Multiple shootings + explosions in Paris

[amlove21]

I went through and multi-quoted everyone that this applies to here, but it was interminably long and convoluted.

ISIS (or ISIL or Daesh or whatever the buzzword you prefer) wants an ideological war pitting east against west, Islam (or whatever version they are pumping) vs. all.

Is it worth our collective time and effort to muddy ourselves on their playing field? Why make comments like, "Oh, here's Islam again, that religion of peace!!!" and validate their ideology by resorting to the the equivalent of systemic ad hominem ad nauseam?

Sun Tzu said, "When strong, avoid them. If of high morale, depress them. Seem humble to fill them with conceit. If at ease, exhaust them. If united, separate them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise." Quick update here- we are getting smoked on this one, and no one has an actual end state that's plausible. Aren't the people screaming about how terrible Islam is and how all Muslims are inherently bad playing in to this and actually helping ISIS? Aren't they creating a false dichotomy and only helping further ISIS' rhetoric while simultaneously weakening their own position?

It seems to me that our time would be better spent on actually attacking the ISIS networks, infrastructure, and leadership as opposed to the Sisyphian task of discrediting the ideology. Does the ideology actually matter to finding, fixing, and finishing an adversary?

Here is a video talking about this topic. I don't necessarily agree with the "more love" angle.

Example- I would argue that recruitment is issue #1 in order to actually affect insurgent groups (with finance a very close #2). So, if we stopped with all this horseshit about "we need to eradicate their religion cause they're savages and our religion is great" and start packaging it as, "the coalition of the civilized world will not tolerate killing, and we will respond in kind. Not for ideology, but because killing people is wrong", wouldn't that severely damage ISIS' ability to recruit? Isn't our posture of "our morals against yours, our way of life against yours" actually helping them drum up support?

In order to not derail this thread to some sort of theological debate, I am not saying the world would be better with no religion. I am not saying anyone is wrong or right. I am saying that general public opinion, guided by our politicians and echoed by some people here, is not the best way to approach this problem.

 

[x SF med]

short answer.... the same people have been waging the same war for 1400 years... they conquered Spain, Turkey, Iraq(Persia) Mediterranean Africa, and North Africa, Sicily, Sardinia, Southern Italy, and Southern France... The West retaliated by waging a small series of Crusades... that were but a pinprick to the Islamic massacre and enslavement.

Hundreds of battles waged by Islam, millions enslaved, and killed.... the Crusades were what, 15ish sorties in a very targeted area...

Why are the Crusades so bad and the Islamic wars of conquest never mentioned? why is retaliation in a 1400 year war such a scandal, why is the millennia and a half Islamic expansion forgotten?

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I think we should actually address this for exactly what it is, Islam (submit) being forced upon everyone, regardless of beliefs or lack thereof. These people claim to be waging a holy war in the name of Islam and their prophet Muhammad. I can only assume by their collective action, that is exactly what they are doing and what they mean.

I personally don't care to pretend anymore that this is not a religious war being waged against us by a barbaric people. More to the point, I think everyone needs to wake up to that fact and have the discussion on how we are actually going to deal with these people.

 

[Blizzard]

Rest In Peace Diesel.....open fields brother

In response:
Russia gives France puppy to replace killed police dog

Really, Russia goes with a puppy?! It was said by someone here earlier, either in this thread or another, that Russia is kicking our ass in the PR department. This is yet another example. A puppy. Who doesn't love a puppy?!

 

[amlove21]

I think we should actually address this for exactly what it is, Islam (submit) being forced upon everyone, regardless of beliefs or lack thereof. These people claim to be waging a holy war in the name of Islam and their prophet Muhammad. I can only assume by their collective action, that is exactly what they are doing and what they mean.

I personally don't care to pretend anymore that this is not a religious war being waged against us by a barbaric people. More to the point, I think everyone needs to wake up to that fact and have the discussion on how we are actually going to deal with these people.

No issue with you saying it, cause that's the deal- but I disagree and think you're part of the problem. And with your experience, it's a little surprising you have this level of answer to such a complex problem.

So how would you deal with "these people"? Also, could you clarify who you mean when you say "these people"? Muslims? Islamists? Terrorists? Extremists? It'll be helpful.

 

[JBS]

I liked what you had to say, but I don't agree with you on one set of points: the issue of basically calling so-called mainstream Muslims on the carpet for staying on the fence. In other words, when thousands of Turks decided to "boo" the vicitms of the Paris attacks, that's a great place for the civilized world to apply pressure on the mainstream Muslims and demand an explanation for that. If you are "with" the civilized world and against the barbarity, time to start coming out en masse and let it be known. Police your own. Distance yourself from the so-called radicals, don't provide moral support at worst, or abiguity about your collective position at best.

I went through and multi-quoted everyone that this applies to here, but it was interminably long and convoluted.

ISIS (or ISIL or Daesh or whatever the buzzword you prefer) wants an ideological war pitting east against west, Islam (or whatever version they are pumping) vs. all.

Is it worth our collective time and effort to muddy ourselves on their playing field? Why make comments like, "Oh, here's Islam again, that religion of peace!!!" and validate their ideology by resorting to the the equivalent of systemic ad hominem ad nauseam?

Sun Tzu said, "When strong, avoid them. If of high morale, depress them. Seem humble to fill them with conceit. If at ease, exhaust them. If united, separate them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise." Quick update here- we are getting smoked on this one, and no one has an actual end state that's plausible. Aren't the people screaming about how terrible Islam is and how all Muslims are inherently bad playing in to this and actually helping ISIS? Aren't they creating a false dichotomy and only helping further ISIS' rhetoric while simultaneously weakening their own position?

It seems to me that our time would be better spent on actually attacking the ISIS networks, infrastructure, and leadership as opposed to the Sisyphian task of discrediting the ideology. Does the ideology actually matter to finding, fixing, and finishing an adversary?

Here is a video talking about this topic. I don't necessarily agree with the "more love" angle.

Example- I would argue that recruitment is issue #1 in order to actually affect insurgent groups (with finance a very close #2). So, if we stopped with all this horseshit about "we need to eradicate their religion cause they're savages and our religion is great" and start packaging it as, "the coalition of the civilized world will not tolerate killing, and we will respond in kind. Not for ideology, but because killing people is wrong", wouldn't that severely damage ISIS' ability to recruit? Isn't our posture of "our morals against yours, our way of life against yours" actually helping them drum up support?

In order to not derail this thread to some sort of theological debate, I am not saying the world would be better with no religion. I am not saying anyone is wrong or right. I am saying that general public opinion, guided by our politicians and echoed by some people here, is not the best way to approach this problem.

 

[amlove21]

short answer.... the same people have been waging the same war for 1400 years... they conquered Spain, Turkey, Iraq(Persia) Mediterranean Africa, and North Africa, Sicily, Sardinia, Southern Italy, and Southern France... The West retaliated by waging a small series of Crusades... that were but a pinprick to the Islamic massacre and enslavement.

Hundreds of battles waged by Islam, millions enslaved, and killed.... the Crusades were what, 15ish sorties in a very targeted area...

Why are the Crusades so bad and the Islamic wars of conquest never mentioned? why is retaliation in a 1400 year war such a scandal, why is the millennia and a half Islamic expansion forgotten?

I guess it's more escaping moral relativism than anything else. The Crusades death toll was 1 million- 3 million depending on who you quote. IMO, radicalism/extremism is not a great thing if it kills a single person in self-justified violence.

Also, I don't think the crusades are a valid example here. I am not a Crusader. I won't fight in retaliation for closely held ideological beliefs- remember, the first crusade was a purely ideologically driven Papally mandated conquest of Jerusalem.

That sort of thing is what I am 100% against. Stop making it about religion, you solve a lot of your problems right off the bat.

 

[AWP]

If the mainstream or moderates want their religion viewed in a better light they need to step up. If they don't rise en masse and help themselves then how does that look to us "outsiders?" They have to be a part of the solution unless we're willing to eternal war.

I guess it's more escaping moral relativism than anything else. The Crusades death toll was 1 million- 3 million depending on who you quote. IMO, radicalism/extremism is not a great thing if it kills a single person in self-justified violence

History is great for perspective but lousy for justification.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

@amlove21, "these people" would be radical Muslims who associate with known terror groups, such as ISIS, Al-Qaida, and the like. How I would deal with them, is I would take all restrictions off the ROE, and I would hunt them down and kill them. I'm not saying do what we did in Iraq & Afghanistan, I'm talking literally go on the hunt and kill them, wherever they may be, here CONUS, or OCONUS. Find, fix, destroy.

The PC bullshit hasn't worked, the nation building hasn't worked, the COIN stuff hasn't worked, the low level CT stuff hasn't worked, the leave them alone and not get involved stuff isn't working.

My comments are truly based in the reasoning of everything we have done hasn't worked, and this is the first time since 9/11, that I am truly in fear for my family and friends. As in, large venues are off the list of things to do. I unfortunately see large scale attacks the likes of Paris happening all over our country, in the next year. I think as a nation we really need to have a no bullshit talk about this, without the PC crap and figure out if we want to allow our people to die b/c we want to not hurt feelings, or do we want to protect this country.

Finally, the sole purpose of a national centralized government, is to ensure the common defense of our nation. Above all, this is supposed to be #1 and our current government is playing games with that. I am not okay with it, I'm angry about it, and if that makes me "part of the problem" then I'm at a total loss of words, b/c every American with a half ass mind, should be pissed off right now.

 

[Frank S.]

Russia gives France puppy to replace killed police dog A puppy. Who doesn't love a puppy?!

Me.

I want that dog to go through the proper vetting process.

 

[amlove21]

@amlove21, How I would deal with them, is I would take all restrictions off the ROE, and I would hunt them down and kill them. I'm not saying do what we did in Iraq & Afghanistan, I'm talking literally go on the hunt and kill them, wherever they may be, here CONUS, or OCONUS. Find, fix, destroy.

My comments are truly based in the reasoning of everything we have done hasn't worked, and this is the first time since 9/11, that I am truly in fear for my family and friends. As in, large venues are off the list of things to do. I unfortunately see large scale attacks the likes of Paris happening all over our country, in the next year.

Finally, the sole purpose of a national centralized government, is to ensure the common defense of our nation. Above all, this is supposed to be #1 and our current government is playing games with that. I am not okay with it, I'm angry about it, and if that makes me "part of the problem" then I'm at a total loss of words, b/c every American with a half ass mind, should be pissed off right now.

To the bolded, snipped for content-

So what you're saying we need is an international force (comprised of whom?), that has zero restrictions in locating and killing whoever it is they say (with oversight from whom?) regardless of known international law, sovereign territory, or diplomatic clearance? This does not sound in any way logical or feasible. Is what I described what you meant?

I would ask what qualifies you to predict not just one but "large scale attacks all over the country". Is this just a guess? Do you really alter your daily life so much every time international incidents occur?

Which examples do you have of the current gov't "playing games" with your national security? Do you have any examples of the current gov't allowing an attack that would warrant your above behavior? I am not pissed off- there is work to be done, and I think getting emotional over personal beliefs while taking on serious work is a mistake. Does that make me only of a half ass mind?

I don't like the common perception of PC either- but the sad truth is that the people who stomp on about "THINGS ARE TOO PC EVERYONE GETS TOO OFFENDED111ONE1!!" don't actually want the reality they cry about. They want special privilege. And they ruin it for everyone.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

To the bolded, snipped for content-

So what you're saying we need is an international force (comprised of whom?), that has zero restrictions in locating and killing whoever it is they say (with oversight from whom?) regardless of known international law, sovereign territory, or diplomatic clearance? This does not sound in any way logical or feasible. Is what I described what you meant?

I would ask what qualifies you to predict not just one but "large scale attacks all over the country". Is this just a guess? Do you really alter your daily life so much every time international incidents occur?

Which examples do you have of the current gov't "playing games" with your national security? Do you have any examples of the current gov't allowing an attack that would warrant your above behavior? I am not pissed off- there is work to be done, and I think getting emotional over personal beliefs while taking on serious work is a mistake. Does that make me only of a half ass mind?

I don't like the common perception of PC either- but the sad truth is that the people who stomp on about "THINGS ARE TOO PC EVERYONE GETS TOO OFFENDED111ONE1!!" don't actually want the reality they cry about. They want special privilege. And they ruin it for everyone.

I'll respond in the morning. In short, I was not calling you half minded and I fully understand your position/questions. I will clarify in the morning.

 

[Brill]

Quick update here- we are getting smoked on this one, and no one has an actual end state that's plausible.
It seems to me that our time would be better spent on actually attacking the ISIS networks, infrastructure, and leadership as opposed to the Sisyphian task of discrediting the ideology. Does the ideology actually matter to finding, fixing, and finishing an adversary?

The stated objective is "Disrupt, degrade, and ULTIMATELY destroy the Islamic State." <-- what does that even mean? How does a subordinate commander fit that into an OPORD? Go out and do X. Ultimately you will receive support. Abu?

To the people executing the objective, no, ideology DOES NOT matter but the higher ups, it most DEFINITELY does matter. I think this is why "leaks" (a misnomer because this implies that it is NOT sponsored...I'm confident that they are absolutely supported by the White House) are so prevalent in this administration.

Over 8300 airstrikes against IS and what has been the result? They're able to still draw recruits, able to still fight ANF, Assad, and Gov of Iraq, and able to export their salifasism (IS is expanding all over the world so perhaps POTUS meant they were contained within the Middle East, Africa, and Southwest Asia).

It's tough to say that this isn't a war about religion when salifasts make targeting decisions based on ones ability to recite the Qur'an (happened in Mali and Levant). Embrace the jihad/crusade...and understand how to operate effectively in its battlespace.

@amlove21, why do you fight, if you're not fighting for ideological beliefs about freedom, liberty, etc?

Edit: UK even calls out the US-led coalition's "strategy".
House of Commons - The extension of offensive British military operations to Syria - Foreign Affairs Committee

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

To the bolded, snipped for content-

So what you're saying we need is an international force (comprised of whom?), that has zero restrictions in locating and killing whoever it is they say (with oversight from whom?) regardless of known international law, sovereign territory, or diplomatic clearance? This does not sound in any way logical or feasible. Is what I described what you meant?

I would ask what qualifies you to predict not just one but "large scale attacks all over the country". Is this just a guess? Do you really alter your daily life so much every time international incidents occur?

Which examples do you have of the current gov't "playing games" with your national security? Do you have any examples of the current gov't allowing an attack that would warrant your above behavior? I am not pissed off- there is work to be done, and I think getting emotional over personal beliefs while taking on serious work is a mistake. Does that make me only of a half ass mind?

I don't like the common perception of PC either- but the sad truth is that the people who stomp on about "THINGS ARE TOO PC EVERYONE GETS TOO OFFENDED111ONE1!!" don't actually want the reality they cry about. They want special privilege. And they ruin it for everyone.

Yes, a multinational force, that is 100% cleared hot. Develop the intelligence, and give the host nation an option, either you do it or we will. If a host nation is allowing terrorist group a safe haven, take out the HN government. In a basic understanding, doing exactly what we did during the Bush years, but take the gloves off.

Besides being specifically trained in the response to exactly what happens in Paris, I also hold instructor level certification to teach LEO's on how to respond to what happen in Paris. The intelligence community was telling the LE community that these attacks will happen in CONUS as early as 03-04. Specifically, lone wolf, small cell's, using small arms to just kill at random, as many as possible. This was not just focused on large cities, this was specifically outlined to hit anywhere and everywhere. I'm not sure if you remember some of the old training camp videos of Al-Qaida in Afghanistan? They specifically showed high level training for specifically doing what happens in Paris. Back then the analysts was these camps were not training jihadist, but more specifically conducting"train the trainer" style training. Outside of knowing that stuff, ISIS has stated that is exactly what they are going to do here. I believe that they intend to do so. Furthermore, with our own department heads stating that they cannot vett refugees who are coming here from ISIS held areas, with ISIS stating they plan to exploit this, and with the Obama administration pushing for it. It's not hard to put two and two together.

Yes I absolutely change habits and adjust common practices, when I fear for my family. I don't know where you live, but the city I live in currently, is on a supposed "Hit list". Not only that, my state has the largest border with Mexico, and guess what, we've been catching Syrian "refugees" on the border. So yes, I'm very nervous, and yes that makes me upset.

Plenty of examples of this administration playing political games with our security. The big one being this refugee issue.

The political correctness is every where dude, and its freaking horrible. It's on this forum, it's engrained into a lot of peoples thinking. For example; if i state we should kill these people off, the response is what people, do you mean all Muslims, do you want genocide, you are part of the problem. In realty, I don't think anyone would disagree that we need to kill off ISIS and the like. But the PC thinking turns it into some kind of side show debate instead of actual debate of how we deal with the current problem.

But anyway, to clarify my original post, I was not trying to have a tit-for-tat on any of it. I personally believe you are wrong that by understanding that this is a religious war on their side, is in some way helping them. I think what is helping them, is people denying that it is religious based, reading their history, and finding out exactly where this ideology comes from. Why we have been dealing with for 1400 years, what the end game is. I think the sheep being blind to what's actually going on, and being lead by talking heads in the media, who don't even fact check their information and our government straight up bold face lying to everyone, is what helps group like ISIS. I think they are able to recruit b/c the beacon of hope and promise of a better life in the USA and other western nation's is dying and in many cases turning out to be completely false.

So no, I don't think people are hacking more heads off because I state they are religious based barbaric people who should be wiped of the earth. I think they hack more heads off because they are in fact religious based barbaric people who did not assimilate to the modern world.

Hope this offers some clarity on my position.

 

[RackMaster]

Me.

I want that dog to go through the proper vetting process.

They better X-ray the poor dog for listening devices.

 

[AWP]

We cannot defeat an ideology. Communism, an economic ideology, has been around for less than 200 years. It has failed at every level by every nation and yet people still defend it, explain it away, and implement it! People actually believe this economic nonsense is a reality "if only"...if only a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when hopping. The ideology we're up against is 1400 years old, a religion (religion is arguably the strongest ideology EVER), and practiced by over a billion people. This ideology underpins our opponents and supporters alike so generically waging a war against the ideology isn't going to work and will ultimately backfire.

We need a lot of things to have peace. We aren't going to kill off ISIS and then see peace break out like smallpox. Another group of crazies using the same ideology as their foundation will rise up. We could well play whack-a-mole for generations and that's guaranteed without support from more moderate Muslim countries and organizations.

I would honestly love something as simple as "kill Group X for the win." That would be so easy and refreshing, but is unrealistic in this case. Make no mistake we ARE fighting a religious war. The other side can talk about religion and we can view it as a political goal or land grab cloaked in religion, but it is still a religious war. Our opponents will use religion to justify their ways, recruit new followers, and build some distance between themselves and their opponents. Using religion allows them to "sell" their madness to other countries even if they despise ISIS because ISIS can count on one thing: Muslims will not want to sell out fellow Muslims to the non-believers. Religion absolutely is a cause here but if we make it about religion we'll lose because we're outsiders. The rest of the Muslim world need to be overt and vocal in supporting us against the crazies or else we can forget about peace.

ISIS is operating from a position of relative strength. Think of the mob at home or inner city areas where drugs and crime are rampant. Unless the locals buy in to a solution and fight their neighbors (snitch) how effective is local law enforcement? It isn't be a quick fight or campaign to clear up a neighborhood but we think we can run through a country or region? ISIS is in a great place. If we make it about religion we lose the support of that community but if we ignore the religious angle then we aren't addressing the core problem. This isn't being PC, this is political and strategic pragmatism. If you have an invasive species in a river you can't dry up the river and kill that fish or prawn or whatever. If you introduce another predator that brings consequences. Your fight goes from what you want to do, the easy solution (kill everything) to what's practical. We need to be practical, we need to understand the basis for the conflict, but we need to work with those within that religion for a solution. The West cannot do this without local/ religious support.

I believe we're talking about a fight for our survival albeit one which will take generations to play out. We won't implode in a decade over this, but it can be an issue which wears us down. We must address this threat but we need a long game, not a short term ADD-esque foreign policy. Our real threat or weakness here is time, not political correctness. No politician wants to admit this is a generational fight so we'll use a Band-Aid. The PC stuff is very secondary to the public's desire for a solution RIGHT NOW, but harping on PC is low-hanging fruit and emotionally comfortable instead of admitting a greater problem:

We lack the stomach or national will for this fight and we almost NEED attacks on US soil to keep us in focus. That frightens me more than anything, our unwillingness to see this through without incurring more, and necessary, casualties. We lack a spine and no one will pay attention unless more of us are dying.

 

[CDG]

We lack the stomach or national will for this fight and we almost NEED attacks on US soil to keep us in focus. That frightens me more than anything, our unwillingness to see this through without incurring more, and necessary, casualties. We lack a spine and no one will pay attention unless more of us are dying.

This is terrifyingly true. What percentage of the population do you think still gives any conscious thought to the Paris attacks? "Come on bro, it's football season, basketball just started, and Starbucks has eggnog lattes again!!! Paris? Yeah, tragic. Anyways, you guys hear about Charlie Sheen? What's Kanye up to these days?"

 

[AWP]

This is terrifyingly true. What percentage of the population do you think still gives any conscious thought to the Paris attacks?

My pessimistic opinion is "a very low percentage. "If you keep it in the press everyday, front page "in your face"s tuff we'll see diminishing returns on awareness and knowledge. My dad's retired and even when working 50+ hours a week stayed on top of domestic and to a lesser extent foreign affairs. Now that he's retired he can spend all day (and almost does) watching the news. He's flat admitted the last two presidential races saw him turn off the TV or place it on a sports channel...and he hates baseball and basketball. He would put his TV on anything but news and avoided online sites like the plague unless it was do a crossword puzzle or something. I cannot think he's alone.

The solution? I don't have one. Human nature is to tune this out after a certain point which means those folks will not re-engage without another reason. I think Vietnam changed society in a number of ways, but one is that we can't stomach a long fight. We want wars measured in days if not hours and I'd bet if WWII happened today AND we made it to 1944, we'd negotiate away portions of China, the whole of Korea, Taiwan, and a number of Pacific islands minus the Philippines. We would not have the stomach to use nukes OR invade. We'd give the Japanese (and Germans) territorial concessions to end the war.

 

[amlove21]

Over 8300 airstrikes against IS and what has been the result? They're able to still draw recruits, able to still fight ANF, Assad, and Gov of Iraq, and able to export their salifasism (IS is expanding all over the world so perhaps POTUS meant they were contained within the Middle East, Africa, and Southwest Asia).

It's tough to say that this isn't a war about religion when salifasts make targeting decisions based on ones ability to recite the Qur'an (happened in Mali and Levant). Embrace the jihad/crusade...and understand how to operate effectively in its battlespace.

@amlove21, why do you fight, if you're not fighting for ideological beliefs about freedom, liberty, etc?

To the bolded- exactly. What we are doing is not working. So maybe stop doing that? We have to hit them where they actually feel it- recruiting, finance, public support.

I think you're missing my point- in no way am I calling this anything other than what it is. ISIS, an international terror group is using Islam to support their reasoning for international terrorism. ISIS is a threat to the world as a whole, and needs to be stopped.

I think we start to lose this game when we "rally all the christians for support in this holy war" or "I know we are a 'civilized' society now, but these savages have to be bombed into antiquity!". We have enough reasons to be pissed off and go get our drone strike on. We don't need to pile on the religious rhetoric. It only plays agains our strategy, not for it.

I understand why you'd ask "well what do you fight for if not ideological beliefs about freedom etc.", in order to not derail the thread I'll PM

 

[Brill]

To the bolded- exactly. What we are doing is not working. So maybe stop doing that? We have to hit them where they actually feel it- recruiting, finance, public support.

I think you're missing my point- in no way am I calling this anything other than what it is. ISIS, an international terror group is using Islam to support their reasoning for international terrorism. ISIS is a threat to the world as a whole, and needs to be stopped.

I think we start to lose this game when we "rally all the christians for support in this holy war" or "I know we are a 'civilized' society now, but these savages have to be bombed into antiquity!". We have enough reasons to be pissed off and go get our drone strike on. We don't need to pile on the religious rhetoric. It only plays against our strategy, not for it.

Fully agree with you until the religious part. When we OPENLY back a Shia-Iraq government and support Iran and Azerbaijan, we're siding with Shia. Add that we OPENLY support Sunni governments that are anti-IS, we get lumped into the heretics and apostates that the IS wants to overthrow/destroy.

What is not understood in Western press is that we can dodge the religious overtones of this war but THAT plays directly into the hands of leaders and financial backers of IS. To our enemy, is absolutely is 100% a Sunni vs the kufar and munafiqun. It is no wonder that right after IS volunteers finish with the admin crap that every country's inductees/volunteers go through, they go right to sharia training.

The only thing that will stop this is overextending supply lines, attrition of fighters, and Muslim civil war...basically a rehash of the 750AD expansion. Unfortunately air travel has negated the natural barrier of the Atlantic Ocean.