful investment would be squandered by general staffs that make WWII Italy look competent.

Other than that, great plan.

And of course, this is assuming you have volunteers. Which you wont because Germany>Syria, thats why these people crossed 26 peaceful countries to get there.


I have no problem with them, growing up in South Texas I am intimately familiar with them. On the whole they tend be hardworking folks who embrace America. I am proud to count them as citizens. Americas greatest strength lies in its immigrants eventually being brought in to in a anglophone cultural fold. I have never said anything different.

Once again you create nice little scenarios in your small head, but the problem is that you lack any knowledge of the facts to base those scenarios.

Our Asylum seekers come mostly from Russia and Sweden, which allows them to pass against the Schengen deal. So it doesnt have anything to do with Merkel.

Secondly here in Northern and Eastern Europe we already have institutions for giving military training to large number of people annually, which we do. Unlike in your country where few hired service men protect the civilian population who could not protect their lunch box if their life depended on it.

The deploying surely is a problem as long as US keeps supporting Wahhabist countries like Saudi Arabia. I dont think they would like if some sort of peace would actually happen in Syria, unless of course under regime similar to Isis or Al Qaida.

[Montmorency]

because if it's one thing an arab led army can do, it's lose a conventional war in a truly spectacular fashion. The continued exsistance of Israel is a testament to that.

This is a somewhat-mistaken preconception. Israel as a geographical and political entity cannot ever be destroyed by any one of its neighbors, and even in combination the level of coordination required given the geographic and institutional boundaries would give even NATO trouble - and this kind of concerted effort would become common knowledge to the world long before the time to strike could arrive. The Yom Kippur war is testament to just how difficult it is. Syria and Iraq vaguely timed military incursions around the same week, merely with the goal of (re)taking strategic terrain in the Golan Heights and the Sinai. Syria was defeated handily, but Egypt at least got as far as the other side of the Suez Canal. This, in other words, was the "debacle" that embarrassed Israel, raised tensions between blocs, and precipitated a land swap favorable to Egypt under the condition that they become a de-facto ally of Israel. That is the worst it ever got for Israel as an established state. The existence of Israel says as much about the Arab militaries as the neutrality of Switzerland says about the Nazi German military.

Finally, consider that Israel's neighbors find it useful as a buffer between each other. Indeed, the only way that Israel could be militarily overrun by anything in the region (given the further assumption that the US and EU have no involvement whatsoever) is if Turkey, Iran, and Egypt were to explicitly organize a Muslim coalition over an extended period of time, developing joint command, communication infrastructure, and logistical and intelligence harmonization such that they would be prepared to sustain massive casualties over many weeks to ensure that entrenched Israeli positions could be overcome with brute force, allowing the forces to break through and reach the major cities of the coast and the center. And then, of course, they have to accomplish a thing that modernity has not had the opportunity to witness the circumstances for: break apart the rump resistance in the hilly Galilee, including fanatical guerrillas and desperate militias.

[Strike For The South]

Once again you create nice little scenarios in your small head, but the problem is that you lack any knowledge of the facts to base those scenarios.

OK

Our Asylum seekers come mostly from Russia and Sweden, which allows them to pass against the Schengen deal. So it doesnt have anything to do with Merkel.

Oh silly me, thinking when you reference asylum seekers in this thread, you mean those from the middle east. Is this supposed to be on of those gotcha moments? Do you really think you have backed me into some sort of corner?

Secondly here in Northern and Eastern Europe we already have institutions for giving military training to large number of people annually, which we do. Unlike in your country where few hired service men protect the civilian population who could not protect their lunch box if their life depended on it.

Training still costs money and time.

If by few hired service men you mean all volunteer force pulled from the citizenry, then yes you are correct. All able bodied American men can be called up in a state of emergency anyway. The conscript armies of Europe rely on American muscle and have since NATO became a thing. I realize Finland is not part of NATO but a Russian attack on Finland (the only real reason Finland would mobilize ever) would effectively trigger the same response.

You also conveniently forget that Europeans are required to do this as a citizen. Are we going to force the refugees to fight for us now? How wonderfully 19th century.

If the best thing you can sling at me is "hurr durr Americans can't protect the food they love so much" than I think we are done discussing anything of merit. You can crawl back inside your bottle and hope your friends don't kill themselves because you people wont see the sun for the next six months.

The deploying surely is a problem as long as US keeps supporting Wahhabist countries like Saudi Arabia. I dont think they would like if some sort of peace would actually happen in Syria, unless of course under regime similar to Isis or Al Qaida.

What are you talking about? Deploying is a problem because I don't want to see anymore Western lives lost but we can't trust this investment to a home grown general staff. The Saudis and a peaceful Syria have co-exsisted before, it can happen again.