Slashdot Mirror


Hillary Clinton Urges Silicon Valley To 'Disrupt' ISIS

HughPickens.com writes: The NYT reports that Hillary Clinton spoke at the Brookings Institution's annual Saban Forum on Sunday and said that the Islamic State had become "the most effective recruiter in the world" and that the only solution is to engage American technology companies in blocking or taking down militants' websites, videos and encrypted communications. "We need to put the great disrupters at work at disrupting ISIS. We need Silicon Valley not to view government as its adversary. We need to challenge our best minds in the private sector and work with our best minds in the public sector to develop solutions that would both keep us safe and protect our privacy," said Clinton. "We should take the concerns of law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals seriously. They have warned that impenetrable encryption may prevent them from accessing terrorist communications and preventing a future attack. On the other hand we know there are legitimate concerns about government intrusion, network security, and creating new vulnerabilities that bad actors can and would exploit."

42 of 452 comments (clear)

  1. Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. by tysonedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why try to be cute? Just say it.

    --
    Thirty four characters live here.
    1. Re:Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hilary's nothing like a bitch. Bitches don't get respect. No matter what they say.
      She (and in reality, the government and elites) doesn't give one shit about ISIS or you.
      The ONLY thing they care about is creating and twisting whatever situation both domestic and global into serving their interests and own longevity.
      So long as you don't wake up, rise up, and throw them out... they're happy to keep on taxing and engineering all the life blood and independance they can right out of you your family friends coworkers and neighbors.
      WAKE UP people, stop taking it in the ass.

    2. Re: Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You get way better intelligence by allowing use of these resources. Additionally any attempt to disrupt use will inevitably prevent some legitimate use.

      This argument only works for foes like the Germans with their Enigma and Lorenz machines during World War II, where the size of the foe's organization means that the foe is able to adapt when their existing technologies are disrupted. State-level military operations that are essentially at parity with one's own operations cannot be completely shut down or permanently disrupted so easily.

      For non-state entities like terror organizations, disrupting their command and control and other communications might actually break real operations, and might even help serve to change the nature of those that would sympathize with them. Remember, there have been cases where law enforcement, not criminal entities, managed to contact and provide means and encouragement to disgruntled individuals that motivated them to act. It's not legally entrapment, but without communication, encouragement, and means, would these people have attempted to commit acts?

      One has to wonder about the effectiveness of all of the monitoring that we've all been so perturbed by. We've had attacks in Paris and in San Bernadino where unencrypted communications were used and the attacks were not disrupted. This foe, while not insignificant, is small enough that using their communications to disrupt their acts should be very effective, but it's not proving effective. If it's not effective, then what's the whole damn point? This isn't World War II where the stakes for the enemy learning of the interception would mean that interception would end.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re: Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We've had attacks in Paris and in San Bernadino where unencrypted communications were used and the attacks were not disrupted.

      That is the key issue.

      Trying to connect-the-dots is impossible. Because that is the wrong analogy. In reality it is about constructing thousands of "dots" out of the regular actions of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE and then layering them on top of each other.

      Soon you end up with hundreds of Billions of "dots" and not enough manpower to check even 0.0001% of the false positives. So the "bad guys" will always get through.

      This foe, while not insignificant, is small enough that using their communications to disrupt their acts should be very effective, but it's not proving effective.

      I think that it is insignificant. At least in the USofA.

      If you are in the USofA and you die tomorrow, it will probably be from your diet. If someone kills you it will probably be someone you know.

      Death by terrorism falls bellow death by ex-boyfriend/girlfriend.

    4. Re: Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. by maugle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Zero, most likely. Because the government be shouting "the system works!" from the goddamn rooftops if they were ever to actually catch someone.

    5. Re: Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In case of Paris, German police caught one guy with weapons in his car and plans for going to Paris. Assuming he wanted to participate in the terrorist attacks, that makes one out of nine terrorists successfully intercepted. By traditional search methods, not by communication surveillance.

      Other attacks went entirely unimpeded (Charlie Hebdo, the 2004 Madrid train bombings and the 2005 London bombings). So I think monitoring communications is remarkably useless against terrorism.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    6. Re: Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. by matria · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So we shouldn't be concerned with sidewalks or pedestrian crossings or bicycle paths. Forget about railroad crossing alarms and barriers. Who cares about how many people die because of drunk drivers? Don't worry about whether or not the doctor has washed his hands. More health practitioners die from hepatitis every year than have ever died of AIDS, so why the sudden rush to use rubber gloves all the time? How many other ways of preventing "insignificant" numbers of deaths can you think of? I mean, we all eventually end up dead from some cause or another, right?

    7. Re: Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is everyone thinks terrorism works like in the movies and television shows. Shadowy organizations, dead drops, burner phones, encrypted communications, cell after cell talking with each other and whoever their glorious leader of the week happens to be (until he gets blown up by a drone too)... that's not the strategy here.

      The real threat isn't an organized conspiracy, it's a stand alone complex. A meme. People get taken in by the rhetoric and propaganda and individually or in small groups decide to do something to further the global jihad.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    8. Re: Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. by AikonMGB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So we shouldn't be concerned with sidewalks or pedestrian crossings or bicycle paths. Forget about railroad crossing alarms and barriers. Who cares about how many people die because of drunk drivers? Don't worry about whether or not the doctor has washed his hands. More health practitioners die from hepatitis every year than have ever died of AIDS, so why the sudden rush to use rubber gloves all the time? How many other ways of preventing "insignificant" numbers of deaths can you think of? I mean, we all eventually end up dead from some cause or another, right?

      I don't hear any presidential candidates demanding unwarranted access to my private, encrypted information to tackle any of those issues.

    9. Re: Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only hope the Mid-East crazies have of living with each other is democracy.

      Oh please, this is just dumb. Democracy is proven not to work in the middle east. They tried it in Egypt and elected the Muslim Brotherhood. Democracy doesn't work when you have a bunch of different factions constantly fighting each other. A strong leader like Assad or Saddam Hussein is what you need in those countries, to keep the peace and keep everyone in line, using brutal methods if necessary. Democracy only works in developed nations where people are educated and the culture is fairly homogeneous, so that politics is only arguing about exactly how much funding different programs should get, rather than arguing about which religion should be the state-supported one.

  2. keep HER safe and protect HER privacy by turkeydance · · Score: 4, Insightful

    bottom line: i'm done with her. she lies and lies even more to cover up those lies. thought she had a chance. no more.

    1. Re:keep HER safe and protect HER privacy by quantaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At least she's not hypocritical in using strong encryption for her own servers!

      --
      I stole this Sig
    2. Re:keep HER safe and protect HER privacy by KGIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think Carter's the only person on the planet that has done more good when he wasn't president than when he was. I can't think of any other world leader who has done the same thing after their term in office.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  3. "the most effective recruiter in the world" by Fwipp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe y'all should stop bombing civilians over there. It doesn't take much to "radicalize" somebody whose family was killed by American bombs.

    1. Re: "the most effective recruiter in the world" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The stated goal of ISIS is a global caliphate governed by Sharia law implemented by the sword.

      Exactly. They're willing to kill anyone who doesn't convert to their views and submit to their rule and they take a very long term view on their project. To say that we are not at war with these people, these radical Islamic terrorists, as President Obama and others within the Democratic party have done, is a flight from reality and into fantasy. ISIS seems willing to do whatever it takes for however long it takes to achieve their goals. Meanwhile, President Obama is busy telling everyone what we're NOT willing to do, like fight ISIS on the ground in Syria. If war is a test of wills, as Sun Tzu said, then who would the GP say is winning, our weak-willed President or the ISIS barbarians? We would all of us do well to ask ourselves that question when go to the polls in 2016 to elect a new President. Do we elect a warrior or do we elect another wimp? The sort of future your grandchildren experience may well depend upon it.

    2. Re: "the most effective recruiter in the world" by cheater512 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Read the grandparent. It was talking about terrorism being a disproportionate response to the US bombing civilians.

      The responses to 9/11 and Pearl Harbour were both disproportionate.

      Following the US example, its entirely logical for the people getting bombed to want to become terrorists and bomb back.

    3. Re: "the most effective recruiter in the world" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      War leads to war leads to more war. Endless wars. Is that what you want for your grandchildren? The forced democracy/imperialism that the US has been doing for most of the 20th century has led us to the point we are now.

      Peace with Germany, Japan, and Italy? Oh! The horror!

      If a war against ISIS was truly the last war against Islamic radicals then I'd be all for it. Better to get it over with now before more innocents are killed. But no, it would be just another link in a long chain of wars.

      How do you think it will work out if they keep making war against us and we stop trying to defend ourselves? Any clues about that? They aren't going to give up any time soon.

      Statistically speaking, we have bigger problems than a few civilians being killed by terrorists every few years (gun deaths, car accidents, drug deaths, etc). But because we're so used to those deaths they've kind of faded into the background. Perhaps low fatality terrorism will become like that.

      Other countries suffer far more deaths from terrorism, and it badly disrupts society. The reason there are few deaths in the West at present is due to the cause being suppressed. If that suppression is stopped then the death rate will go up.

  4. And who decides what speach is incorrect? by fred911 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Surely we can't trust someone who directly profited from the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, basically wrecking our economy.

        Just say no to Billary...

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  5. First step... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    America completely withdraws from the Middle East.

    That should put an end to the blowback. Though the US has been creating a mess over there for well over 20 years.

  6. Hillary buys into market-speak by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every time a tech company comes out with a new product, the marketing droids refer to it as (yet another) "disruptive technology".

    The Internet is a disruptive technology. You could argue the World Wide Web is either part of that same disruptive tech, or you could probably say it is disruptive in its own right. But all the new stuff being built on top of one or both of those things isn't "disruptive" - it's just taking advantage of the disruption that's already well underway.

    However back to the matter at hand... Hillary is just once again repeating the mantra "give us back doors in encrypted communications" - she's just trying to phrase it differently. But since I imagine she's aware the tech companies generally employ people who are much smarter than she is, it's apparent the message isn't really for them - it's for the American public at large.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  7. Re:So let me get this straight. by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    God help us all should that moron get into office.

    But when compared against Trump. It's like what options are we left with.

    Idiots to the left. Idiots to the right. And no one supporting America's true interest in sight.

    We do have a great candidate available who isn't an idiot and supports America's true interests. His name is Bernie. Of course, all the morons on the right don't like him because he believes in "socialism" (though it's really the democratic socialism that Scandinavian and other European countries have, basically what we already have with Social Security and Medicare but on steroids), and many morons on the left don't like him because he's male, not a minority, or not rabidly anti-gun (Gore was rabidly anti-gun: look how that turned out for us).

  8. You think Hillary is tech-smart? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Her email fiasco already tells us that Hillary Clinton is merely a user of technology, not a developer

    And you expect her to know the difference between 'Encryption' and 'Backdoor'??

    1. Re: You think Hillary is tech-smart? by chaboud · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure that Bill knows what a backdoor is!

      Honestly, trying to enlist Silicon Valley by either A) totally failing to understand what market disruption is or B) leveraging an utterly hamfisted rhetorical device? That is just failing out of the gate. Hillary looks more and more like a clueless, doddering elitist with nowhere near the mental horsepower to serve as President... And I'll probably still end up voting for her in the general...

      Who the hell is running this campaign?

    2. Re: You think Hillary is tech-smart? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the past few presidents have been any indicator, then that being a clueless, doddering elitist is pretty much a requirement to even run for the position.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re: You think Hillary is tech-smart? by BitZtream · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And I'll probably still end up voting for her in the general...

      Idiot.

      Who the hell is running this campaign?

      Idiot. Are you voting for the campaign managers or the president?

      You almost seem to care about what happens in politics ... but then you show that what you care about are the things that don't matter. Why the fuck are you going to vote for the shitty candidate when you know its a shitty candidate that you don't actually want. Thats a waste of a vote. It is better to do something wasteful like a write-in than it is to vote for someone you don't think should be president. Or don't vote at all FFS.

      You are not helping by voting for someone you don't approve of, especially since you're approval criteria is based on choice of campaign manager rather that the candidates voting history (the one thing that actually matters)

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  9. Encryption for "good guys" only by netcruiser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    She's asking how to crack encryption so that only "good guys" can listen in on conversations; she's making it sound like a technical problem when it is a political decision.

  10. The two are mutually exclusive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "On the other hand we know there are legitimate concerns about government intrusion, network security, and creating new vulnerabilities that bad actors can and would exploit."

    You can't have one and not have the other!

    "We need Silicon Valley not to view government as its adversary."

    You can't brute force the private sector into spending money on compliance and weakening their products in the global market (Chinese contractors would LOVE to buy middleware with NSA backdoors!), and be "friends".

    -----------

    And more generally, the war on "unbreakable encryption" is just such an unbelievably stupid concept. It's an OBVIOUS power grab for intelligence agencies, and it takes nothing more than common sense to see that you can't ban encryption and mandate backdoors for everything. Encryption has been around for thousands of years and, barring spooky quantum computing tech, open source projects, personal projects, and most importantly *products from countries that don't mandate backdoors* will always be widely available to those who seek encrypted communication. If someone really cares about encryption, they'll still be able to find a solution. It's as dumb as spending years in court trying to block The Pirate Bay, and then WHOOPS they just change the extension.

    More importantly, the recent terrorist attacks have been planned by UNENCRYPTED communication. We're talking facebook posts and text messaging!!! I mean *come on*, it's such an obvious power grab that won't make us any safer, like the TSA. It makes me sick to see these mouthpieces for power hungry organizations spout this asinine rhetoric and use these attacks to further their own agendas (like 9/11 was used to invade Iraq). It needs to stop, and the media needs to call them out. At least the major tech companies are pushing back against this. Then again, it's expected, they have billions of dollars of market value hinging on it, and risk being forced to be uncompetitive in broad swaths of security sectors due to these idiotic policies.

    The whole thing is a can of worms. It's not like only America is going to get backdoors, that's just an unrealistic elitist view. Hackers get backdoors, corporations get backdoors which will inevitably be abused for profit as personnel changes over time, other intelligence agencies get backdoors, other countries will follow suit and get backdoors (China/Russia/you name it... Skype Saudi Arabia edition! Use it or be banned from the market in our country!) This entire line of policy, frankly, leads to shit, and Solicon Valley is right to consider these people their enemies.

  11. Want to really get those terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Keep on living in a free world while terrorists claw feebly at our liberty.

    Dont join in on the bigotry. Thats what they want. They want us to hate them as much as they hate us. They want us to attack them like they attack us. They want all the decisions of the world decided by violence.

    Dont give them what they want.

  12. They have disrupted by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The code of any major OS is so insecure that the NSA should have no problem hacking into them, and figuring out what the terrorists want. Good job Silicon Valley! Way to disrupt!

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  13. Concessions First by mentil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you want something in Congress, you have to give concessions first. I say the intelligence community should give concessions before anyone helps them. Particularly, bolstering FISC with an agency that has the clearance and authority to investigate cases and programs of intelligence agencies, and the teeth to publicly expose and prosecute certain projects/actions and those who authorized them. Which projects you ask? The agency can refer one to a branch of FISC, who can hold mock trials for constitutionality, with the agency giving their case that it is unconstitutional or unlawful. If FISC is not unanimous that the project or action is lawful and constitutional, then the project is immediately put on hold pending the case being escalated to SCOTUS.

    Furthermore, permanent gag orders related to national security letters and orders need to be replaced with ones that quickly expire. The no-fly list and terrorist watchlist need to be purged and reworked, with a vetting process for removal no more difficult than passing a classified information clearance background check. Policy and law should disallow mandated (or even voluntary cooperation a la PRISM) software backdoors. The agency should inspect domestic internet backbones and switching points to ensure the domestic intelligence community is not tapping them physically. Intel swapping to gain domestic data (e.g. Five Eyes) should be made illegal.

    Then, and only then, should we give one fuck about what the intelligence community wants.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  14. Buying votes by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    bottom line: i'm done with her. she lies and lies even more to cover up those lies. thought she had a chance. no more.

    Curiously, she seems to be polling higher than the lead republican candidate (Trump).

    Every time she speaks, she mentions how "there should be a tax deduction for $x", where $x is tailored to the audience. There should be a deduction for college tuition, a deduction for caring for elderly parents, an individual deduction for health care costs, and so on.

    It would appear she's "buying" votes with tax incentives.

    Of course, these are just campaign promises, and she's going to pay for it by raising taxes on the rich. Go figure.

    1. Re:Buying votes by rsborg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      bottom line: i'm done with her. she lies and lies even more to cover up those lies. thought she had a chance. no more.

      It would appear she's "buying" votes with tax incentives.

      Of course, these are just campaign promises, and she's going to pay for it by raising taxes on the rich. Go figure.

      As opposed to the Republican candidates who essentially lie in the other direction (claim to lower taxes on the rich/businesses by killing programs that serve the working class/poor - effectively raising tax rates for the services they still receive.).

      In the end they will both serve the elite and mega-corps and the NSA/security state. Have no doubt on that. If you don't think ISIS is a construct of US meddling with the middle-east, you haven't been paying attention.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    2. Re:Buying votes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Curiously, she seems to be polling higher [realclearpolitics.com] than the lead republican candidate (Trump).

      Curiously? Admittedly, I am an outsider when it comes to American politics, but what I would find curious is if a retarded monkey failed to poll higher than Trump.

  15. You are correct, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but she is not unique. It is a matter of logical necessity that *all* politicians lie.

    First off, the job is most attractive to sociopaths, so liars are already over-represented in the group of candidates.

    Second, the liars have an advantage over the honest candidates (the precious few) when campaigning, since the liars can promise that which they know to be impossible, or that which they have no intention of delivering. The liars can also produce stronger attack-ads to discredit their rivals, and can brazenly deny the ones produced against them even if they are true. Also, the liars have no problems forming alliances with special-interest groups who's interests run counter to the voter's agenda, and receiving more financial backing than the honest ones can. So, in general, the liars win.

    Third, once in office, the only means of furthering a political agenda is to cooperate with other politicians and special interest groups. The system is designed to make it impossible to operate alone. So, those who are willing to compromise on their principles will have far more political allies. Those who are willing to lie as easily as breathe will have the most political allies, and will absolutely crush any politician that does not do the same.

    So, eventually, the honest ones get shut down and shut out, leaving only the liars (and the *best* liars, at that) behind.

    They all lie. They always will. Every damn one of them.

  16. How about we do it more directly by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about we do it more directly and stop buy oil from those Saudis that are funding ISIS/Daash and those oil companies that are buying oil from ISIS/Daash.
    Blocking a few web pages isn't going to do anywhere near as much in comparison. They need funds more than they need recruits.

  17. Oil by Bram+Stolk · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Step1 in defeating them is so easy:

    Severely punish everyone buying isis oil.
    Assesinate them by cia if req'd.

    But somehow, the super power with oil addiction is far too sensitive when it comes to oil interests.
    Quit that oil addiction and hit the buyers hard.

    Maybe put radioactive tracers in the wells, and close down all refinaries where the trace shows up.
    Especially if it is a US owned refinary. Bomb it if you must.

    --
    Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
  18. Who cares? by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The stated goal of ISIS is a global caliphate governed by Sharia law implemented by the sword.

    So? Who cares?

    What's the worst that they can do to us? Or to China? Or to Russia? They're a third-string wannabe that is getting all the media hype because FEAR SELLS.

    And it is easy for politicians to look tough by calling for more military action against them.

  19. Fuck you, Hillary. by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When that fascist cunt says "we need to put (anyone) to work to (do something)", she's exposing her belief that other people are hers to command. Fuck that noise.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  20. Re:STFU you dumb cunt by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If she shuts up, she'll get elected. I cling to the hope that she'll keep spewing this kind of bullshit until even her starry-eyed SJW minions start to realize that she's evil.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  21. Re:Trump is front and center by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you can listen to Trump for more than 60 seconds without recoiling in disgust and wanting to change the channel then I have bad news for you. That makes you an even bigger douchebag than Trump.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  22. Re: So let me get this straight. by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Clowns to the left and jokers to the right sounds like a succinct summary of politics in every English speaking country.

  23. easy by Tom · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is easy, do I get anything for it?

    Step One: Stop fucking supporting them.
    There are good hints that Washington or Langley or Fort Meade or someone else high up in the US is directly or indirectly supporting ISIS. Possibly as a part of some geopolitical games like "let's remove Assad from power and seize his oil" or some such fucked-up shit.

    Step Two: Stop fucking supporting their allies.
    We know the list - Saudi Arabia, Turkey, various so-called Syrian rebel groups who ally with whoever pays them the most or gave them the most recent blowjob or whatever. Possibly Israeal though that are rumours I'm not sure about. Point is that if if you are fighting them with the one hand, and helping those who help them on the other, you shouldn't be surprised. Turkey is basically backstabbing the anti-ISIS coalition at multiple opportunities, because they don't like the Kurds and have their own plans for the area. Also, Putin is not the first to point out that most of the oil trade ISIS runs despite international embargo is going through Turkey. Saudia Arabia has been such an open supporter of islamic terrorism and jihad philosophy (remember 9/11 and where most of the hijackers were from?) that their oil and strategic alliance with the US is the only reason they've not been invaded long ago.

    Step Three: Stop fucking "using the opportunity"
    If you want to be serious about fighting ISIS, you need to stop seing them as a good opportunity, a nice pretext, a useful thing to have so you can push through your mass surveilance and pseudo homeland security bullshit.

    Step Four: Stop fucking working on the next ISIS
    All this messing with other peoples religions and internal politics got us where we are today. Al Qaida came out of the US misguided interaction with the Taliban predecessors in Afghanistan. ISIS is a direct result of the Iraq invasion and Saudi support of Wahabism.
    If we bomb ISIS into oblivion but continue to play the same game, we will get the same result, again. And if we extrapolate the trend, the next one will be even more ugly. ISIS is not just a terror state, it's also a mindset, and removing it from the map won't stop it. It's not just in Syria, but over half of Africa as well, for example.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org