OT: Terrorist attacks in Paris

[musiqsoulchild]

Terrorist attacks have become multiple acts perpetrated at the same time.

On 9-11, it was much more than NY that was targeted. Same in Mumbai. And in Paris. Multiple points of attack performed simultaneously. In conventional war, this is called opening up multiple fronts- thus shocking the enemy and having them decide what is information / disinformation and where to prioritize resources etc.

Guess what....that's EXACTLY how you take out this garbage. From multiple fronts.

Jordan
Yemen
U.S.
Russia
Iraq
Kurds
Israel
Iran
India
Somalia
France
Denmark
Netherlands
UK
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Syria
Egypt
Germany
Australia

In one go, take out / arrest sleeper cells, suspects, accomplices, sympathizers, family members et al. Pretty much anybody on a higher threshold of terrorism. Get everyone involved onto a ship and start collecting data on who's calling their phones, who's sending them emails etc. etc.

Worry about human rights later.

Recruitment only happens if there is someone else in the leadership hierarchy using tactical strikes to foment youngsters into stupidity. But, if you take out the entire network across 3 continents, the power vacuum would be too great. The disease dies a natural death.

Of course, this would mean that the countries I mentioned above need to have no ego, no fear, no other agendas, no other interests - but we know that doesn't happen.

You have to open a multiple front war against radicalism. And it has to be surgically quick from start to finish. If you linger, you get Afghanistan all over again.

[musiqsoulchild]

By the way, what I described is exactly how cops take down gangs after doing the initial leg work ( via undercover or taps).

The key is to hit the hydra on most of its prominent heads at once. So, the newly emerging hydrae don't have strength in numbers.

[BullsGate]

I am slowly and sadly coming to the point where I have to evolve on my position towards Islam.

Mainstream Islam needs to reclaim its place back and take away ANY and ALL power that the crazies have. This isnt a splinter group anymore - this is a serious threat to a large region of the world, if not the entire world.

Are you a christian?

[musiqsoulchild]

I am slowly and sadly coming to the point where I have to evolve on my position towards Islam.

Mainstream Islam needs to reclaim its place back and take away ANY and ALL power that the crazies have. This isnt a splinter group anymore - this is a serious threat to a large region of the world, if not the entire world.

Are you a christian?

Yes.

[BullsGate]

I am slowly and sadly coming to the point where I have to evolve on my position towards Islam.

Mainstream Islam needs to reclaim its place back and take away ANY and ALL power that the crazies have. This isnt a splinter group anymore - this is a serious threat to a large region of the world, if not the entire world.

Are you a christian?

Yes.

I view christianity the same way.

[musiqsoulchild]

Are you a christian?

Yes.

I view christianity the same way.

I don't see how that relates at all to the issue at hand.

I view Christianity the same way as well.

India was invaded and ruled by Turkic rulers ( Mughals) for 700 years.

And then, by the Brits for 250 years, before they tore my country into 3 parts - just to protect their interests against the Soviets in what the Brits called " The Great Game"

F that. I am an equal opportunity hater of stupidity.

We had some great Mughal emperors and some outright evil ones. We had some great British administrators and some outright psychotic ones.

Both regimes had pogroms that forcibly converted millions of Indians into Islam and Christianity.

I am one such Christian. And I love my religion. And I hate the idiotic parts of it. Or idiots who misinterpret it for personal gain.

[AKfanatic]

Yes.

I view christianity the same way.

I don't see how that relates at all to the issue at hand.

I view Christianity the same way as well.

India was invaded and ruled by Turkic rulers ( Mughals) for 700 years.

And then, by the Brits for 250 years, before they tore my country into 3 parts - just to protect their interests against the Soviets in what the Brits called " The Great Game"

F that. I am an equal opportunity hater of stupidity.

We had some great Mughal emperors and some outright evil ones. We had some great British administrators and some outright psychotic ones.

Both regimes had pogroms that forcibly converted millions of Indians into Islam and Christianity.

I am one such Christian. And I love my religion. And I hate the idiotic parts of it. Or idiots who misinterpret it for personal gain.

Well said Musiq.

I'm not a religious man. My view on religious believers is basically "if it makes them happy, and they aren't hurting or forcing their religion upon others, good for them."

I am very tired of the entire "war on Christianity" "war on Christmas" spiel the far right has been pushing the past decade. Much of it I believe will only eventually lead to fanatics causing harm in the name of their religion. I also find it absurd the way politicians pander to such fanaticism in this day and age.

More people of faith should have your mindset....in all religions.

[musiqsoulchild]

By the way, one significant pivot that Christianity has achieved is to align itself more or less with Capitalism and Democracy.

The problem that devout followers of Islam are facing is that no such pivot has occurred. It used to be that Islam had a STRONG correlation to excellent administration, trade, culture and academia.

That relationship has been lost in the last 50 or so years - and the alignment has become more ideological.

That's where Christianity will never fall into the hands of the crazies - there's TOO much money involved to allow suicide bombers to take over large swathes of religious discourse.

[McBulls]

This is my second attempt to post in this thread. The first was deleted by the server. Sometimes I wonder...

Anyway, all I wanted to add is that economic sanctions against ISIL are underrated in their possible effectiveness.

ISIS lacks the ability to produce weapons and ammunition -- Particularly heavy weapons required for success in modern war. But they are also hard pressed to produce even terrorist weapons without access to international suppliers. Crack down on trade, both legal and illegal with ISIS and you take weapons out of their hands.

ISIS may have some oil, but it is easy to deny them the ability to move it and refine it. Successful intervention reduces their ability to have gasoline for their vehicles. Welcome to war on foot, and war in the cold.

ISIS has no ability to maintain electrical and communications infrastructure without international help. Tough to conspire when you can't recharge your computers and iPhones, turn on lights, or cook meals for coconspirators.

ISIS has poor capability to produce and harvest food, clean water, or effective waste management. Welcome to hell when you visit ISIS controlled territory if international cooperation with these technologies is denied to ostensibly ignorant political leadership.

Finally, ISIS has little ability to maintain domestic support from civilians if they fail to maintain infrastructure and basic services -- all of which rely on international support.

This is a long way of saying that diplomatic pressure on Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Arab supporters of ISIS can produce dramatic results. And it won't take 10 years.

Which is not to say that military intervention is unnecessary or uncalled for.

[TimRobbins]

My point was that a hands off approach will solve nothing at this point, and just as likely make things worse. A dictator of the type you lament being supported in the past, was toppled in Libya - the same thing the terrorists want to happen in Syria. Is a modern democracy and human rights government forming in Libya now that he's gone... of course not.

Grievances go back on all sides decades and centuries, but grievance of course do not justify any reaction to them.

The 'Arab Spring' was supposed to herald the end of the need for 'Realpolitik', it turned out to be a naive illusion, with the forces of extremism and violence far more organized and powerful to step into vacuums of power, than the idealists hope for reform. Until that balance of power changes in the region, no facing up to our own sins as it were, will make the difference.

Why would a hands-off approach make things worse? How can things become worse anyway?

Did you ever think that our hands-on approach is perpetuating the conflict? France/UK drew up arbitrary borders and created fictional countries in the ME, and now, we're trying to hold on to those meaningless borders as if they mean something. Why? How about we take absolutely no position as to the outcome of this sectarian war and simply let it play out? Eventually, somebody will win Shia-Sunni war and it will sort itself out. Instead of letting it play out, we keep meddling, supplying weapons and deciding between "good" and "bad" guys where there are none.

Let them fight it out. In the mean-time, you limit Muslim immigration to the West, ban fundamentalism, and use intelligence/surveillance to thwart terrorism. Western politicians should stop talking altogether about the situation in the ME and the media will follow and limit the coverage. Once the Western public becomes disinterested with these conflicts, there's a much higher likelihood they will be solved (one way or the other).

Our engagement with the ME is what makes these groups so powerful. If the civil war in the ME would have been ignored by the politicians/media (like civil wars in Africa are ignored), ISIS could have never become this influential.

Complete disengagement is what we need. It's the only way to kill this threat.

[TimRobbins]

This is my second attempt to post in this thread. The first was deleted by the server. Sometimes I wonder...

Anyway, all I wanted to add is that economic sanctions against ISIL are underrated in their possible effectiveness.

ISIS lacks the ability to produce weapons and ammunition -- Particularly heavy weapons required for success in modern war. But they are also hard pressed to produce even terrorist weapons without access to international suppliers. Crack down on trade, both legal and illegal with ISIS and you take weapons out of their hands.

ISIS may have some oil, but it is easy to deny them the ability to move it and refine it. Successful intervention reduces their ability to have gasoline for their vehicles. Welcome to war on foot, and war in the cold.

ISIS has no ability to maintain electrical and communications infrastructure without international help. Tough to conspire when you can't recharge your computers and iPhones, turn on lights, or cook meals for coconspirators.

ISIS has poor capability to produce and harvest food, clean water, or effective waste management. Welcome to hell when you visit ISIS controlled territory if international cooperation with these technologies is denied to ostensibly ignorant political leadership.

Finally, ISIS has little ability to maintain domestic support from civilians if they fail to maintain infrastructure and basic services -- all of which rely on international support.

This is a long way of saying that diplomatic pressure on Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Arab supporters of ISIS can produce dramatic results. And it won't take 10 years.

Which is not to say that military intervention is unnecessary or uncalled for.

ISIS dwells in parts of Syria and Iraq. How can you enforce a trade embargo? Are you going to enforce a trade embargo in Iraq and Syria? ISIS trades openly with both the Iraqi and Syrian governments.

What you (and others) fail to understand is that ISIS is not just a physical entity. It's an idea. An Idea that you can't just wipe away. There is a genuine desire by many people in that region to live under mid-evil sharia law. I really can't see why we should meddle and decide they can't do that?

The only solution is to stop meddling. Let them sort it out on their own. I'm not going to tell other people how to govern themselves.

[TheSuzerain]

This is my second attempt to post in this thread. The first was deleted by the server. Sometimes I wonder...

Anyway, all I wanted to add is that economic sanctions against ISIL are underrated in their possible effectiveness.

ISIS lacks the ability to produce weapons and ammunition -- Particularly heavy weapons required for success in modern war. But they are also hard pressed to produce even terrorist weapons without access to international suppliers. Crack down on trade, both legal and illegal with ISIS and you take weapons out of their hands.

ISIS may have some oil, but it is easy to deny them the ability to move it and refine it. Successful intervention reduces their ability to have gasoline for their vehicles. Welcome to war on foot, and war in the cold.

ISIS has no ability to maintain electrical and communications infrastructure without international help. Tough to conspire when you can't recharge your computers and iPhones, turn on lights, or cook meals for coconspirators.

ISIS has poor capability to produce and harvest food, clean water, or effective waste management. Welcome to hell when you visit ISIS controlled territory if international cooperation with these technologies is denied to ostensibly ignorant political leadership.

Finally, ISIS has little ability to maintain domestic support from civilians if they fail to maintain infrastructure and basic services -- all of which rely on international support.

This is a long way of saying that diplomatic pressure on Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Arab supporters of ISIS can produce dramatic results. And it won't take 10 years.

Which is not to say that military intervention is unnecessary or uncalled for.

ISIS dwells in parts of Syria and Iraq. How can you enforce a trade embargo? Are you going to enforce a trade embargo in Iraq and Syria? ISIS trades openly with both the Iraqi and Syrian governments.

What you (and others) fail to understand is that ISIS is not just a physical entity. It's an idea. An Idea that you can't just wipe away. There is a genuine desire by many people in that region to live under mid-evil sharia law. I really can't see why we should meddle and decide they can't do that?

The only solution is to stop meddling. Let them sort it out on their own. I'm not going to tell other people how to govern themselves.

I agree with a lot of that, but they can't have a Caliphate without holding land. If the Caliphate falls apart and holds no land, the idea loses a lot of its charge, and they will have a lot less success rallying people to their cause.

[TimRobbins]

I agree with a lot of that, but they can't have a Caliphate without holding land. If the Caliphate falls apart and holds no land, the idea loses a lot of its charge, and they will have a lot less success rallying people to their cause.

They hold land in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Egypt. You cannot send in troops to reoccupy that land. It's useless. You have to come to terms that there is wide support for this kind of government and accept it.

We cannot and should not choose sides in this war. The Shias are just as bad (or worse) than the Sunnis. Let them fight it out. Let them behead each-other and blow themselves up. It is not our problem.

DISENGAGE.

[ReturnofFlash]

I am slowly and sadly coming to the point where I have to evolve on my position towards Islam.

Mainstream Islam needs to reclaim its place back and take away ANY and ALL power that the crazies have. This isnt a splinter group anymore - this is a serious threat to a large region of the world, if not the entire world.

yes.. it could emerge really to world war 3

How? Assuming its the world vs isis, not really a world war. US could obliterate isis in days if they went all out, add in UK, france and everyone else.

[League Circles]

I agree with a lot of that, but they can't have a Caliphate without holding land. If the Caliphate falls apart and holds no land, the idea loses a lot of its charge, and they will have a lot less success rallying people to their cause.

They hold land in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Egypt. You cannot send in troops to reoccupy that land. It's useless. You have to come to terms that there is wide support for this kind of government and accept it.

We cannot and should not choose sides in this war. The Shias are just as bad (or worse) than the Sunnis. Let them fight it out. Let them behead each-other and blow themselves up. It is not our problem.

DISENGAGE.

I basically agree with what you're saying.

Hell, if for no other reason, try total disengagement because we've tried everything else over many decades with literally absolutely zero success. The world, the US, and the ME is not any safer today than it was 70 years ago.

You're also very right about there being genuine desire for that way of life - so called Sharia law. I'm a muslim though American. I certainly don't think that middle easterners perceive as Sharia law is desirable for them or us, but we have very little to lose IMO by trying total disengagement.

As tough as it may sound, I also don't think we should allow much immigration under the circumstances.

[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's a true clash of civiliations. But it doesn't have to be. They can sort it out amongst themselves. If they see the need for a lot of bloodshed in order to implement one very specific and rigid interpretation of what islam means, then they will have to suffer bloodshed. They can live how they want.

The only way my disengagement/pacifism would work though, is if we have really strong borders, strong rule of law, and don't pick favorites and arm perceived allies.

Bottom line also is that like most of what we do as a nation, we cannot remotely afford any of this. It's just taxing our unborn children, effectively enslaving them to Chinese producers without every having had a say in it, in order to fund an unending, no-progress war in the middle east against an idea that we don't like.

[Rerisen]

Why would a hands-off approach make things worse? How can things become worse anyway?

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.

[McBulls]

This is my second attempt to post in this thread. The first was deleted by the server. Sometimes I wonder...

Anyway, all I wanted to add is that economic sanctions against ISIL are underrated in their possible effectiveness.

ISIS lacks the ability to produce weapons and ammunition -- Particularly heavy weapons required for success in modern war. But they are also hard pressed to produce even terrorist weapons without access to international suppliers. Crack down on trade, both legal and illegal with ISIS and you take weapons out of their hands.

ISIS may have some oil, but it is easy to deny them the ability to move it and refine it. Successful intervention reduces their ability to have gasoline for their vehicles. Welcome to war on foot, and war in the cold.

ISIS has no ability to maintain electrical and communications infrastructure without international help. Tough to conspire when you can't recharge your computers and iPhones, turn on lights, or cook meals for coconspirators.

ISIS has poor capability to produce and harvest food, clean water, or effective waste management. Welcome to hell when you visit ISIS controlled territory if international cooperation with these technologies is denied to ostensibly ignorant political leadership.

Finally, ISIS has little ability to maintain domestic support from civilians if they fail to maintain infrastructure and basic services -- all of which rely on international support.

This is a long way of saying that diplomatic pressure on Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Arab supporters of ISIS can produce dramatic results. And it won't take 10 years.

Which is not to say that military intervention is unnecessary or uncalled for.

ISIS dwells in parts of Syria and Iraq. How can you enforce a trade embargo? Are you going to enforce a trade embargo in Iraq and Syria? ISIS trades openly with both the Iraqi and Syrian governments.

What you (and others) fail to understand is that ISIS is not just a physical entity. It's an idea. An Idea that you can't just wipe away. There is a genuine desire by many people in that region to live under mid-evil sharia law. I really can't see why we should meddle and decide they can't do that?

The only solution is to stop meddling. Let them sort it out on their own. I'm not going to tell other people how to govern themselves.

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.

[League Circles]

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.

Perhaps. But perhaps a huge part of their beef with us is our decades long occupation of their lands. Their aggression towards the west is hugely influenced by the fact that we occupy those lands and that most of those countries were under european control just decades ago. Like, a lot of people shocked at the predictable Paris attacks probably think that these are just random attacks against people who like to drink nice wine all evening and have women work jobs. They may not realize that France controlled and occupied Syria for around 20 years or so I think. I'm of the belief that occupation and colonialism results in deep cultural resentment and a culture of revenge that will typically persist until vengeance is carried out, or until the former occupied territory thrives in a way that makes the people forget.

[Rerisen]

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.

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?

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.

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, the US, the West, 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. Recovering the territory they hold, their power and resources, and eventually smothering the underpinning ideology. The countries already in the region - and a good bit fueling it - need to say, this is enough. That looks like like a long shot right now, but would have 0 chance without US leadership.