"The Paris attacks were...because France was bombing Daesh."

What a disgusting rationalization of the indiscriminate killing of innocent people.

"An online statement said eight militants armed with explosive belts and automatic weapons attacked carefully chosen targets in the "capital of adultery and vice," including a soccer stadium where France was playing Germany, and the Bataclan concert hall, where an American rock band was playing, and "hundreds of apostates were attending an adulterous party.""

Oops, they were actually "carefully chosen targets". That's better.

[1] http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/isis-statement-france-to...

Sorry, I don't mean to rationalise the killings of innocents. Of course it's disgusting. But the whole "Free country" rhetoric is just as much of a lie here as it was with 9/11. The fact that both Russia and France were recent targets of terrorism is no coincidence.

I hate the clash of civilizations narrative and identity politics as much as the next guy but Paris wasn't attacked because France attacked ISIS first. On the contrary and let me refresh your memory, ISIS attacked first and murdered all those hostages held in captivity in Syria or Iraq mercilessly. Even if they hadn't killed western hostages, they'd still have to be taken down as they pose a threat and constitute a major destabilizing force in the region and the world as a whole.

This is just wrong. France has been bombing ISIS for over a year.

I think ISIS is a horrible, horrible movement that should be destroyed. But their strategy has been very consistent: attack countries that attack them.

They left Russia alone until Putin decided to bomb them. It was only a few weeks before they blew up a Russian airliner.

ISIS kidnapped 4 French journalists long before any foreign intervention by the French authorities in Iraq or Syria but were freed after 10 months held in captivity reinforcing my argument that them who started it not the other way around [0]

[0] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/19/kidnapped-frenc...

The French retaliated to a kidnapping with a bombing. I'm not saying the kidnapping was legitimate, but it reinforces the point that ISIS does not do the really grisly stuff unless they are attacked.

Did the Yazidis attack them? Do you know what they did to the Yazidis?

ISIS wants to conquer Kurdistan, not least because most Kurds ar Sunni -- ISIS is especially vicious to Muslism who aren't Islamic enough. They have no hope in the near term of conquering France.

I'm not arguing ISIS are good people. I'm arguing that, if you don't want to be on the receiving end of terrorist attacks from ISIS, the best way to do that is to stop bombing them.

Otherwise you should assume that they will happen as a matter of routine.

"I'm arguing that, if you don't want to be on the receiving end of terrorist attacks from ISIS, the best way to do that is to stop bombing them."

Thus validating the terrorists' approach. They use fear as a means of control and, according to your argument, it is an effective approach. I don't know what the answer is, but I do not think that allowing marauders to wander around the world staking claim to peoples' land is acceptable. Much less when they commit so many atrocities along the way.

If the choice is to: a) stop bombing and be hopeful that the terrorists will go away or b) try to stop the raping, murdering, and other atrocities via violence... I know where I stand.

a) has worked very well for Spain. No attacks since they pulled out of Iraq in 2004. And as a bonus they didn't have to kill lots of civilians or put their soldiers at risk. How many American citizens and soldiers have died or been severely injured in the meantime?

You may know where you stand, but dollars to donuts you don't know what your government is doing in your name.

I'm not "blaming America first." I'm asking that we behave like adults and take responsibility for the consequences of our behavior.