ISIS attackers may have used "difficult to monitor" PlayStation network to plan Paris attacks

 

Article from The Hill

EU's chief diplomat, Federica Mogherini, speaking at a meeting of European foreign ministers this evening, said that, to this point, all the attackers are believed to have been EU citizens. Called it a problem of domestic security.

ISIS attackers may have used "difficult to monitor" PlayStation network to plan Paris attacks

 

Article from The Hill

 

There didn't have to be a lot of behind planing the attack, other than getting the materials needed, the only thing they had to do was the timing.

There didn't have to be a lot of behind planing the attack, other than getting the materials needed, the only thing they had to do was the timing.

 

I didn't think there was. It was just fascinating to me that these guys (as well as previous attackers) found that the most secure way to talk to each other about planning this bloody, unholy meyhem was through something that's functionally not much more than a child's toy.

In the wake of the tragedy I shared Hollande’s rage when he said “I want to say we are going to lead a war which will be pitiless.” But, as good as it would feel, I caution that the situation is not so simple as to be fixed by bombs.

 

The United States has the most powerful military in the world, but we haven’t found an effective way of combating and defeating non-state actors. This goes all the way back to counterinsurgency in Vietnam and more recently in Afghanistan and Iraq, but is now amplified by the seemingly boundless, multi-state reach jihadist groups have.

 

If a country was responsible for the attacks then the task would be easier. We attack their leadership, their capitol, their strategic resources. When the perpetrators are an ideological group the response is much more difficult. We play whack-a-mole with their leadership. They have militia groups that can be attacked, but their power is through ideology, not military strength. The attacks in Paris, Beirut, Egypt, have been conducted by a small number of individuals who are either able to slip across borders or who are influenced by this ideology across borders. Fewer than ten depraved individuals is all this attack took. We are not up against a formal army that can be identified and battled.

 

It’s also important to keep in mind that actions have ramifications that might be unforeseen. There would be no ISIS if there were no invasion of Iraq. I don’t want to get into the merits or demerits of the invasion, but the point is that Iraq and Syria are mostly failed states at this point, which has created a power vacuum for unsavory actors to grow into. This was not something anyone expected to happen. The same could be said for the NATO intervention in Libya. What was initially seen as a humanitarian project to protect rebels from Qadaffi and facilitate his ouster has again left the world with a failed state with chaos at its center. What might seem like swift justice in the moment might be detrimental in the long-term.

 

Additionally, the wars in these countries have increased the ideological power of ISIS and related groups. Again, this isn’t to say that ISIS shouldn’t be fought, but the death and destruction there has increased their leverage with the region’s youth. If you were a seven year old Iraqi boy in 2003, you’d be 19 today, a prime fighting age. More than half of your life has been spent living through a war. You’ve probably seen multiple family members killed, you probably haven’t had an education, you have no prospects for a good life beyond subsisting to tomorrow, and you probably resent the United States for causing it. These are the people vulnerable to ISIS and their ilk. Yet, there are now calls to ratchet up the destruction there, including civilian destruction, as though this will turn the populations against ISIS and toward the West. How will this not create a new generation of despondent youth resentful of America?

 

So, when considering what to do, we have to consider what the results will be in the long-term. Can ISIS be defeated without bringing governance to these failed states? Will annihilating ISIS militias in Iraq and Syria end the threat? Will spin-off groups emerge elsewhere? How do we combat their borderless appeal? Undoubtedly, waging a full on war with ISIS will lead to more of these terror attacks in the short-term, how do we deal with that threat?

 

The point I’m making is that the solution isn’t so easy as dropping some bombs or getting tougher with ISIS. We have to have a serious strategy that not only combats ISIS militarily, but one that attacks the root of their existence. We need contingency plans and we need to think two or three steps ahead of the immediate circumstances.

^ While Putin and Assad laugh it up as the rest of the world suffers from them running tricks straight out of the Tyrants' Handbook.

 

"It's either us or ISIS!" *insert maniacal laughter here*

^ While Putin and Assad laugh it up as the rest of the world suffers from them running tricks straight out of the Tyrants' Handbook.

 

"It's either us or ISIS!" *insert maniacal laughter here*

 

At this time, Putin is basically ISIS's air force.

So time waiting sorts out if they hate America? Brilliant

Is there a coherent thought in this sentence?

^ While Putin and Assad laugh it up as the rest of the world suffers from them running tricks straight out of the Tyrants' Handbook.

 

"It's either us or ISIS!" *insert maniacal laughter here*

 

Extremely irritating. In this international game of thrones so to speak, Putin is Cersei to our Ned Stark.

 

Thankfully no one is a competent Tywin yet.

Is there a coherent thought in this sentence?

 

If you read the article it basically is saying we are weeding out bad eggs because they have to wait so long to get refugee status. How bout reading the rest of the thread and keeping up instead of quoting out of context 6-7 pages later.

A buddy of mine just sent this one to me.

 

Had me dying.

 

 

If you read the article it basically is saying we are weeding out bad eggs because they have to wait so long to get refugee status. How bout reading the rest of the thread and keeping up instead of quoting out of context 6-7 pages later.

 

The fault is mine. I can't interpret grammatical gibberish. Sorry.

 

The fault is mine. I can't interpret grammatical gibberish. Sorry.

 

:lol2:

A buddy of mine just sent this one to me.

 

Had me dying.

 

 

[ATTACH]53185[/ATTACH]

 

The maximum age to enlist is 35. I was well past that 14 years ago.

The fault is mine. I can't interpret grammatical gibberish. Sorry.

Or you could just ask him to clarify his post instead of being a jerk.