OT: Terrorist attacks in Paris

[GetBuLLish]

Not to get too political, but this video should really be required watching.

https://www.facebook.com/Rand2016/videos/873977232717476/

Wish I could find the youtube of this.

[DarthDiggler69]

Sending non-muslim troops in Syria may alleviate the problem for a short time but once they leave its going to spawn more jihadists because having an infidel army is what they want to recruit more crazies. I was against sending troops there because its what ISIS wants, but if they start launching more attacks in our countries its got to be done as temporary solution. Western powers can go in a kick arse, but after the occupying troops definitely should be Sunni muslims for Sunni areas and Shia for Shi'ite areas. Split that country up into their tribes and maybe Iraq also.

But if you know Islam well you know that No matter what they are going to try to start a caliphate again someday. They should have kept the Ottoman Empire intact after world war I

[Darius Miles Davis]

Don't you think we should wait until A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Throne concludes to see if building a giant wall is actually a good idea or not?

[The 6ft Hurdle]

People are on garpaxdorf, but doesn't the US have among the most miles of unsecured borders? I don't know about a wall, but tossing ideas on the table isn't wacky. And not like walls between countries is unheard of.

I think it's wacky when anyone can do a 5 minute google search and discover that the cost would be astronomical and the risk/ reward is silly. I believe they built a 600 mile fence (not 30 foot high Teflon sided greased daily wall) in the easiest, flattest section of the border and had budget, political, logistical, and environmental problems with that (sorry to be so vague didn't want to google )

Maybe OT but the only reason Trump gets away with this crap is because the average Republican voter must be approaching 70 years old at this point and probably thinks google is a dirty word.

I worked closely on a project with a likely Trump voter/Fox News watcher, aging baby-boomer. He especially loves that he talks the way that he does; Trump represents the promise of "getting things done."

If he represented the average Trump voter, which I think he kinda does, I'd say that they don't appear to have patience nor motivation to understand all the nuances, dynamics, trappings of our political systems/infrastructures.

[kyrv]

People are on garpaxdorf, but doesn't the US have among the most miles of unsecured borders? I don't know about a wall, but tossing ideas on the table isn't wacky. And not like walls between countries is unheard of.

I think it's wacky when anyone can do a 5 minute google search and discover that the cost would be astronomical and the risk/ reward is silly. I believe they built a 600 mile fence (not 30 foot high Teflon sided greased daily wall) in the easiest, flattest section of the border and had budget, political, logistical, and environmental problems with that (sorry to be so vague didn't want to google )

Maybe OT but the only reason Trump gets away with this crap is because the average Republican voter must be approaching 70 years old at this point and probably thinks google is a dirty word.

I worked closely on a project with a likely Trump voter/Fox News watcher, aging baby-boomer. He especially loves that he talks the way that he does; Trump represents the promise of "getting things done."

If he represented the average Trump voter, which I think he kinda does, I'd say that they don't appear to have patience nor motivation to understand all the nuances, dynamics, trappings of our political systems/infrastructures.

I don't think a wall will be built. I guess I assumed some people would address other options than just keep saying "too expensive". The idea of more security on the borders isn't wacky. What form that should take, who knows. This is in general and for both borders, not Trump's idea that Mexico is going to build a wall.

I think Trump, like all Presidents, would have a hard time getting things done. But even more so. He's too abrasive.

[The 6ft Hurdle]

Why is it not possible, or even likely, that a total change in the foreign policy of the nations they target would lead to a change in their goals and grand vision?

Because... religion.

Trying to be nice isn't going to cause fanatical clerics to rewrite their thousand year old interpretation of their faith, or of wrongs committed against them that will only be righted with bloodshed and conquest.

The mistake is believing this kind of extremist mindset just wants their own little nation to quietly obey their teachings in. Check out their maps of how vast the 'caliphate' is that they have envisioned. Most of the ME would have to fall including Turkey. And then pushing up into Europe and beyond.

This isn't just about the last 15 years, Iraq, Al-Qaeda, or even cozying up to the Royal Family. The timeline of thier motivations goes back centuries, it is not without meaning when they talk about defeating the 'forces of Rome'.

I've listened to a fair amount of coverage of the attacks on public radio this past weekend.

I think ISIS is specifically reacting against whatever the assailants see as 'Western culture.' So I think their beef in particular is relatively more recent, and less deeply rooted.

But the irony is that people carrying out the attacks are probably "of the Western culture" themselves. It appears that at least one of the attackers was actually born and raised in and around France, but lived in relative isolation from the mainstream (re: poor and probably discriminated against). I think it took a lot of internal understanding of Paris that some outsider living in Syria might not quite understand.

It was a point talked about here on this radio show:

http://wutc.org/post/roundtable-reactions-lingering-horror-paris-killings#stream/0

The thing they've been mentioning about ISIS for months is that they're really good at using social media to attract people from abroad to their causes. They had this Jihadi John and probably more like him.

Not that this is easy to impose across our hugely complex societies, but I think the key to preventing major attack relies on simple things like integration; more integration means ties to different people, which means more chances for them to humanize. Less ties means its probably easier to de-humanize and get into a very negative mindset.

[Rerisen]

But the irony is that people carrying out the attacks are probably "of the Western culture" themselves. It appears that at least one of the attackers was actually born and raised in and around France, but lived in relative isolation from the mainstream (re: poor and probably discriminated against). I think it took a lot of internal understanding of Paris that some outsider living in Syria might not quite understand.

Indeed, there is a lot of internal contradictions in their methods. But once all the infidels are dealt with, maybe they will put away the modern toys of the west and go back to stone age living. Apparently these guys might have used a Playstation to help coordinate the attacks off mainstream social networks.

To the other point, France and much of Europe has definitely not done a good job of assimilating its Muslim population, not nearly as good as the US. Then again the US, in addition to the melting pot mentality baked into, has the advantage of 2 oceans to help have an extremely vigorous vetting process, on who gets resettled here, but that process would be in danger of failing if calls for speeding up the process and ramping up the influx of numbers overwhelms the system to the point where security is not prioritized.

[The 6ft Hurdle]

I think it's wacky when anyone can do a 5 minute google search and discover that the cost would be astronomical and the risk/ reward is silly. I believe they built a 600 mile fence (not 30 foot high Teflon sided greased daily wall) in the easiest, flattest section of the border and had budget, political, logistical, and environmental problems with that (sorry to be so vague didn't want to google )

Maybe OT but the only reason Trump gets away with this crap is because the average Republican voter must be approaching 70 years old at this point and probably thinks google is a dirty word.

I worked closely on a project with a likely Trump voter/Fox News watcher, aging baby-boomer. He especially loves that he talks the way that he does; Trump represents the promise of "getting things done."

If he represented the average Trump voter, which I think he kinda does, I'd say that they don't appear to have patience nor motivation to understand all the nuances, dynamics, trappings of our political systems/infrastructures.

I don't think a wall will be built. I guess I assumed some people would address other options than just keep saying "too expensive". The idea of more security on the borders isn't wacky. What form that should take, who knows. This is in general and for both borders, not Trump's idea that Mexico is going to build a wall.

I think Trump, like all Presidents, would have a hard time getting things done. But even more so. He's too abrasive.

Oh I agree with most of what you said, about Trump having a hard time getting things done, and that the idea of more security on borders not being wacky.

I honestly wouldn't have any better ideas about border security, but I know that I wouldn't want to stick significant money nor resources into it.

[musiqsoulchild]

Building a wall is an EXTREME option to a not so serious problem.

Net immigration for the last few years from the Mexican border has been negative. The Obama administration has done an intense deportation drive the last few years. It's actually costing him Latino support - but at least it's the correct thing to do when dealing with criminals.

Walls were built to stop conventional armies. The Great Wall was built to prevent Mongols from making constant forays into mainland China, for example.

But that kind of warfare doesn't exist anymore. Walls are outdated. You have to build economic walls.

Like the ridiculous amount of time and money it takes for someone to actually undergo legal immigration. It's an administrative wall that does a damn effective job of only allowing in people who really want to get in. Then, you should have proper training of our embassy folks to ensure that those who want to get in are coming in for the right reasons.

[The 6ft Hurdle]

Indeed, there is a lot of internal contradictions in their methods. But once all the infidels are dealt with, maybe they will put away the modern toys of the west and go back to stone age living. Apparently these guys might have used a Playstation to help coordinate the attacks off mainstream social networks.

That's pretty insane, wow, did not hear about that till I Googled it right now.

I don't think they would give up their Western toys simply because they are Western; I think their endpoint isn't necessarily eschewing all things Western, but more so disrupting the ordinary flow of Western life the way they felt Syria and Iraq may have been disrupted.

To the other point, France and much of Europe has definitely not done a good job of assimilating its Muslim population, not nearly as good as the US. Then again the US, in addition to the melting pot mentality baked into, has the advantage of 2 oceans to help have an extremely vigorous vetting process, on who gets resettled here, but that process would be in danger of failing if calls for speeding up the process and ramping up the influx of numbers overwhelms the system to the point where security is not prioritized.

That's a good point about geography.

I can't say anything about exactly why Europe would have trouble, but I think here in the US were more likely to have problems from within as well. Example: the Boston Marathon bombers were here for a while, in particular the backstory behind the catalyst Tamerlan Tsarnaev is probably going to sound a lot like the narrative of those involved in the Parisian attacks.

[League Circles]

Yeah.. the statement that "We've gotten really good at stopping terror attacks" is a dangerous one to make. To many of these groups a few decades is just a blip in time. I'm not afraid nor do want to sound like I'm trying to spread fear. But, I know better than to be fooled by a decade of what could be dormancy. Do I feel like our leaders have intelligence and they are good at finding and stopping these things.. yeah.. do I think that makes us safe? hell no.

Perfectly written. An and-1 wouldn't do. This is the mentality I've been trying to describe that I have.

[kyrv]

I worked closely on a project with a likely Trump voter/Fox News watcher, aging baby-boomer. He especially loves that he talks the way that he does; Trump represents the promise of "getting things done."

If he represented the average Trump voter, which I think he kinda does, I'd say that they don't appear to have patience nor motivation to understand all the nuances, dynamics, trappings of our political systems/infrastructures.

I don't think a wall will be built. I guess I assumed some people would address other options than just keep saying "too expensive". The idea of more security on the borders isn't wacky. What form that should take, who knows. This is in general and for both borders, not Trump's idea that Mexico is going to build a wall.

I think Trump, like all Presidents, would have a hard time getting things done. But even more so. He's too abrasive.

Oh I agree with most of what you said, about Trump having a hard time getting things done, and that the idea of more security on borders not being wacky.

I honestly wouldn't have any better ideas about border security, but I know that I wouldn't want to stick significant money nor resources into it.

Msq said the same thing, it proposes to fix a problem that doesn't warrant the huge expenditure.

And Trump's rudeness can start wars and many other problems. The D is for Dinald, not diplomacy.

[TimRobbins]

Troops are already there to reoccupy the cities. You overstate ISIS holdings.

And, no Shia extremism is not nearly as bad as Sunni extremism right now. The problem is Wahhabism and that's a Sunni thing. Re-engaging with Iran is the best policy decision we've made in years.

We certainly can (and already have) chosen sides in this war. And as to whether we should, I think we have much better grounds to justify intervening than in the past. I mean honestly, it's not often the whole civilized world is united. If USA and Russia agree on something, it's probably going to happen.

I guarantee you that the Shias will turn on us much worse that the Sunnis are currently. Iran has the exact same global domination aspirations that ISIS has. They have performed numerous acts of terrorism similar to what ISIS has done in the West. They are only tactically "engaging" with us right now since it suits them. When the Sunni threat is gone, they will turn back on the West in a much worse way that you can now imagine.

Picking sides in this type of a sectarian war is dumb and it always leads to terrible consequences. ALWAYS.

[League Circles]

Yeah.. the statement that "We've gotten really good at stopping terror attacks" is a dangerous one to make. To many of these groups a few decades is just a blip in time. I'm not afraid nor do want to sound like I'm trying to spread fear. But, I know better than to be fooled by a decade of what could be dormancy. Do I feel like our leaders have intelligence and they are good at finding and stopping these things.. yeah.. do I think that makes us safe? hell no.

I mean define "safe" for me? By pretty much any actual empirical measure, we are extremely safe.

Yeah we should continue to be vigilant, but we don't need to start doing ridiculous things in the name of security. The only thing that I've really changed my opinion on is the continuance of the mass internet surveillance.

If 10 major US cities are simultaneously attacked tomorrow and say 1000 people are killed, will we have been safe today? Not to me in how I'd define safe. We can't wait until we are unsafe by an empirical measure to act. If we can all play candy crush and if selfie sticks exist, and if China could build the great wall, we can give ourselves some privacy with mexico.

Btw, on another note, I showed youhow wrong you were about illegal immigration across the mexican border. It's as bad as ever. Just because more and more of those people are from countries other than mexico doesn't make it less of a problem. In fact, it reinforces my concern over people from, well, anywhere coming into the US that way.

Maybe it's not empirically a big problem yet because maybe terrorists can generally just come here on student visas or whatever. That should be ended too.

[League Circles]

Btw, I'm okay without a wall as long as the border is secure. If it's cheaper and still effective to just have 10000-20000 troops along the border, let's do that.

[Rerisen]

I think their endpoint isn't necessarily eschewing all things Western, but more so disrupting the ordinary flow of Western life the way they felt Syria and Iraq may have been disrupted.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but I think the amount of effort people will go to rationalize and empathize with barbarity, is quite naive to be honest. And doesn't really appreciate the level of violence that this group has risen to. There are 12 million odd displaced people from this conflict and 99% just want to escape and find a better life and do not feel any sense that killing others randomly is a way to 'tit for tat' something done to them.

Honestly its like trying to empathize with Nazi's. Many would argue the Germans weren't treated fairly after WW1, and this in some part contributed to the rise of nationalism in Germany leading up to WW2. But few ever try to understand or argue from a justification POV for the horrors the Nazi's committed. Yet many in this era still seemingly struggle with an impulse toward doing so in the case of ISIS, probably because the reality of the alternative is just too grim to face up to.

The Japanese contractors that were captured had nothing to do with Syria being disrupted - in fact that's almost entirely on Assad, a guy we want gone too - but they were beheaded just the same by ISIS. Same as aid workers, journalists, and anyone else unlucky enough to be in their vicinity.

People seem to want to sympathize with rapists, murderers, and if they had their way, perpetrators of genocide. That's easy (I guess, bafflingly) to do from a position of safety in a 1st world country. For anyone in their path - who have done nothing against them but to be in their way - there is no empathy, no sense of fairness or justice. Just death, destruction and subjugation.

But yeah I'm sure they have good reasons. The same way the Nazi's thought they had good reasons.

These people don't care anything for the concepts of 'Syria' and 'Iraq', or any kind of normal society as we would deem it, or even as most Muslins would deem it. It is criminal gang mentality writ large, with total lack of moral underpinning, other than an apocalyptic extremist ideology, twisted to justify any atrocity they see fit in a means to gain more power and territory.

They have just about made enemies with the entire world by this point. And that is not easy to do.

[Droseisthe1]

Because they are **** countries that nobody looks to for help or approval. We are the leader of the free world and that comes with some responsibility. Taking in 10K refugees as Obama has promised is laughably small potatoes in all honestly.

And yes, it sounds callous to an absurd degree to say that we can't take in these refugees (who were displaced partially due to US support of rebels in Syria) because "we have so many problems". What, pray tell, are America's problems that prevent us from taking in a pittance of the refugees?

Well that should change don't you think? Can only those oil-dense middle east countries live off their wealth and never worry about the rest of the world's problems? I totally get your stance on how we are the leaders of the free world and all that. I get that. But, we've helped many many situations throughout history. At some point, things have to change. Even if it's temporarily. I'm not sure an influx of people whom we have ineffective ways of tracking is the best thing from our country's perspective RIGHT NOW. Take care of our borders. Do something about our current undocumented people here right now.

I just think it's so wrong how none of those rich middle eastern countries are never scolded for never taking any refugees when they have more than enough means to do so. But if we don't take them in, it's evil and callous and just inhumane.

The oil rich middle eastern countries have been scolded. But frankly, they don't have enough internal stability to take in large refugee populations. And they don't have the infrastructure/sophistication to take them in and spread them out like we do.

The undocumented immigrant problem we supposedly have is frankly laughable, and it seems like you've fallen for it. It's political misdirection to distract from actual issues. There aren't people streaming into our country.

We clearly have differing ideologies and that's fine cause there's no sense in going back and forth on things we'll never agree upon.

But you are totally mistaken if you think the oil rich middle eastern countries don't have the means or infrastructure to handle refugees. That is laughable. Believe me, I've been there. They have plenty of means to help out, they just choose not to. And they are not scolded for that.

[League Circles]

Why is it not possible, or even likely, that a total change in the foreign policy of the nations they target would lead to a change in their goals and grand vision?

Because... religion.

Trying to be nice isn't going to cause fanatical clerics to rewrite their thousand year old interpretation of their faith, or of wrongs committed against them that will only be righted with bloodshed and conquest.

The mistake is believing this kind of extremist mindset just wants their own little nation to quietly obey their teachings in. Check out their maps of how vast the 'caliphate' is that they have envisioned. Most of the ME would have to fall including Turkey. And then pushing up into Europe and beyond.

This isn't just about the last 15 years, Iraq, Al-Qaeda, or even cozying up to the Royal Family. The timeline of thier motivations goes back centuries, it is not without meaning when they talk about defeating the 'forces of Rome'.

You're quite mistaken if you believe that the ISIS interpretation of islam is anywhere near a thousand years old or unavoidable.

Nobody is saying they just want a little peaceful nation of their own to exist in. I'm saying that often times a changing environment, drastically changing enemies, have a way of changing a group's goals and plans.

Sure it has meaning when they talk of defeating the forces of rome. But perhaps they are fighting against the idea of rome. And once it ceases to exist in theory (because what constitutes "rome" changes into something else), maybe they'll lose a significant amount of passion, resources, recruitment and stop making progress. You don't see Jewish youth attacking German civilization now days, do you? Or Americans attacking the British? When things change, groups can change. ISIS isn't aome unique group that will always definitely have to be static and always have the same motives, appeal, etc.

[TimRobbins]

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.

I don't know who is going to crush who in this war. I do know that the natural process of the region (sadly through war) is the ONLY path towards real stability. I know that our intervention will only perpetuate the war and perpetuate the instability. Stability cannot be forced from the outside. It's a lesson we have learned again and again, yet is ignored.

I have no idea how this war is going to play out. I don't know if and how much ground ISIS will gain. I do know that ISIS has to be rejected by the local population in order for them to be defeated. That's not happening, and a part of it is due to our intervention.

Israel can take care of its own. It doesn't need our help. BTW - the Israeli-Arab conflict is another perfect example of a conflict being perpetuation by Western "engagement". Instead of disengaging and letting the two sides sort it out on their own, we keep trying to force some sort of "peace" on terms neither side wants. We have perpetuated the Palestinian "refugee" problem by designating them as "special" refugees that can never be resettled (unlike any other refugee in the world) and labeled their decedents as refugees. We are trying to force borders in an arbitrary manner. If we simply took the stance that the two sides need to agree on some solution on their own (without taking a stance on what that solution may be) and stopped talking about that conflict altogether, there would have been peace between Israel and its neighbors long ago. It's our engagement that drives the conflict. (When I say "our", I mean the entire Western world which is ridiculously obsessed with this minor and completely insignificant conflict).

I'm not too bothered by ISIS's vision. They don't have the means for global domination and given the region's lack of development, they will never have means to be a real global threat. Visions change and evolve. If you let the natural process work, the rejection of ISIS needs to come from within, not from outside forces. That is the only way.

[Rerisen]

You're quite mistaken if you believe that the ISIS interpretation of islam is anywhere near a thousand years old or unavoidable.

Nobody is saying they just want a little peaceful nation of their own to exist in. I'm saying that often times a changing environment, drastically changing enemies, have a way of changing a group's goals and plans.

Sure it has meaning when they talk of defeating the forces of rome. But perhaps they are fighting against the idea of rome. And once it ceases to exist in theory (because what constitutes "rome" changes into something else), maybe they'll lose a significant amount of passion, resources, recruitment and stop making progress. You don't see Jewish youth attacking German civilization now days, do you? Or Americans attacking the British? When things change, groups can change. ISIS isn't aome unique group that will always definitely have to be static and always have the same motives, appeal, etc.

When things change to that degree, there will no longer be an "ISIS". I think you are talking about something quite different here - a battle for hearts and minds - and that is very much important to strangling *future* growth of this group, and killing off their message. And certainly in fighting them, every caution should be made to not make major missteps that could force that trend the wrong direction. But that should not be confused with not fighting them at all, which is really no longer not an option, certainly for those living in the region near them.

You might be able to affect their future appeal in certain ways, but for the ones already fully committed and indoctrinated, I think its simply a matter of eradicating them. No different than Osama Bin Laden.