ISIS has taken "credit" for a series of terrorist attacks in Paris that's left some 130 dead.
The dead are unarmed civilians at soft targets of no military value. Attacks were staged at a rock concert and two restaurants.
In response the gun nuts are implying that somehow if the Parisians were armed things would have been better. The fact is that when people start pulling out guns how do you tell the difference between a terrorist and someone else that pulled out a gun?
ISIS is threatening to attack Washington D.C. next.
The problem of course is that soft targets are almost impossible to defend. There are too many of them and they're too vulnerable. At Sunday's NFL game between the Patriots and Giants there were noticeably more state troopers but they can't be everywhere.
Logically they would tend to congregate near the stadium. It would be almost impossible to get weapons or a bomb through the security checkpoints but someone could easily open fire in the parking lots. It would just cost $30 to get in.
I'm wondering if these attacks and threats are a sign of growing strength or a sign of desperation?
They have to know there's going to be increased military action in response.
Something like ISIS was always the danger in kicking out Saddam Hussein. Granted his time was numbered in any event and an ISIS was always a possibility when he was eventually booted out of office.
I sort of have the same opinion about Assad. What do you think is going to replace him?