The new normal, same as the old normal
Fox News reports that ISIS has taken credit for the attack on New Year’s Day in Istanbul that killed more than 30 people injuring more than 70 others. The triggerman was dressed as Santa Claus and has so far escaped capture.
ISIS also took credit for an attack on a Baghdad market today that cost another 36 lives.
During a press conference with Hollande, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi said the bomber pretended to be a man seeking to hire day laborers. Once the workers gathered around, he detonated the vehicle.
ISIS claimed the attack in a statement circulated on a militant website often used by the extremists. It was the third ISIS-claimed attack in as many days in and around Baghdad, underscoring the lingering threat posed by the group despite a string of setbacks elsewhere in the country over the past year, including in and around the northern city of Mosul.
While the Islamic State loses in their caliphate in places like Mosul, since they can’t win in a straight up fight with the West and the coalition in Iraq and Syria, they’ll once again carry the fight to innocent, undefended people. Since the coalition won’t kill them on the battlefields, ISIS will have plenty of soldiers to attack the innocents. Martyrdom is more attractive than death on the battlefield to the jihadists anyway.
Category: Terror War
Goatfuckers, proof that some people just CANNOT be civilized.
The more I read about the usual barbarities of the Caliphate, the more I understand Roman diplomacy.
I want to be sure that I understand this.
It’s going back to the same old-same old: drive-through truck bombings, suicide vests in open markets, homemade mines in shopping baskets, right?
Is there any way at all to encourage them to meet in some sort of circle jerk? Just get them all together in one spot and then drop a Fat Boy on them?
I see no reason not to kill them all and their families
Right. At what point do we say that those living in ISIL held lands are guilty by ambivalence and/or inaction.
At what point do we decide that we actually want to win this fight?
The idea that there can be zero civilian casualties in a war has always been a pipe dream.
Since their only intent is to slaughter as many of their own as they can, what is the argument?
All they have ever done is kill each other off, over nothing. That isn’t going to stop now or in the future. So how are you going to decide who will survive any of it?
In case anyone doesn’t ‘get’ what I meant by same old-same old, here’s a couple of Daesh videos for you, courtesy of the Daily Mail UK.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4058334/Terror-ISIS-releases-slick-propaganda-montage-frightening-suicide-bomb-attacks-filmed-drone.html
“The Islamic State asserted in a statement that the attack had been carried out ‘“in continuation of the blessed operations that the Islamic State is conducting against Turkey, the protector of the cross. “A hero soldier of the caliphate attacked one of the most famous nightclubs, where Christians celebrated their pagan holidays.”’ That’s from the NYT. Okay, that explains that. ISIS is at war with Christians. And the Baghdad bombing? ISIS is at war with Shiites. And Mosul? No question that will end well, if one overlooks the massive executions of civilians that are sure to come. I wish these ISIS fellas would target a few heads of state. Maybe then their replacements would get serious about wiping these SOBs from the planet.
I think Daesh is already executing civilians, AirCav. They were doing it it Aleppo and that didn’t work the way they planned it.
It’s hard to beat an army of cowards – but we will.