I think it's called 'making a statement'.

:yep:

Back to more desert-like climes, the Iraqi army is preparing for a major offensive on Ramadi.
This is a big one, it was a major embarrassment for them to lose it back in May, so getting it back will be a much needed morale boost for the Iraqi armed forces, and if the Syrians can complete their operations in Aleppo before the year is out then 2016 will start with Daesh very much on the back foot.

I think that Germany is going into this whole anti ISIS thing now, though 1200 troops is not a large commitment.

By German standards it is a large commitment. :dead:

This. :oops:

If I was Daesh, I would do anything to get Turkey and Israel directly involved in the civil war in Syria, if I should loose ground to the Syrian army and to the Iraqi army.

Markus

Looks like we should let Iraq fight Daesh on their own. No need to send them our money, equipment or anyone to help train them. Since the shia will attack any special forces we send over there, I say the heck with them. Let them fight their own war.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/...yed/ar-AAfTNvM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SRE...ature=youtu.be

MoD briefing.

Parliament (UK) are voting this evening on whether to send extra air assets to bomb Daesh in Syria.

I'd be happier if we had a firmer game plan rather than relying on these magical 70,000 'moderate' fighters to run the show while we bomb from above.

"My Precious Turkmen!"

http://i.imgur.com/itRyznZ.jpg

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34979249

This a stinking joke to you Oberon?

Nope, it's the reaction to some people here claiming that terror strikes are not terror strikes if they are carried out by non Muslims and should therefore not be in a terrorism thread, or something like that.

Pretty much, the last time some idiot with a gun shot up a church full of black people I called it terrorism, and then had to spend the next six pages defending my decision to do so. This thread was started with the 'all purpose' in order that all terrorist incidents would be placed in it, I then had to defend my decision to do this for about three pages since people were under the impression that if it wasn't done by a Muslim then it's not terrorism. Therefore, I have been acknowledging that I am aware that something has occurred, just in case someone decides to attack me on the fact that I'm not reporting on non-Muslim terrorist based incidents despite calling this a 'All purpose terrorism thread' but I am not making any comment beyond that because that will lead to people attacking me on trying to say that the event in San Bernadino is terrorism.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. :yeah:

Yes, but as I brought to everyones attention before, the U.S. already has lawfully defined what an act of terrorism is and certain criteria must be met for anyone to be called a terrorist. If someone wants to make up their own definition to suit their own agenda, go for it. It doesnt really matter to me one bit because their definition has nothing to do with reality.

Well call it what you want but there were at least three attackers involved so this is no crazed gunman scenario. I suppose that workplace violence is still a possible motive but so far it doesn't sound like it to me. Terrorism has definitely not been ruled out yet.

The anti gun media is currently in full court press though.