OT: Terrorist attacks in Paris

[League Circles]

It's also possible that an islamic state will work better for those people than would a golden "democracy" that we seem so intent on implementing. It's not like our system and way of life has been all roses.

It won't 'work' for the people that will be dead. And we weren't trying to implement a golden democracy in Iraq anymore, in fact we were largely OUT of Iraq due to Obama was unable to get a status of forces agreement with them, prior to ISIS Metastasizing.

I don't think there is a worldwide solution for human peace. What the US has got to be concerned with is the safety of US citizens IMO. And it's hard to really say we were laregly out of Iraq. My understanding is that the lowpoint still involved About 20,000 "embassy staff" (yeah I'm sure that didn't include many thousands of armed military personnel ready to pounce on command) and about 4000-5000 military contractors.

The reason our involvement ramped up again was on humanitarian grounds. To prevent a massacre of Yazidi's and even potentially the fall of the Kurds, as ISIS was advancing toward Erbil. We should just have let that happen?

There will always be this argument to be made. And it's a serious, important one to consider, no doubt. But for about a hundred years we've been intervening all over the globe. Maybe trying no-intervention is worth it?

Whatever one thinks of past foreign policy motives, Obama is someone who was reflexively anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism. This is not a guy that wants to impose the Western way of live on others. But the situation is far more complicated than that.

How many do we condemn to death with a callous, "Let them kill each other and hope for the best strategy". You'll get the slaughter of Christians, Yazidi's, Kurds, anyone in the region that doesn't want to live under this barbarism or convert their radical form of religion, one where woman are 3rd class citizens, young girls are raped under the guise of religion, gays are thrown off buildings, and anyone who is not like them is simply killed, even to the level of genocide.

We don't condemn anyone to death by not forcing our unborn children to pay back the Chinese down the road so that we can play world police. If we want to just use brute force and resources that we don't have to stop violent killing, maybe we should honestly start by having the national guard patrol the bad parts of Chicago continuously. Have a guy with an assault rifle and full battle hear on every 2 blocks or so. I bet that would turn things around pretty quick. And it would send a message to the world that what we are serious about is stopping violence, not manipulating political and economic development and power.

It is a death cult, that has gone long past being rational actors that can be mollified with a 'live and let live' idea. The goals of the 'caliphate' do not end at the borders of the Middle East. Even Bin Laden looks semi-rational compared with what this has morphed into. And that's a scary thought. But he did actually invoke specific grievances of the type you mention. But that is no longer casus belli. The ideology has now reached a bottom barrel craven level of simply, kill or convert anyone not like us. If only it could be solved by simply saying sorry, and thinking its all about us. It no longer is.

The situation and ideology of ISIS at this point sadly calls to the mind the old quote:

"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."

But like I said, we can't solve this with going in deeper militarily ourselves, it can only be defeated with an 'in-region' coalition of boots on the ground. The countries already in the region - and a good bit fueling it - saying, this is enough. That looks like like a long shot right now, but would have 0 chance without US leadership.

Good points here and you're not wrong on any of it I don't think. It's just so hard to target a group that is so dispersed and spread out without killing innocent civilians. I'm just afraid that there is no way to make things better. Perhaps total isolation is the only way to at least be safe.

[Rerisen]

Good points here and you're not wrong on any of it I don't think. It's just so hard to target a group that is so dispersed and spread out without killing innocent civilians. I'm just afraid that there is no way to make things better. Perhaps total isolation is the only way to at least be safe.

Total isolation means not risking taking in any refugees though. Would you support that? Some of the Paris attackers have already been identified as Syrian refugees admitted through Greece. ISIS has made no secret of planning and desiring to use them as a means of infiltration

I also don't think isolation would keep us safe beyond a certain point. As mentioned, the countries in the ME that consider us allies (dubious as they are as well), would without our support and protection, begin to arm themselves even with nuclear weapons, in order to counter balance Iran. That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

You can say we'll be energy independent in a decade or whatever, let China take over as policeman, but I'm not sure in this interconnected age, such a thing even exists anymore as effective isolation.

[unknownnewbie]

I'm far from an expert -- politics, religion and world order is not something I understand on anything more than a pretty superficial basis. But according to an article in The Atlantic that I just read, ISIS' goal is to be a key agent of the upcoming apocalypse, help cause the complete and final destruction of the world.

If that is their goal (I'm not sure why it would be, since the end of the world is just that -- no one would survive, not even any members of ISIS), then I can't see them leaving other people alone, even if other nations/governments disengaged from any attempts to bring them down. Wouldn't the terrorism just continue -- and perhaps even escalate?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/


I'm no fan of the United States' insistence in jumping into other countries' political and religious troubles. Far too many times it seems like the U.S.'s intervention makes things worse, not better. On the other hand, it's hard to take a strict isolationist stand and suggest that the U.S. (and/or the other major powers) should just ignore cries for help. To only jump in if there is a direct threat to its own country, like with WWII or 9/11.

France closed its borders after the attack, I'm assuming to keep any known terrorists from leaving and keeping others from getting into the country. But what happens to the waves of refugees, most of whom are probably not terrorists, if other European countries follow suit, where will all those people go? I heard (on either CNN or SkyNews) that France and the U.K. had received a far smaller percentage of refugees over the past few months than other European countries like Germany or Sweden.

Meanwhile, I saw a very sad response on twitter right after the Paris attacks. Someone who lves in NYC took a cab somewhere and was told by his Muslim cabbie that he was the drivers' first fare in hours, because passengers didn't want to be driven by a Muslim cabbie. Again, the actions of a few fanatical terrorists causing people to turn on or be fearful of innocent people just because they are the same race and/or religion. Isn't that part of what ISIS wants -- for there to be a backlash against the Muslim community as a whole?

[League Circles]

Good points here and you're not wrong on any of it I don't think. It's just so hard to target a group that is so dispersed and spread out without killing innocent civilians. I'm just afraid that there is no way to make things better. Perhaps total isolation is the only way to at least be safe.

Total isolation means not risking taking in any refugees though. Would you support that? Some of the Paris attackers have already been identified as Syrian refugees admitted through Greece. ISIS has made no secret of planning and desiring to use them as a means of infiltration

Well if we can't assure ourselves that there are no terrorists coming in with legit refugees, maybe the answer is clear?

I also don't think isolation would keep us safe beyond a certain point. As mentioned, the countries in the ME that consider us allies (dubious as they are as well), would without our support and protection, begin to arm themselves even with nuclear weapons, in order to counter balance Iran. That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I consider worldwide nuclear arms an inevitability and so I'm trying to figure out how the world can deal with that reality rather than make it not happen which IMO is totally unrealistic.

You can say we'll be energy independent in a decade or whatever, let China take over as policeman, but I'm not sure in this interconnected age, such a thing even exists anymore as effective isolation.

It would only be difficult because we insist on having things we can't afford and think we can't live without. It takes a revolution of mindset. Energy, for example. We waste most of the energy we use doing stuff we don't need to do at all.

[Rerisen]

I consider worldwide nuclear arms an inevitability and so I'm trying to figure out how the world can deal with that reality rather than make it not happen which IMO is totally unrealistic.

I'm sure most believe it is an inevitability - at some point - but the hope/goal is that happens after certain governments become more modern and pluralistic.

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) only works when the other guy doesn't actually want the 'Destruction' part.

[TimRobbins]

If you think a government like Iraq is bad - and it is certainly contributing to the problem by not sharing power - it will be nonetheless even worse when there is no county of Iraq, and you simply have a vast ungoverned space of chaos and war, stretching from Libya, through Syria and through Iraq, where the terrorists have a massive safe zone to prepare the next 9/11's, while flush with cash and resources from controlling that much land. It's make believe at this point to think they will 'leave us alone' and be content to fight it out there. It's too late for that, the ideology is now global.

Not like the Russians and Iranians would pull out regardless of the what the US or Europe did. In fact if the US pulls out of the ME entirely, you will have a nuclear arms race as Saudia Arabia and Sunni countries pursue nukes to counter-balance Iran, and pretty soon the already deadly proxy wars will good chance lead to actual wars.

Better believe things can get worse.

You don't get it. Iraq is not a country. It never was. There is no "Iraqi people" and there never was one. The Kurds have nothing in common with the Sunnis, who have nothing in common with the Shias. Saddam Hussein was able to seemingly keep the country together, but the borders have always been arbitrary - the French/British just drew them up randomly.

Iraq is reverting to its natural state, which is a collection of tribes. Why do you insist in keeping this artificial country together when its people are clearly not interested in it? Who are you to dictate borders and governments to the people of the ME? We need to let these people find their way on their own, and if we let the natural process work, I there will be an eventual winner and a stable peace.

Also, if we disengage, they will have no interest in these terrorist acts. What purpose would it serve?

I'm not too concerned about the nuclear arms race either. If you can keep Iran at bay with a credible military threat, the rest will stay out of the nuclear race. They don't need nukes.

The Russians and Iranians are welcome to die wherever they want to. I could care less. They have ZERO chance in winning any war with the Sunnis.

We really have tried everything during the past 70 years. It's time to try disengagement. No comments by politicians, no media coverage. Nothing.

[Rerisen]

You don't get it. Iraq is not a country. It never was. There is no "Iraqi people" and there never was one. The Kurds have nothing in common with the Sunnis, who have nothing in common with the Shias. Saddam Hussein was able to seemingly keep the country together, but the borders have always been arbitrary - the French/British just drew them up randomly.

Iraq is reverting to its natural state, which is a collection of tribes. Why do you insist in keeping this artificial country together when its people are clearly not interested in it? Who are you to dictate borders and governments to the people of the ME? We need to let these people find their way on their own, and if we let the natural process work, I there will be an eventual winner and a stable peace.

Also, if we disengage, they will have no interest in these terrorist acts. What purpose would it serve?

I'm not too concerned about the nuclear arms race either. If you can keep Iran at bay with a credible military threat, the rest will stay out of the nuclear race. They don't need nukes.

The Russians and Iranians are welcome to die wherever they want to. I could care less. They have ZERO chance in winning any war with the Sunnis.

We really have tried everything during the past 70 years. It's time to try disengagement. No comments by politicians, no media coverage. Nothing.

Try it all you want, they will keep coming. Heck, many are probably already here, and certainly in Europe. The FBI has nearly 1000 ISIS related probes in the US at present. Read what drives them. The article posted earlier is a good start. It's every bit about us to them as it is merely fighting for territory over there. They have been confined mostly to the ME till now only because they haven't consolidated power there. Creating a vacuum will only speed up that consolidation.

This is no longer about 'get out of our holy land'. This is about we want all lands. To take down 'Rome', take down the West, as a mortal enemy. Truly apocalyptic vision of the world.

[TimRobbins]

I'm an American. So I'm in favor of anyone having any "idea" they would like -- provided the idea does not involve denying others liberty and personal safety.

The attacks in Paris fit the ISIS mode -- innocent, unarmed people are slaughtered deliberately for no reason other than to make a political point. To the extent ISIS is a state, or aspires to be one, the world can easily make it impossible for such a state to function in the modern world.

Their Bank assets can be confiscated. Their freedom to travel can be severely restricted. Their access to imports can be eliminated. Their transportation, power, water and communications infrastructure can be demolished and their leadership hunted down and killed one by one. The resources required to do this involve cooperation from Arab states as well as the rest of the world.

Letting ISIS or any other group like Al Quaeda that is essentially virulently anti-civilization roam freely anywhere in the world after they sponsor international terrorist acts is truly foolish. These vermin need to be controlled. However, it is probably counterproductive to introduce western ground troops at this time. The civilized world has sufficient economic, diplomatic and air-space resources to make the political entity ISIS a memory in a few years.

You cannot destroy them. You can hunt down their leaders, but others will emerge. You cannot destroy their water and power infrastructure since that would involve millions of dead civilians. ISIS is an ideology that has vast support in the ME. Destroying an ideology requires far more resources than anybody is willing to commit.

You can, however, dissuade them from performing these terrorist acts on the West. You do that by disengaging. They didn't hit France randomly. They hit France because they recognized it was the weak link the the bombing coalition. I'm pretty sure these acts (and ones to follow) will eventually get France to pull out of the ISIS war.

If we disengage from the ME and take absolutely no position about the outcome of the sectarian wars there, while showing a complete lack of interest, they will have absolutely no reason to perform these terrorist acts. They are not irrational as you may think.

[Rerisen]

They are not irrational as you may think.

Ancient religions aren't rational. Christianity went through a reformation to temper its more extremist tendencies, insofar as 'getting along with others', and not running entire societies via theocracy. Until Islam does, this will continue.

What are Christians, Yazidis, Kurds, and others, in the Middle East doing to provoke their wrath. They aren't bombing Syria, they aren't interfering in political governing, they are merely existing. Existing and not believing the same. That's all it takes.

[conker1]

They are not irrational as you may think.

Ancient religions aren't rational. Christianity went through a reformation to temper its more extremist tendencies, insofar as 'getting along with others', and not running entire societies via theocracy. Until Islam does, this will continue.

I would like to weigh in on this.
I am not a muslim but I am interested in all religion.

Islam did have this kind of reforms during the middle ages. This is what propelled the "Islamic golden age". Bagdad, Basra were places where jews, muslims, some christians were welcomed to study in universities...
Libraries were open.
This was the case because the caliph adopted a doctrine that encouraged that behavior.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%60tazila

Then mongols attacked Bagdad, destroyed libraries, killed everyone. Extremists told the population that this was of punition of Allah for their sins (studies, music and such).
Since then,the arabic-muslim world has been stuck in its backward thinking.

I don't think they will be able to get out of this. It's been 800 years. Not before long....

[TimRobbins]

Try it all you want, they will keep coming. Heck, many are probably already here, and certainly in Europe. The FBI has nearly 1000 ISIS related probes in the US at present. Read what drives them. The article posted earlier is a good start. It's every bit about us to them as it is merely fighting for territory over there. They have been confined mostly to the ME till now only because they haven't consolidated power there. Creating a vacuum will only speed up that consolidation.

I don't know why you think they will keep coming. There are a ton of civil wars in Africa and they do not spill over. Our engagement causes the spillover. ISIS had no interest in hitting Western targets prior to our idiotic bombing campaign. Why did we pick a fight with them to begin with? Who are we to determine their preferred form of government?

This doesn't mean we should stop thwarting any attacks. The first step would be to limit immigration from the ME. That and surveillance/intelligence should give us a good shot at relative safety.

Again, the final outcome is none of our business. I can assure you that continued meddling will only make things worse.

[Rerisen]

I don't know why you think they will keep coming. There are a ton of civil wars in Africa and they do not spill over. Our engagement causes the spillover. ISIS had no interest in hitting Western targets prior to our idiotic bombing campaign. Why did we pick a fight with them to begin with? Who are we to determine their preferred form of government?

This doesn't mean we should stop thwarting any attacks. The first step would be to limit immigration from the ME. That and surveillance/intelligence should give us a good shot at relative safety.

Again, the final outcome is none of our business. I can assure you that continued meddling will only make things worse.

Their final outcome involves your demise or enslavement. Crazy as it sounds, that's the stated goals. If you believe that is none of your business - just live with acts of terrorism and accept so many will die every so often, it may give a feeling of unassailable moral purity perhaps, to merely be sorry and a victim when such things happen, but won't by far grant the most safety.

Things will get worse before better either way. But the more territory, more countries that fall to chaos, will make things get worse faster.

Let's see, we can take what they say they - out of their own mouth - what their aims and goals are, or what you say their belief's and goals are. Prudence is in the first, irrationality in the latter.

[TimRobbins]

Ancient religions aren't rational. Christianity went through a reformation to temper its more extremist tendencies, insofar as 'getting along with others', and not running entire societies via theocracy. Until Islam does, this will continue.

What are Christians, Yazidis, Kurds, and others, in the Middle East doing to provoke their wrath. They aren't bombing Syria, they aren't interfering in political governing, they are merely existing. Existing and not believing the same. That's all it takes.

Eliminating others is perfectly rational. It's the way the world worked for a very long while. They need to grow out of that faze and into co-existence. You can't force it on them. They need to come to that on their own.

Just like they can't realistically force Sharia law on us, we can't force our form of democracy on them.

[TimRobbins]

Things will get worse before better either way. But more territory, more countries falling to them, will make things get worse faster.

Let's see, we can take what they say they - out of their own mouth - what their aims and goals are, or what you say their belief's and goals are. Which makes more sense.

There are no "countries" in the ME. It's a fiction created by the British/French.

I think you're not really listening to them. Their first goal is to eliminate the Shias. They are not irrational. They know they cannot take over any Western country. These terrorist acts are being committed for very specific goals. Why have we taking the Iranian side in this war again?

[Rerisen]

Ancient religions aren't rational. Christianity went through a reformation to temper its more extremist tendencies, insofar as 'getting along with others', and not running entire societies via theocracy. Until Islam does, this will continue.

What are Christians, Yazidis, Kurds, and others, in the Middle East doing to provoke their wrath. They aren't bombing Syria, they aren't interfering in political governing, they are merely existing. Existing and not believing the same. That's all it takes.

Eliminating others is perfectly rational. It's the way the world worked for a very long while. They need to grow out of that faze and into co-existence. You can't force it on them. They need to come to that on their own.

Just like they can't realistically force Sharia law on us, we can't force our form of democracy on them.

You don't have to force anything on anyone to defend yourself. If you don't care to, even when someone states their goal IS to force something on you, that is called pacifism.

At some point if someone declares you their enemy, you will have to do more than simply defend home base. Unless you are willing to live with the consequences of unfettered terrorism and deaths over here until 'they sort it out themselves', which sounds like naively burying our head in the sands, waiting for something that has no inkling of being reality any time soon.

[Rerisen]

There are no "countries" in the ME. It's a fiction created by the British/French.

I think you're not really listening to them. Their first goal is to eliminate the Shias. They are not irrational. They know they cannot take over any Western country. These terrorist acts are being committed for very specific goals. Why have we taking the Iranian side in this war again?

There are countries in the Middle East, perhaps you do not believe they are 'legitimate' countries but they exist. And there would not be more stability without them, just look at Libya or Syria, where there is no functioning governments. And the result of that dysfunction is millions flooding into Europe, and that will cause further destabilization there.

Shia's may be their first goal, but the West is their last goal. And while they may not be able to create civilizational collapse (at least until or if they get their hands on nuclear weapons), they can certainly cause much more death and destruction.

There are also far more than 2 sides, ISIS has been both supported by and seeks to overthrow, the Saudis for instance.

[kyrv]

I don't know why you think they will keep coming. There are a ton of civil wars in Africa and they do not spill over. Our engagement causes the spillover. ISIS had no interest in hitting Western targets prior to our idiotic bombing campaign. Why did we pick a fight with them to begin with? Who are we to determine their preferred form of government?

This doesn't mean we should stop thwarting any attacks. The first step would be to limit immigration from the ME. That and surveillance/intelligence should give us a good shot at relative safety.

Again, the final outcome is none of our business. I can assure you that continued meddling will only make things worse.

Their final outcome involves your demise or enslavement. Crazy as it sounds, that's the stated goals. If you believe that is none of your business - just live with acts of terrorism and accept so many will die every so often, it may give a feeling of unassailable moral purity perhaps, to merely be sorry and a victim when such things happen, but won't by far grant the most safety.

Things will get worse before better either way. But the more territory, more countries that fall to chaos, will make things get worse faster.

Let's see, we can take what they say they - out of their own mouth - what their aims and goals are, or what you say their belief's and goals are. Prudence is in the first, irrationality in the latter.

Good posts. I think the civilized world is waking up to the fact that they are all in a war, like it or not.

[TimRobbins]

You don't have to force anything on anyone to defend yourself. If you don't care to, even when someone states their goal IS to force something on you, that is called pacifism.

At some point if someone declares you their enemy, you will have to do more than simply defend home base. Unless you are willing to live with the consequences of unfettered terrorism and deaths over here until 'they sort it out themselves', which sounds like naively burying our head in the sands, waiting for something that has no inkling of being reality any time soon.

I see absolutely no reason to fight a futile and costly war 5000 miles from my home. A war that cannot be won and only perpetuates a conflict which is none of our business.

I believe we can thwart attacks by limiting immigration and our current anti-terrorism program which have proven to be pretty effective. We don't need to be bombing whatever we're bombing there to keep them away from here. There's a reason why ISIS hasn't been able to strike the US. It's just not that easy. I think your claim of unfettered consequences and deaths is really unsubstantiated.

They are only interested in us because we're interested in them. Stop meddling there and they will have absolutely no incentive to come here. Do you think they're idiots? They conduct these terror strikes for a (rational) reason. If the US pull out of this senseless bombing campaign, and stops addressing ISIS, they will stop addressing us, at least for the foreseeable future.

[GetBuLLish]

This article is probably best for people with mindsets like Rerisen.

http://gawker.com/terrorism-works-1678049997

The attacks of September 11 were a spectacular success. Is there any other honest interpretation? They were a success not because of the Americans they killed that day, but because we chose to spend the next decade mired in hopeless, counterproductive global wars that cost us trillions of dollars and killed thousands more Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Terrorists wanted to show the world that we were brutal and unjust, and we did our best to help them do that. Terrorists wanted a war, and we gave them one. And we lost. We lost by giving them the stupid, fearful, angry response that they wanted.

---

Terrorism works. Against us, terrorism works very, very well. Our collective insistence on treating terrorist acts as something categorically different than crime—as something harder to understand, something scarier, something perpetrated not by humans but by monsters—feeds the ultimate goals of terrorists. It makes us dumb. It makes us primitive. It is our boogeyman, and no amount of rational talk will drive it out of our minds.

[Rerisen]

You don't have to force anything on anyone to defend yourself. If you don't care to, even when someone states their goal IS to force something on you, that is called pacifism.

At some point if someone declares you their enemy, you will have to do more than simply defend home base. Unless you are willing to live with the consequences of unfettered terrorism and deaths over here until 'they sort it out themselves', which sounds like naively burying our head in the sands, waiting for something that has no inkling of being reality any time soon.

I see absolutely no reason to fight a futile and costly war 5000 miles from my home. A war that cannot be won and only perpetuates a conflict which is none of our business.

I believe we can thwart attacks by limiting immigration and our current anti-terrorism program which have proven to be pretty effective. We don't need to be bombing whatever we're bombing there to keep them away from here. There's a reason why ISIS hasn't been able to strike the US. It's just not that easy. I think your claim of unfettered consequences and deaths is really unsubstantiated.

They are only interested in us because we're interested in them. Stop meddling there and they will have absolutely no incentive to come here. Do you think they're idiots? They conduct these terror strikes for a (rational) reason. If the US pull out of this senseless bombing campaign, and stops addressing ISIS, they will stop addressing us, at least for the foreseeable future.

Only until they have crushed all their enemies there.

When is the point we should engage, even in a helping or leadership capacity to other regional players. As I don't see anyone here talking about sending tens of thousands of US or Nato troops in. When Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Jordan falls into chaos? Turkey? Israel is attacked?

As if we pull our support and aid from all these places, in some naive attempt to not generate grievances (which will still exist back to the crusades anyway) the domino chain could go on for a good while yet. Not necessarily though outright military victories for ISIS over these places, but from regional instability and chaos causing economic and political collapse from within. With each success leading to their ranks swelling and their poisonous message growing stronger.

Do you think creating half a dozen pre 9/11 Afghanistans in the Middle East is going to lead to more safety here, there, or anywhere?

This thinking is like trying to reason with Charles Manson. Who also had his reasons for doing what he did. But they weren't ones a sane person would try to sympathize with, justify or rationalize.

It's true that much of ISIS's *tactical and military* decision making is driven by rationale and logic, because their commanders are in many cases former Iraqi military Baathists from Saddam's regime. But their spiritual leaders, those that drive the underlying psychology and ideology, which sets their longterm grand vision, that is from the 7th century, and is incompatible with modern civilization and will always be in conflict with it.