OT: Terrorist attacks in Paris

[TimRobbins]

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.

Syria and Iraq no longer exist as countries. Neither does Libya. It's idiotic to continue and refer to them as such and there is absolutely no reason for us to force the reunification of these fictional countries. Again, we should let things play out and new, more natural and stable countries and borders to emerge. It's not our place to decide on their form of government. "Stability" is not a cause.

The flood into Europe is actually coming from Africa through Libya and not from the people who live in the former Libya themselves. The Europeans can and should send these people back to Africa. If they choose not to, it's their CHOICE.

Iran also has the stated goal of world domination and forcing the Shia Muslim religion on the entire world. Just like the Sunni ISIS. they have also committed quite a few terrorist attacks in the west. Why don't we bomb them? Why do we choose to co-exist with them (and now even take their side in the sectarian war)?

This makes no sense. ISIS cannot realistically get their hands on a nuke. They cannot realistically do anything to the US.

[kyrv]

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.

I think the US has been and is too involved in other countries' business. I don't know the right amount of involvement. Captain Obvious notes that total isolationism will never happen.

[Rerisen]

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

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

I don't think you are following the conversation very closely. The article is moral posturing and offers no solutions.

We can only control our response. Let that response be just, and wise, and proportional.

That's the summary line, which is what is actually what is being discussed. Even the piece understands that there is some 'response' we must take. That doesn't mean more troops and war, but it also doesn't mean burying our heads will make it go away either.

There are about 12 million displaced people still left from Syria, how many more do we want if this spreads more by doing nothing, 20 million, 30 million? That is humane? That is just? The sad reality is that backlash will come from 'not helping' likely just as much as overreach.

A peace process must begin in Syria, Assad cannot stay, because he is the magnet drawing both ISIS and so called 'moderate rebels' alike. Can that happen without US involvement. Probably not possible.

[fleet]

personally, I think these refugees need to stop running, stay and fight for their country.

[Rerisen]

personally, I think these refugees need to stop running, stay and fight for their country.

Many did in the beginning, but once Russia and Iran pile in for the regime, terrorists from the outside, Kurds expanding to try and protect their own territories... not much hope.

And if you have a nice welcome and assistance being offered in Germany, hard to say one wouldn't think different in the same situation.

I think the better question, if there is no other choice but to flee, why don't the gulf states take more (beyond Jordan, Turkey and Kurdistan, who have).

[fleet]

personally, I think these refugees need to stop running, stay and fight for their country.

Many did in the beginning, but once Russia and Iran pile in for the regime, terrorists from the outside, Kurds expanding to try and protect their own territories... not much hope.

And if you have a nice welcome and assistance being offered in Germany, hard to say one wouldn't think different in the same situation.

I think the better question, if there is no other choice but to flee, why don't the gulf states take more (beyond Jordan, Turkey and Kurdistan, who have).

Oh, they have a choice if nobody takes them in. Frankly. I'm tired of this, and I guess it is an emotional response to the Boston bombers, 9/11, and Paris. It is time for those countries good people to save themselves, and stand up to anything that threatens them. We can't offer that part of the world an easy way out, and it does nobody any good to make it easy to quit. This is the only solution. And it is far too dangerous for ourselves in the process to take them in

[GetBuLLish]

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

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

I don't think you are following the conversation very closely. The article is moral posturing and offers no solutions.

I am following the conversation. Unfortunately, I might add.

The article addresses the exact tone and mindset you and many other people with hawkish mentalities exhibit.

For the past 10+ years, we have followed an interventionist, militarily dependent policy in the middle east. We have been at war for almost 15 years now, longer than the civil war, world war 1, or world war 2. We have bombed country after country, including but not limited to, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya.

Almost every single time, our bombs have produced more problems than they have solved, and that does not even account for the trillions of dollars spent and thousands of innocent lives (including US military) killed.

In fact, there would be no ISIS if it weren't for our disastrous war in Iraq, which we rushed into in large part based on the same exact arguments you are making right now. "We can't wait until the problem is at our doorstep!" "Saddam is killing innocent people. You want to condemn those people's lives to death and sit back and do nothing!"

At some point, the people who have advocated for the policy that has been put in place for over 10 years, only to produce horrifically disastrous results, should step aside and let other people try out a different approach.

A peace process must begin in Syria, Assad cannot stay, because he is the magnet drawing both ISIS and so called 'moderate rebels' alike. Can that happen without US involvement. Probably not possible.

This makes absolutely no sense. Assad is the "magnet" drawing ISIS? So if Assad leaves, then ISIS will just vanish?

Assad is the one fighting ISIS, with Russia's help. It was only months ago that neocon hawks were screaming for Obama to jump in and help Assad's opponents, which includes ISIS. Once again, another disastrous policy by the same group of hawks who can never shut up no matter how many damn times they are proven wrong.

[Rerisen]

Oh, they have a choice if nobody takes them in. Frankly. I'm tired of this, and I guess it is an emotional response to the Boston bombers, 9/11, and Paris. It is time for those countries good people to save themselves, and stand up to anything that threatens them. We can't offer that part of the world an easy way out, and it does nobody any good to make it easy to quit. This is the only solution. And it is far too dangerous for ourselves in the process to take them in

It is against our nature not to take anyone in though, for countries to wall off their borders and watch thousands of refugees starve and suffer beyond a barbed wire fence, aimlessly wandering between countries.

But the problem is once you do let a bunch of in, if their home country remains a hellhole, due to actions we take or even don't take by doing nothing, it will fester anger and resentment in some small percentage of those, people who will be enticed by terrorist recruiting, and then it comes full circle.

The naivety here I think would in thinking there is any easy answer that exists, such that simply 'disengaging totally' is either remotely possible or would be a simple easy answer even if could be done.

Obama came into office with every desire to disengage, but when the world is begging you to help provide solutions, from the arab states themselves, to Europe, its not reality.

[fleet]

I've said this elswhere Re', as a liberal, I don't welcome them. They are a repressive cruel culture, and they don't belong to us, or fit with us. Not in our nature you say. You know, we'll see about that. You can't ignore the danger here, to ourselves

[Rerisen]

The article addresses the exact tone and mindset you and many other people with hawkish mentalities exhibit.

Where are you getting a hawkish mentality from? I have said repeatedly the answer is not in more US military involvement. ISIS will need to be defeated for peace to ever develop, but from regional armies as the lead force.

In fact, there would be no ISIS if it weren't for our disastrous war in Iraq, which we rushed into in large part based on the same exact arguments you are making right now. "We can't wait until the problem is at our doorstep!" "Saddam is killing innocent people. You want to condemn those people's lives to death and sit back and do nothing!"

ISIS grew out of Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda executed 9/11. 9/11 happened before the Iraq War.

At some point, the people who have advocated for the policy that has been put in place for over 10 years, only to produce horrifically disastrous results, should step aside and let other people try out a different approach.

Obama is the 'other people', his interests were entirely 180 opposite of what Bush and the neocons were screaming for. He just about fully extricated us from Iraq, which them summarily fell apart, because of their corrupt government, refusing to share power with the Sunni's and others.

Which led to the civil war ramping up again, and then potential genocide of the Yazidi's and of ISIS attacking the Kurds. Again I would ask, you would have done nothing to save all those people or to help defend the Kurds? The Kurds being perhaps the only stable and forward progressing entity in the Middle East outside Israel. It wasn't a right or left issue, it was the whole world saying please do something.

This makes absolutely no sense. Assad is the "magnet" drawing ISIS? So if Assad leaves, then ISIS will just vanish?

Assad is the one fighting ISIS, with Russia's help. It was only months ago that neocon hawks were screaming for Obama to jump in and help Assad's opponents, which includes ISIS. Once again, another disastrous policy by the same group of hawks who can never shut up no matter how many damn times they are proven wrong.

Yes Assad is the magnet, because ISIS is Sunni and the whole Sunni world will not stop fighting till he's gone. If the US pulls out tomorrow, the Saudis and other Sunni states will only ramp up arms and resources to those fighting the regime. Russia and Iran will step up bombing and the chaos and displacement will continue and get worse. And we will not be able to 'stay out of it' no matter how hard we would like to.

While if Assad is overthrown, but there is no actual plan or guidance in place for what comes after, then Syria will just become even more ungoverned lawless territory like Libya and like Afghanistan pre 9/11, and no that will not be good for us or anyone either.

That is why someone has to help produce a solution. The ultimate solution is a political process. Who is going to help manifest that? I don't think the outside world can ever be truly understood at home until people can get outside the bubble of domestic politics.

[GetBuLLish]

The article addresses the exact tone and mindset you and many other people with hawkish mentalities exhibit.

Where are you getting a hawkish mentality from? I have said repeatedly the answer is not in more US military involvement. ISIS will need to be defeated for peace to ever develop, but from regional armies as the lead force.

You have said "a hands off approach will solve nothing at this point, and just as likely make things worse." You have also brought up the following quote: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."

So it really seems like you are interested in more military intervention. While you talk about the need for countries in the middle east to lead an effort against, that seems to me window dressing for what ultimately would be a US-led military attack in the middle east.

ISIS grew out of Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda executed 9/11. 9/11 happened before the Iraq War.

What I meant to say was that ISIS would not have had the ability to develop into the power it has become without the Iraq War. This is indisputable.

Obama is the 'other people', his interests were entirely 180 opposite of what Bush and the neocons were screaming for. He just about fully extricated us from Iraq, which them summarily fell apart, because of their corrupt government, refusing to share power with the Sunni's and others.

This is not only a misinterpretation of the facts but a very dangerous misinterpretation that will likely lead to more disastrous results from more military intervention.

Not only did Obama follow the Bush-installed timelines for ending the Iraq War, but he actually tried extending them once he became president. And the only reason why he didn't do so was because Iraq refused to give immunity to the US, so Obama was forced to follow the Bush-timeline of withdrawal.

Furthermore, this idea that withdrawing troops from Iraq was the cause of this mess is a joke. We had already been in Iraq for 8 years. To think we could have stayed and calmed things down and installed a safe, effective government is like believing in santa clause. We can't stay in these countries forever (despite what necons dream). At some point, we would have had to get out, and these problems would have arose simply at a later date due to the idiotic decision to invade Iraq in the first place.

And lastly, we still have to this day thousands of military personnel and contractors in Iraq.

The Kurds being perhaps the only stable and forward progressing entity in the Middle East outside Israel. It wasn't a right or left issue, it was the whole world saying please do something.

I don't give a **** what the whole world is saying. If the whole world is really upset by the situation, they can go spend money and their own lives trying to fix it. I don't work my ass off every day to fix problems half a world away for people who want to put almost none of their own effort to solve these problems that supposedly mean so much to them.

Yes Assad is the magnet, because ISIS is Sunni and the whole Sunni world will not stop fighting till he's gone. If the US pulls out tomorrow, the Saudis and other Sunni states will only ramp up arms and resources to those fighting the regime. Russia and Iran will step up bombing and the chaos and displacement will continue and get worse. And we will not be able to 'stay out of it' no matter how hard we would like to.

Again, this is just fear mongering at its worst.

The true first step in trying to solve these problems is for people to admit that our foreign policy of the last 10+ years has been a complete and utter failure. Until then, we will continue making the same mistakes and will make the problems worse and worse.

[TheSuzerain]

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.

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.

[Rerisen]

You have said "a hands off approach will solve nothing at this point, and just as likely make things worse." You have also brought up the following quote: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."

So it really seems like you are interested in more military intervention. While you talk about the need for countries in the middle east to lead an effort against, that seems to me window dressing for what ultimately would be a US-led military attack in the middle east.

No, that's what I said you need to follow closely. The idea being debated against there in the context of 'hands off' was that there is an isolationism solution. We just let them all kill each other, let more of the ME go down the drain and somehow we'll be better off.

What I meant to say was that ISIS would not have had the ability to develop into the power it has become without the Iraq War. This is indisputable.

Certainly. But the Iraq War is done and we bear some responsibility for the aftermath now. Our withdrawal certainly did make it easier for ISIS to take territory there because the Iraqi army was so weak. And if we fully disengage now, they will start growing again. I see no reasonable argument or evidence how that would be a good outcome for us, or for the middle east.

I don't give a **** what the whole world is saying. If the whole world is really upset by the situation, they can go spend money and their own lives trying to fix it. I don't work my ass off every day to fix problems half a world away for people who want to put almost none of their own effort to solve these problems that supposedly mean so much to them.

If washing our hands was the best solution I would be for it. You should ask why the whole world is upset and you'll see there is more to it than internal US bickering.

If you remember most of Europe was against our involvement in the Iraq War. And despite it turned into the mess they foresaw, they then led the charge to oust Gaddafi, and are now leading the charge to try and solve Syria, with the president of France claiming they will 'lead' the counter offensive. Why are they doing that? Because when millions of people are on your doorstep due to the crisis, and three times as many more still displaced that could arrive, turning a blind eye doesn't work.

It is not in our interest to see a peaceful Europe overwhelmed and stirred into political conflict by mass migration. Not even in the most selfish economic sense.

The true first step in trying to solve these problems is for people to admit that our foreign policy of the last 10+ years has been a complete and utter failure. Until then, we will continue making the same mistakes and will make the problems worse and worse.

Our foreign policy the last 10 years has been a complete and utter failure. Boy that was easy. Now what?

Doing nothing is not a strategy, its not a solution, and it won't stop the chaos and it won't stop terrorism. It's not just a humanitarian or security issue either, if the ME goes down in flames with further countries destabilizing, the world economy will slide back into recession and beyond.

We need to stop pretending there is an easy solution.

[League Circles]

personally, I think these refugees need to stop running, stay and fight for their country.

They generally don't think of "country" as you might. A lot of people in the world have no identity with the nation-state they live within. They have allegiance to god, family, and neighbors/community. And that's it.

[League Circles]

Oh, they have a choice if nobody takes them in. Frankly. I'm tired of this, and I guess it is an emotional response to the Boston bombers, 9/11, and Paris. It is time for those countries good people to save themselves, and stand up to anything that threatens them. We can't offer that part of the world an easy way out, and it does nobody any good to make it easy to quit. This is the only solution. And it is far too dangerous for ourselves in the process to take them in

It is against our nature not to take anyone in though, for countries to wall off their borders and watch thousands of refugees starve and suffer beyond a barbed wire fence, aimlessly wandering between countries.

But the problem is once you do let a bunch of in, if their home country remains a hellhole, due to actions we take or even don't take by doing nothing, it will fester anger and resentment in some small percentage of those, people who will be enticed by terrorist recruiting, and then it comes full circle.

The naivety here I think would in thinking there is any easy answer that exists, such that simply 'disengaging totally' is either remotely possible or would be a simple easy answer even if could be done.

Obama came into office with every desire to disengage, but when the world is begging you to help provide solutions, from the arab states themselves, to Europe, its not reality.

Honest question: how is total disengagement not remotely possible? Seems pretty darn straightforward to me.

[fleet]

personally, I think these refugees need to stop running, stay and fight for their country.

They generally don't think of "country" as you might. A lot of people in the world have no identity with the nation-state they live within. They have allegiance to god, family, and neighbors/community. And that's it.

#1, they had better start.

Again, I'm tired of making excuses for that part of the world, why its so tough. If it is that tough, and nobody there can get it together enough to fix it, then whats the point of US trying? Let them sort it out, and we'll deal with the next Saddam Husseins that arise to keep a semblance of order. If the people want to topple them with a legitimate effort to govern themselves in a stable way, then we'll help. Until then, I am not for hurting my own neighborhood, because I have to worry about the Syrian teenagers down the street radicalizing on the internet and harming my friends and family.

[TheSuzerain]

personally, I think these refugees need to stop running, stay and fight for their country.

They generally don't think of "country" as you might. A lot of people in the world have no identity with the nation-state they live within. They have allegiance to god, family, and neighbors/community. And that's it.

#1, they had better start.

Start how?

They are fake countries. A lot of people in Afghanistan don't even know what Afghanistan is.

The "Sykes Picot Agreement Says So" is a terrible baseline for national pride.

[fleet]

They generally don't think of "country" as you might. A lot of people in the world have no identity with the nation-state they live within. They have allegiance to god, family, and neighbors/community. And that's it.

#1, they had better start.

Start how?

They are fake countries. A lot of people in Afghanistan don't even know what Afghanistan is.

The "Sykes Picot Agreement Says So" is a terrible baseline for national pride.

So you think there is anything we are going to do to change that in the next 6 months by taking in refugees? Get real about it. They have to figure something out for themselves. That is reality. It won't get done you say? I'm genuinely sorry. But Not willing to risk the health and well being of my own people.

[Rerisen]

Honest question: how is total disengagement not remotely possible? Seems pretty darn straightforward to me.

Do you just mean militarily, or do you mean cutting all economic ties to counties like Egypt, Saudia Arabia, and the other gulf states, that we see as a bulwark and counter balance to Iran. And that we have reasoned for decades are better holding together for some sense of stability than letting loose the tinder box beneath them that has been released in Libya and Syria.

See the whole 'we supported bad guys too long' idea, needs to have an after action plan for something actually better once you stop doing that. Nowhere that these dictators have fallen has produced a better outcome. Libya was going to start voting and modernist progressive ideas were going to start propagating there after Gaddafi was taken out, that was the big dream, but that's all it was. The people and the region are not ready or organized to do that yet.

And the failure of that has strengthened groups like ISIS, created millions of refugees, killing, and turmoil. Yet we have people arguing for us to pull out all the foundations so we can make more of the region just like that. That sounds as ill conceived as the idea that we were going to make Iraq a functioning democracy.

It's actually face palming, when the whole idea of Iraq being a screw up, means facing up to and recognizing that what we are promoting instead is that we should have left Saddam in power. So which is it, do we want dictators keeping the lid on things there or not.

Seems people want to have it both ways. Castigate a foreign policy that has backed tyrants, but then say we should have left the very same tyrants in power and not intervened. There aren't any good guys! But the region is too dangerous, too rich, and too ready to expand its violence beyond it, to just let it all blow up.

[TheSuzerain]

#1, they had better start.

Start how?

They are fake countries. A lot of people in Afghanistan don't even know what Afghanistan is.

The "Sykes Picot Agreement Says So" is a terrible baseline for national pride.

So you think there is anything we are going to do to change that in the next 6 months by taking in refugees? Get real about it. They have to figure something out for themselves. That is reality. It won't get done you say? I'm genuinely sorry. But Not willing to risk the health and well being of my own people.

I'd take in 65k refugees as we've been asked to. It's a legitimate refugee situation.

And most importantly, there's a damn ocean separating us which gives us much more control as to who gets into our country.