Situation in Paris

[Elheru Aran]

After all this, only a very few would voluntarily elect ISIS. Would they elect a radical Islamic party that's *not* ISIS? Perhaps. But after everything they've done in the Middle East-- don't forget that so much of their violence has been against their own Muslim population for what they see as 'sin' by embracing 'Western decadence' and all that bollocks-- I don't think anybody there actually likes them very much at all. The Taliban were only in power in Afghanistan because they took power, not because they were elected.

Muslims in the region might see a religious government as an ideal state, but I don't think any of them actually want ISIS in power apart from the crazies, who are more likely to want *their* own breed of crazy instead, such as the Saudi Wahhabis.

[Flagg]

Don't look for reason in the ramblings of Nazi apologists.

While I agree, I just think it should be confronted every now and then so that passersby and potential membership knows that the lunatic fringe in society is the lunatic fringe on this board as well, as opposed to the prevailing opinion. Sometimes silence is it's own damnation.

[Purple]

After all this, only a very few would voluntarily elect ISIS. Would they elect a radical Islamic party that's *not* ISIS? Perhaps.

I was admittedly being dramatic. But you got the point well. Basically my concern is that let off the leash the people of the middle east would start doing what almost happened in Egypt and electing radical Islamic parties. Parties which over time would turn these countries into Islamic states that oppress their people, genocide unbelievers and do all the nasty things that "vicious dictators" do anyway.

But after everything they've done in the Middle East-- don't forget that so much of their violence has been against their own Muslim population for what they see as 'sin' by embracing 'Western decadence' and all that bollocks-- I don't think anybody there actually likes them very much at all. The Taliban were only in power in Afghanistan because they took power, not because they were elected.

And on the other hand ISIS seems to have no shortage of people joining them voluntarily.

Muslims in the region might see a religious government as an ideal state, but I don't think any of them actually want ISIS in power apart from the crazies, who are more likely to want *their* own breed of crazy instead, such as the Saudi Wahhabis.

And because of that we might end up with a massive multipolar radical islam situation with many different Irans and Saudis fighting a newer ending cold war in the region. All that sounds about as fun and humanitarian as the mess that used to happen between India and Pakistan.

[Flagg]

Well, now we know the best states to build and house Syrian refugees! Thanks to NBCNews.com for pointing out the real cowards* who would turn away innocent men, women, and especially children who crossed the entire fucking Mediterranean on life rafts and inner-tubes to not be butchered and crucified, while having no issue with, or outright supporting Cuban "refugees" and "exiles" who cross 90 miles to get automatic asylum once their feet touch dry land in order to escape persecution from the EEEEEEVIL Castro regime work in America and send money back to Cuba with impunity while demanding American tourists and citizens who send money to Cuba or visit the island be prosecuted and fined $10,000usd.



*(Sorry, I'd post the full article but my right hand is still a wreck and not much use, so I'm limited.)

[The Romulan Republic]

It seems to me that their are at least two options besides "Prop up vicious dictator" and "Overthrow vicious dictator". One is to simply not be involved at all, but I don't think that's really a viable choice now. The other is to encourage internal reform/peaceful transition without something so drastic as regime change via military force.

There are several problems with those.

Their is no solution that is simple or risk-free.

I'll start with the easy one. We ain't alone in this. Even if the entire western world and Russia were to retreat from the middle east completely and newer intervene again that still leaves the local powers like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Thus unless you plan to force them to back down as well you won't achieve nothing by retreating.

Their's some truth to that, but hey, I already pretty much said that complete uninvolvement wasn't really viable.

The hard one, and in my view the largest problem is that there is a reason why "vicious dictators" and their more moderate kin (Assad really was not bad at all before the shooting started) tend to make up the majority of secular governments in the region.

Well, I'm not going to argue Assad's relative level of evil either way.

Most of the governments of any nature in the region are pretty nasty, its true.

However, I would like to see us adopt an approach that doesn't amount to "accept that this is the only possibility for all time and actively work to prop it up". We will pay for that too. People will revolt against despotic regimes, no regime lasts forever, and the people of those countries will remember that we were helping to keep them down.

And it's the same reason why ISIS has been doing as well as it has. Fact is that a non insignificant part of the population genuinely support radical Islam. They genuinely do want an Islamic state, a caliphate or something similar. Thus internal reform toward what the people want might well end up meaning a result we very much don't like. Or to paraphrase the cold war, if you let the people vote they'll elect ISIS.

I very much doubt the majority, in any country, wants something as bad as IS.

It is, however, a genuine concern that some countries might seek an Islamic theocracy of some sort. Obviously, we need to be very careful about what sort of reform we side with.

Exactly who we should back and where is a very complex question. However, will you at least concede that it is more complex than just backing secular dictators all the time?

[The Romulan Republic]

And we are now up to 15 states minimum (I think I've heard 24 but haven't found confirmation of it) who oppose taking Syrian refugees.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... s-michigan

A growing list of governors and lawmakers are moving to block US acceptance of Syrian refugees, inciting outrage from the Muslim and immigrant communities who say it is Muslims who have suffered the most from Isis attacks. Legal experts, meanwhile, warn that many governors’ positions exceed their state power.

At least 15 states have expressed resistance to accepting Syrian refugees attempting to flee their country’s civil war, and the list is rapidly expanding. Several governors are working to prevent refugee resettlement in their state directly, while other governors and several members of Congress are urging federal action.


Obama savages Republican calls to give priority to Christian refugees from Syria
Read more
Michigan’s governor, Rick Snyder, was among the first to initiate the resistance campaign, suspending his state’s Syrian refugee resettlement program. The move was an about-face for the governor, who had held out his state as a haven for resettling refugees, particularly those from Syria.

The governor’s spokeswoman, Sara Wurfel, said: “[The] Governor is not saying we won’t accept refugees – just suspending until complete review of clearance procedures is complete to ensure safety & security.”

But Rashida Tlaib, a former state representative and current manager of the Take on Hate campaign, said Snyder’s suspension of the refugee program sends a perverse message, “especially because these are the same families that had the courage to stand up against these same attackers, against this sort of violence”.

“We in Michigan are at the forefront of making sure we’re able to [resettle refugees and] at the same time making sure we’re OK, making sure we’re secure,” Tlaib said.

Dr Muzammil Ahmed, chairperson of the Michigan Muslim Majority Council, said the group was “disappointed” by Snyder’s “very knee-jerk” decision. The governor has been “great to work with, he has a very comprehensive vision when it comes to immigrants”, Ahmed said. But, he added, the suspension of relocation efforts across the US will only fuel the narrative from Isis of “us versus them”.

“We strongly oppose this narrative,” Ahmed told the Guardian. “We feel one of the biggest victims of Isis is other Muslims. And the Syrian refugees are fleeing Isis and the terrorist activities that they have initiated. So I think that the governor’s action just reinforced the narrative in people’s mind that Isis wants to have.”

Live Paris terror attacks: US strikes hit oil-smuggling trucks in Syria – live
Latest updates as Paris manhunt continues and France hits back at Islamic State in Raqqa
Read more
Snyder told reporters on Monday that he would not seek to stop the nearly two dozen Syrian refugees already en route to Michigan.

By Monday, the list of states expressing hesitation about accepting Syrians had grown exponentially to include Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Florida, Ohio, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Maine, Wisconsin, Arizona and Indiana.

The chairman of the US House of Representatives homeland security committee, Michael McCaul, also called on Obama to suspend plans to admit Syrian refugees into the US. And Senator Rand Paul, a Republican presidential candidate, introduced a bill to impose a moratorium on refugees from up to 30 countries with jihadist movements, including Syria.

Governor Greg Abbott of Texas went so far as to say in a letter to President Obama: “I write to inform you that the State of Texas will not accept any refugees from Syria in the wake of the deadly terrorist attack in Paris.”

Ian Millhiser, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, argued that Abbott has exceeded the limits of federal law, and cannot refuse to accept Syrian refugees.

“The problem for Jindal, Abbott and the other governors opposed to admitting refugees … is that there is no lawful means that permits a state government to dictate immigration policy to the president in this way,” he wrote for ThinkProgress.

Abbott’s letter to Obama also conflates Isis with Syrian refugees. He wrote:

“The threat posed to Texas by ISIS is very real. ISIS claimed credit last May when two terrorist gunmen launched an attack in Garland, Texas. Less than two weeks later, the FBI arrested an Iraqi-born man in North Texas and charged him with lying to federal agents about traveling to Syria to fight with ISIS. And in 2014, when I served as Texas attorney general, we participated in a Joint Terrorism Task Force that arrested two Austin residents for providing material support to terrorists – including ISIS.”

Isis claimed responsibility for the Garland attack, but the two gunmen were not Syrians. They had been living in Phoenix, Arizona. One was born in Illinois and the other in Texas.

Advertisement

As for the two Austin residents cited in Abbott’s letter, one was a Houston native and the other a Bangladesh-born US citizen who was a student at the University of Texas.

“This is all just a reaction out of fear as opposed to taking into account people’s individual stories,” said Mohammad Abdollahi, a spokesman for Raices, a Texas-based group that provides legal aid to refugees, including some Syrians. “[Abbott] just fundamentally doesn’t understand the issue of why they’re fleeing violence.”

In Alabama, which has not accepted a Syrian refugee to date, the Republican governor, Robert Bentley, dug his feet in and said none will resettle there any time soon.

“As your governor,” he wrote, “I will not stand complicit to a policy that places the citizens of Alabama in harm’s way.”

Monsignor Michael Farmer, who heads a Catholic group called the Refugee Resettlement Program, seemed nonplussed by Bentley’s announcement. “The word is out there, somehow, that we have Syrians coming here, and we don’t,” he said.

But immigration is an ongoing, politically charged issue in Alabama, which in 2011 passed the nation’s toughest immigration law, essentially driving undocumented immigrants from the state.


Play VideoPlayMute
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration Time 1:32
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
Fullscreen
Facebook Twitter Pinterest
‘No more Syrian refugees’: Republican presidential candidates on the Paris attacks.
On Monday, Saraí Portillo, executive director of the Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice, warned against conflating a fear of terrorism with a general disapproval of immigrants.

Advertisement

“We must be guided by our values and not our fear,” she wrote, “and offer refuge to innocent families in crisis. We should work towards an equal and fair treatment of all immigrants and refugees regardless of race, religion, national origin or sexual orientation.”

Not every US state sealed its borders on Monday. Governors in Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Vermont said they would accept refugees. In Pennsylvania, Governor Tom Wolf’s spokesperson told PennLive.com that, despite the attacks in Paris and Beirut, “we must not lose sight of the fact that families leaving Syria are trying to escape the same violence and unimaginable terror that took place in Paris and Beirut”.

The spokesperson added: “Pennsylvania will continue working with the federal government to ensure that all individuals have gone through the proper screening process.”

Observers in Michigan said the US has to play a role in addressing the influx of refugees streaming out of Syria – and that mechanisms already exist to ensure they are screened properly.

“It’s clearly a knee-jerk reaction. The Department of Homeland Security already has matters in place to screen Syrian refugees – which include orphans – thus making Governor Snyder’s point moot,” said Dawud Walid, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Michigan chapter.

Ahmed, of the Michigan Muslim Majority Council, said he understands the emotion behind Snyder’s decision because “we certainly don’t want to … have any high-risk individuals or extremists coming to our own country and creating turmoil here.” But the US needs to play a major role in addressing the refugee crisis, he said.

“We played a role in destabilizing the area,” Ahmed said. “We need to do our fair share of taking care of the refugees we helped create.”

Marco Rubio, a Republican presidential candidate, backed the governors’ concerns over security and said he favoured safe havens for people in their own countries. “My problem in the migrants situation is it’s not that we don’t want to accept migrants; it’s that I’m not not sure we can,” he told the Wall Street Journal CEO Council annual meeting in Washington. “In fact I’m increasingly convinced we can’t, at least at this stage in the process, because you cannot accurately do a background check on even 10,000 people.”

Rubio had previously indicated willingness to take in some Syrian refugees but his position hardened after the Paris attacks. “It’s not like you can pick up the phone and call the Syrian government to find out who somebody is,” he continued. “It’s not as if the documents that people are bringing from abroad are reliable in terms of what they’re saying; in fact often they’re easily forged. It is not easy to conduct a background check on someone that’s coming from that part of the world.

“Here’s the problem. You allow 10,000 people in; 9,999 of them are innocent people fleeing oppression and one of them is a well trained Isis fighter – you’ve got a huge problem on your hands. That’s the problem that we have with this programme. It’s not that we don’t want to do it, and it’s not that we as a nation’s heart doesn’t break but, by the same token, what if we get one of them wrong? The consequences can be extraordinary.”

The Florida senator added: “That’s why I think a better approach is to create these [safe] havens within the Middle East where some of these ancient communities that have been present in the region for over 2,000 years are being driven from their ancestral homelands. It would be much better to leave them in the region in safety than drive hundreds of thousands of people permanently away from the region of the world where they have links that go back millennia.”

Fuck.

Perhaps worst of all is that New Hampshire and Florida are on the list, which gives Presidential candidates a major motive to turn on refugees.

Never mind that it is possibly illegal for state governors to simply refuse refugees, as some are doing.

[Esquire]

It seems to me that their are at least two options besides "Prop up vicious dictator" and "Overthrow vicious dictator". One is to simply not be involved at all, but I don't think that's really a viable choice now. The other is to encourage internal reform/peaceful transition without something so drastic as regime change via military force.

That last option disappeared at least a year ago; there is no credible 'moderate' Syrian rebel group active currently.

Just so we're clear, it's blatantly obvious that Western anti-refugee actions are pure political showmanship and deserve nothing but contempt (well, that an opposition). I've worked for NGOs providing medical care and other aid to those same people; I have exactly no sympathy for the current set of xenophobic politicians.

[The Romulan Republic]

It seems to me that their are at least two options besides "Prop up vicious dictator" and "Overthrow vicious dictator". One is to simply not be involved at all, but I don't think that's really a viable choice now. The other is to encourage internal reform/peaceful transition without something so drastic as regime change via military force.

That last option disappeared at least a year ago; there is no credible 'moderate' Syrian rebel group active currently.

Since I was specifically referring to encouraging internal reform through non-military means, why is absence of credible moderate rebels (presuming that is the case) relevant? Again, I was specifically talking about reform in Syria through means other than militarily overthrowing Assad.

It sounds to me like you're distorting my position in a desperate effort to make everything fit in to the simplistic "ISIS or Assad" type narrative.

Are you seriously suggesting that their is no desire for any sort of reform among the Syrian people other than an extremist Islamic theocracy?

Hell, even Russia has been agreeing, at least of late, to allow a gradual transition from what I've seen in the news.

Just so we're clear, it's blatantly obvious that Western anti-refugee actions are pure political showmanship and deserve nothing but contempt (well, that an opposition). I've worked for NGOs providing medical care and other aid to those same people; I have exactly no sympathy for the current set of xenophobic politicians.

I don't think its just showmanship. I think some of it is quite sincere bigotry.

Which doesn't make it any less loathsome, of course.

[Esquire]

Since I was specifically referring to encouraging internal reform through non-military means, why is absence of credible moderate rebels (presuming that is the case) relevant? Again, I was specifically talking about reform in Syria through means other than militarily overthrowing Assad.

It sounds to me like you're distorting my position in a desperate effort to make everything fit in to the simplistic "ISIS or Assad" type narrative.

Are you seriously suggesting that their is no desire for any sort of reform among the Syrian people other than an extremist Islamic theocracy?

Hell, even Russia has been agreeing, at least of late, to allow a gradual transition from what I've seen in the news.

In brief, how are the Western powers going to accomplish that? We've already made it blatantly clear that we plan to overthrow President Assad violently; there's no goodwill left to use. There is no pathway for "internal reform through non-military means" left, unless Russia offers President Assad a truly stupendous pile of rubles to leave power agreeably.

Regarding the accusation of strawmanning, I make no claim as to your position. I simply note that the moderate rebels have been in continuous retreat for years, while ISIS has beome an international bogeyman and Assad has remained firmly in power - rather disproving the idea that there's a viable third option.

As to your third paragraph - absolutely not. The issue is that the remaining reformers are not willing/able to fight for their position, and as a result there is precisely no chance of it being implemented. The first order of business for anybody who genuinely cares for the Syrian people must be to destroy ISIS; the Assad regime is secondary. It wasn't always that way, but we (the US, specifically) wasted that opportunity.

[The Romulan Republic]

Since I was specifically referring to encouraging internal reform through non-military means, why is absence of credible moderate rebels (presuming that is the case) relevant? Again, I was specifically talking about reform in Syria through means other than militarily overthrowing Assad.

It sounds to me like you're distorting my position in a desperate effort to make everything fit in to the simplistic "ISIS or Assad" type narrative.

Are you seriously suggesting that their is no desire for any sort of reform among the Syrian people other than an extremist Islamic theocracy?

Hell, even Russia has been agreeing, at least of late, to allow a gradual transition from what I've seen in the news.

In brief, how are the Western powers going to accomplish that? We've already made it blatantly clear that we plan to overthrow President Assad violently; there's no goodwill left to use.

Well, the US, with Russia and others, seems to be trying to reaching a diplomatic solution/transition now. The Assad issue, among other things, is not fully resolved, but its a hell of a step. We'll see if they follow through on it, and can get everyone involved to do so.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-sec ... ition-plan

There is no pathway for "internal reform through non-military means" left, unless Russia offers President Assad a truly stupendous pile of rubles to leave power agreeably.

See above.

Regarding the accusation of strawmanning, I make no claim as to your position.

Perhaps I overreacted, but it seemed that you had misinterpreted my position.

I simply note that the moderate rebels have been in continuous retreat for years, while ISIS has beome an international bogeyman and Assad has remained firmly in power - rather disproving the idea that there's a viable third option.

What is your opinion on the plan I linked to above?

As to your third paragraph - absolutely not. The issue is that the remaining reformers are not willing/able to fight for their position, and as a result there is precisely no chance of it being implemented.

Again, I'm talking about reform through non-military means.

The first order of business for anybody who genuinely cares for the Syrian people must be to destroy ISIS; the Assad regime is secondary. It wasn't always that way, but we (the US, specifically) wasted that opportunity.

I would agree that IS is the first priority (other than not further escalating things between Russia and company and NATO, at least).

However, when IS is gone, Syria will still have to be rebuilt into a functional society, or I expect we'll be back in this kind of situation again sooner or later. So its more complicated than "Back Assad and call it a day." Remember, Assad was in control when this whole mess started.

[salm]

Don't look for reason in the ramblings of Nazi apologists.

It's my time to waste any way I see fit
Besides as cmdmoron almost inevitably assumes the treason to be towards the US, I'd like to see what he has to say when he finds out that salm is not, in fact, a US citizen.

Heh, I actually am. Dual citizenship.
Which interestingly is one of the rights under attack after the terror in Paris.

[salm]

Look, one of the goals of attacks such as these are to garner attention and rile up animosity between Europeans and Immigrants. We should not let that happen and the way to do that is not to panic of attacks such these. Neither should we get fooled into indtroducing too many security policies which carry the risk of turning ourselves into authoritarian surveillance states.

On the other hand if the west does none of these it'll end up in a continual cycle of low level harassment with innocent people dying. I do not think that is a preferable option.

What do you mean "does non of theses"? Should we panic and introduce short sighted policies? Should we introduce too many security policies? Should we become more authoritarian? I´ll take low level harassment from the outside over permanent harassment from my own government any time. And we should probably not give them free pr either.
In fact that´s what we are doing anyways with normal criminals. We could probably throw a lot more resources at crime prevention and lower our crime rate but that would mean a more authoritarian state. And we don´t do that because we prefer low level harassment from criminals over more cops.

It's not about fear. It's the principal. You don't let someone beat up on you even if the odds of being seriously hurt are really low. What you do is you grab the bully by the balls so hard they start to bleed than you break his face in.

And in the case of ISIS this means coordinate with the Russians to exterminate them and bring peace to the region. I would personally be quite fine with leaving Assad in power if thats what it takes.

It is very much about fear. Fear has the power to create gaps between Europeans and immigrants. Fear has the power to pave ways for surveillance and other kinds of unwanted laws.
Grabbing the bully by the balls... well fine, go and grab. I think we´ve been trying to do that for quite a while now with rather meager results.
France and others have been bombing ISIS for years. The token bombing raids they went on right after the attacks carried similarily meager results.

So, i´m all for destroying ISIS but the west has been trying to do this for quite a while now and my oppinion on destroying them wasn´t influenced by these attacks in Paris. And our way of handling surveillance shouldn´t be influenced by them either. Otherwise the terrorists have a way to effectively manipulate us. Looking at what is happening the terrorists have this way. We are doing what they expect.

Nobody seems to know how to destroy them. So perhaps we´ll have to get used to the idea of containing them for quite a while which means bombing them and supplying some other assholes in the region with arms. Not ideal either. During this containment we´ll have to accept "low level harrassment". Should be possible as we´ve lived with "low level harrassment" for ever and our society is blooming anyways. Terrorist groups come and go but at least one of them seems to be around at any given time. It´s bad but way better than traffic and completely insignificant compared to cancer.

If we want to destroy them we need to find a way that actually works and since we know what actually led to ISIS grabbing power simply moving in (with the russians or without them), fucking up their shit and then pulling out again doesn´t seem like a very good choice.

So really, get used to getting bombed. In fact, you should have got used to getting bombed a long time ago because we´ve been getting bombed for ever. We shouldn´t be surprised about this attack either. We´ve had attacks like this before and governments have been warning of attacks like this. And I´m certain there will be similar or worse attacks in the future.

[ray245]

However, when IS is gone, Syria will still have to be rebuilt into a functional society, or I expect we'll be back in this kind of situation again sooner or later. So its more complicated than "Back Assad and call it a day." Remember, Assad was in control when this whole mess started.

The point is Assad despite all the evils he has done, still recognise the notion of the nation-state as a means for international diplomacy. It is unlikely that he will authorise any terrorist attack on a foreign soil, especially on a western country. He will not blatantly invade another nation state without any regards to any form of international law like ISIS does.

Assad still recognises other nations as entities he can negotiate with. Not so for ISIS and their leadership.

[The Romulan Republic]

That is a fair point. And I am not saying Assad is as bad as or worse than IS.

What I am saying is that Assad is not an ideal solution either, in part because he was unable to stop his country descending into anarchy in the first place.

[ray245]

That is a fair point. And I am not saying Assad is as bad as or worse than IS.

What I am saying is that Assad is not an ideal solution either, in part because he was unable to stop his country descending into anarchy in the first place.

Of course not. It's just that there are not many factions in the Syrian civil war that even acknowledged the concept of nation-states to begin with, preferring to establish communities based along tribal/ethnic lines, or a more globalised notion that rejects the notions of borders.

Unless the Western nations are willing to outright occupy Syria and utterly reorganise the entire Syrian society based on western society values and enforce western-style education, you aren't going to have any government in Syria that's even close to a western-liberal nation.

If you want an acceptable government by western standards, then you need to find enough western-liberal minded elites in the Syrian society to prop up such a government. It does not magically appear, and it decades, if not centuries of work for that to happen. Why would local elites want to become westernised when they could maintain their social position and wealth by rejecting all forms of western values?

I think we are often too attached to the notion of there BEING a westernised elite community powerful enough in every part of the world that the West could support, and the only thing required was to fund them adequately. It completely ignores the limitation of western values in many parts of the world, where you have to literally drag the entire community screaming and yelling to accept western values.

Assad represented the only major force in Syria right now that's probably the closest to western value, in the sense that he still supports the idea of a secular state.

[The Romulan Republic]

I am not saying that Syria should be expected to instantly embrace western values or that I am thinking of a pro west elite we can put in power. Frankly, I don't assume that every Syrian who isn't part of a small elite is a backwards fanatic. Sure, a lot of people are, but I try not to hold such prejudiced and condescending attitudes toward the vast majority of a nation's population.

I would say that we need to make it clear to the Syrian government, whatever form it takes, that we expect it to abide by the minimal standard of not torturing and murdering its citizens and allowing its people some input in their government, and we can gradually build on that. And part of that should be Assad going eventually. Doesn't have to be at gun point. At this point, I'd honestly be willing to consider just paying him a billion dollars and giving him immunity in exchange for his resignation.

And no shit rebuilding a country takes time.

[ray245]

I am not saying that Syria should be expected to instantly embrace western values or that I am thinking of a pro west elite we can put in power. Frankly, I don't assume that every Syrian who isn't part of a small elite is a backwards fanatic. Sure, a lot of people are, but I try not to hold such prejudiced and condescending attitudes toward the vast majority of a nation's population.

I would say that we need to make it clear to the Syrian government, whatever form it takes, that we expect it to abide by the minimal standard of not torturing and murdering its citizens and allowing its people some input in their government, and we can gradually build on that. And part of that should be Assad going eventually. Doesn't have to be at gun point. At this point, I'd honestly be willing to consider just paying him a billion dollars and giving him immunity in exchange for his resignation.

And no shit rebuilding a country takes time.

That would require the new Syrian government to utterly stamp its control over the entire Syrian population without question. All it take is the perception that the Syrian government is weak for anyone to kick start another wave of rebellion and attacks. The first question is to ensure all the other parties in the Syrian civil war can accept the notion that they are defeated and they no longer have the means to carry out any armed struggle.

Let's not ignore the fact that the reason IS could even come to power in the first place was because there are populations in some cities and towns that utterly despised Assad and the Iraqi government to the extent they intially welcomed IS. IS gaining control of the predominately Sunni areas of Syria and Iraq is not something that we can afford to ignore.

The population under IS control do not have to a fanatic to embrace many values we are very uncomfortable with.

[The Romulan Republic]

Or my solution would require various sides to actually reach a ceasefire where they all make some compromises, as opposed to insisting that the only possible solution is Assad brutally crushing anyone who disagrees with him.

That seems to be what Russia, America, etc. are working toward. God knows if they'll do so in good faith though.

[ray245]

Or my solution would require various sides to actually reach a ceasefire where they all make some compromises, as opposed to insisting that the only possible solution is Assad brutally crushing anyone who disagrees with him.

That seems to be what Russia, America, etc. are working toward. God knows if they'll do so in good faith though.

This would be a very weak government. Any sign of weakness meant that those groups could easily challenge for power again very easily. Why should they bother listening to the central government if they know it is not strong enough to win a civil war in the first place? Not to mention it involves asking the central government to sacrifice many aspect of their power.

IS is a government that is more than happy to embrace genocide as means to set up their ideal society, so I doubt having a ceasefire would do any good in the long run.

[The Romulan Republic]

Nobody's talking about a ceasefire with IS, for good reason. The key is to get everyone else, more or less, to work together so they can crush IS.

As to the weakness of such a government, perhaps it would be weak. However, ideally the transition would lead to other groups having representation in the government, rather than it being the current government against everyone else. Also, if we can get a Syrian government that is more acceptable, then I'd have no problem with both Russia and the US propping up the hell out of it. If we both want it as a proxy, let's start a bidding war.

Okay, I'm sort of joking with that last bit.

[jwl]

.BRUSSELS (Reuters) - France made a formal request on Tuesday for help from its EU partners following the Paris attacks, invoking a mutual assistance article in the European Union's treaty for the first time.

"In Brussels, I have just invoked Article 42.7," French Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on his Twitter account during an EU defence ministers meeting. He was due to give a news conference later.

EU officials said it was the first time the article had been activated.

Immediate details of what France will request are not clear, but the EU's Lisbon Treaty says that in the case of a "armed aggression" on any EU country, the other countries have "an obligation of aid and assistance by all means in their power".

France has so far not invoked the U.S.-led NATO alliance's mutual defence clause.

(Reporting by Robin Emmott; Editing by Paul Taylor)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKKCN0T ... 7?irpc=932

[ray245]

Nobody's talking about a ceasefire with IS, for good reason. The key is to get everyone else, more or less, to work together so they can crush IS.

As to the weakness of such a government, perhaps it would be weak. However, ideally the transition would lead to other groups having representation in the government, rather than it being the current government against everyone else. Also, if we can get a Syrian government that is more acceptable, then I'd have no problem with both Russia and the US propping up the hell out of it. If we both want it as a proxy, let's start a bidding war.

Okay, I'm sort of joking with that last bit.

That only works if all the parties hard very similar goals in the end. The more radically different in goals the different parties are, the more difficult it is to get any government to work.

Have you seen how difficult it is to get coalition government in the west to work together? And now you expect an effective government made up of parties that have killed each other's brothers/sisters/friends/parents? The US have tried doing this in Iraq and look where it got them.

It's kinda hard to have a nation state where nationalism does not even exist.

[The Romulan Republic]

Never said it would be easy. Merely pointing out a possible alternative, which doesn't seem to be completely at odds with what the major powers are currently trying.

And there's something to be said for stability. Nationalism or not, if a government can promise its people peace and safety after several years of slaughter and agony, that's got to hold some appeal, to anyone who isn't a hardened ideologue at least.

[Purple]

What do you mean "does non of theses"? Should we panic and introduce short sighted policies? Should we introduce too many security policies? Should we become more authoritarian? I´ll take low level harassment from the outside over permanent harassment from my own government any time. And we should probably not give them free pr either.
In fact that´s what we are doing anyways with normal criminals. We could probably throw a lot more resources at crime prevention and lower our crime rate but that would mean a more authoritarian state. And we don´t do that because we prefer low level harassment from criminals over more cops.

Normal criminals don't tend to massacre people at random. And when they do I think you'll find modern societies make extra god dam sure that they are caught and punished.

It is very much about fear. Fear has the power to create gaps between Europeans and immigrants.

Again with the migrants. Whats with you people these days and conflating the two. The migrants are not ISIS and ISIS are not the migrants. Different groups, different discussion.

Fear has the power to pave ways for surveillance and other kinds of unwanted laws.
Grabbing the bully by the balls... well fine, go and grab. I think we´ve been trying to do that for quite a while now with rather meager results.
France and others have been bombing ISIS for years. The token bombing raids they went on right after the attacks carried similarily meager results.

Which exactly is the problem. You can't defeat a ground army by bombing them. Newer could. You need to land troops on the ground and systematically exterminate their capability to put up a fight.

So, i´m all for destroying ISIS but the west has been trying to do this for quite a while now and my oppinion on destroying them wasn´t influenced by these attacks in Paris.

The west has not been trying to do anything. Anything other that is than appearing as if they are doing something so as to save face.

Nobody seems to know how to destroy them. So perhaps we´ll have to get used to the idea of containing them for quite a while which means bombing them and supplying some other assholes in the region with arms. Not ideal either. During this containment we´ll have to accept "low level harrassment". Should be possible as we´ve lived with "low level harrassment" for ever and our society is blooming anyways. Terrorist groups come and go but at least one of them seems to be around at any given time. It´s bad but way better than traffic and completely insignificant compared to cancer.

If we want to destroy them we need to find a way that actually works and since we know what actually led to ISIS grabbing power simply moving in (with the russians or without them), fucking up their shit and then pulling out again doesn´t seem like a very good choice.

Thing is we know exactly how. The western world has done it once already. The last time the west faced an opponent with a similarly toxic ideology that needed destroying it was done. And than they occupied it properly and forced reeducation and other measures upon it to completely and utterly exterminate any trace of the evil they went to war against. And thanks to these efforts Germany has remained a free liberal nation to this day. I say do the same to ISIS.

So really, get used to getting bombed. In fact, you should have got used to getting bombed a long time ago because we´ve been getting bombed for ever. We shouldn´t be surprised about this attack either. We´ve had attacks like this before and governments have been warning of attacks like this. And I´m certain there will be similar or worse attacks in the future.

So your solution is to do nothing, put our hands up in the air and turn the other cheek so that ISIS can shoot that one too? Excuse me if I don't buy into that line of thought.

[Broomstick]

Thing is we know exactly how. The western world has done it once already. The last time the west faced an opponent with a similarly toxic ideology that needed destroying it was done. And than they occupied it properly and forced reeducation and other measures upon it to completely and utterly exterminate any trace of the evil they went to war against. And thanks to these efforts Germany has remained a free liberal nation to this day. I say do the same to ISIS.

50 million people died in WWII. Are you willing to spill that much blood to kill ISIS and its cousins? Can you convince sufficient other people that that price is necessary?