Situation in Paris

[Purple]

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?

Er... no? I am not sure you understand what I am saying. My point is that the west is completely capable of marching in and conquering the region like what was done in Iraq. And that we should do this. And than our next step should than be to apply the same methods of post war denazification that were applied to Germany to Syria to perform a deISISification if you will.

Seriously, I am not even sure what you were thinking about.

[Broomstick]

ISIS is not just a small territory, it's also an ideology. You can wipe it out of Syria, or Iraq, but that doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

Nor would a serious, boots-on-the-ground invasion followed by occupation and reeducation for at least a generation be without bloodshed on both sides.

Again, how many people are you willing to kill to achieve your goal?

That has been the crux of the problem for the west all along - we don't really like to kill people. We try to avoid killing and dying for the most part. We don't want to do that.

The guys on the other side, though - they LIKE killing people. They have no problem spilling blood - theirs, yours, that other guy's over there.... everyone's, in fact.

IF, for example, the US really didn't give a fuck about "brown people", as is often the accusation, after 9/11 we would have simply nuked Afghanistan, the Taliban, and everyone else near them into oblivion. Would not have taken even a full morning to do it. But we didn't. Why? Because we don't actually like killing people, we don't think it's a good thing, and we want to be the good guys.

Until the west really, truly, is so angry that collectively the people are willing to pay the price in blood, in broken, dead bodies and destroyed cities, the current crew of Bad Guys - by whatever name or acronym they're known this week - aren't going to go away.

Now, the west could choose to tolerate the occasional atrocity rather than engage in a very nasty, bloody conflict. That is what we've been doing these past 15 or so years. Are you happy with that solution?

[Channel72]

Er... no? I am not sure you understand what I am saying. My point is that the west is completely capable of marching in and conquering the region like what was done in Iraq. And that we should do this. And than our next step should than be to apply the same methods of post war denazification that were applied to Germany to Syria to perform a deISISification if you will.

I agree - it's the right thing to do, especially since the US is largely responsible for destabilizing the region to the extent that something like ISIS is even possible.

But, for the reasons outlined above, it won't happen. Obama just yesterday reaffirmed that he will not use ground troops. He's committed to doing this as a remote puppeteer... supporting local forces on the ground, and complementing their efforts with airstrikes.

To be fair, he's successfully more or less kept ISIS in check this way, with a few setbacks here and there. But even if ISIS remains holed up in Raqqah and Mosul, they're still able to cause serious damage abroad if they want to, and they still recruit, and they're still making everyone's life miserable in Raqqah. Ultimately somebody has to do the hard work of invading Raqqah and Mosul. But the US won't do it, and none of the Sunni Muslim governments are really that interested in doing it.

Obama really wants a (mostly Sunni) contingent from the Iraqi army to retake Mosul, and he's sent hundreds of military advisers to help with that ... but for some reason that operation has been delayed and delayed and delayed some more... it was originally planned for last February. Then in March the US actually started air dropping pamphlets into the city, warning everyone to evacuate because an assault was imminent. And then...

...

... nothing happened, because ... ??? Who knows, I guess the Iraqi army and Peshmerga didn't have their shit together or something. So, more delays. Last I read they were replanning the assault last September, and still nothing has happened.

[salm]

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.

So what? That doesn´t change anything about the analogy. We dedicate a certain amount of resources towards certain types of crime and accept the remaining "harassment". Because fighting this remaining "harassment" would mean introducing other, worse types of "harassment".

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.

Eh? This is what´s happening. ISIS bombs and idiots claim that we need to kick out the refugees. Plenty of idiots. ISIS is manipulating parts of our society. And this manipulation is something we have to and can combat.

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.


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.

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.

Ok, then find political will for an invasion plus several decades of ocupation. You´ve got my vote. But only if we don´t pull out after a while like in pretty much every other confilict.

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.

If other options are worse, yes, that´s what we should do. I mean, it´s not like we´re doing "nothing" at the moment but I´ll interpret that as you not wanting to change the status quo.
If there´s something better, fine. But I doubt there´s enough political will for your decades/centuries of occupation.
So what´s it going to be then, eh?

[Purple]

So what? That doesn´t change anything about the analogy. We dedicate a certain amount of resources towards certain types of crime and accept the remaining "harassment". Because fighting this remaining "harassment" would mean introducing other, worse types of "harassment".

Because some crimes are more severe than others. And murdering people tends to rank higher than say jaywalking.

Eh? This is what´s happening. ISIS bombs and idiots claim that we need to kick out the refugees. Plenty of idiots. ISIS is manipulating parts of our society. And this manipulation is something we have to and can combat.

But what does this have to do with me or this discussion we are having? You keep bringing it up all the time as if I said something.

Ok, then find political will for an invasion plus several decades of ocupation. You´ve got my vote. But only if we don´t pull out after a while like in pretty much every other confilict.

So we are in agreement about what should be done?

If other options are worse, yes, that´s what we should do. I mean, it´s not like we´re doing "nothing" at the moment but I´ll interpret that as you not wanting to change the status quo.
If there´s something better, fine. But I doubt there´s enough political will for your decades/centuries of occupation.
So what´s it going to be then, eh?

So your solution is once again to put your hands up in the air and say "well we can't do anything. Out of our hands." With an attitude like that it is in fact out of our hands.

[salm]

Because some crimes are more severe than others. And murdering people tends to rank higher than say jaywalking.

So? We still don´t put as many resources towards preventing murder as we theoretically could. We accept a certain amount of murder because the alternative would be worse.

But what does this have to do with me or this discussion we are having? You keep bringing it up all the time as if I said something.

My argument is that we shouldn´t get hysterical and we shouldn´t give the terrorists free pr. One result of hysteria and free pr is that idiots will turn hostile towards immigrants. This hostility is going to alienate some immigrants and turn a certain percentage of immigrants into the arms if ISIS. Just like frustrated young Europeans with immigrant back ground have been flocking towards ISIS in the past.

So we are in agreement about what should be done?

Well, if you agree that we should bring our media to shut the fuck up instead of causing hysteria. They can report, just like they can report on school schootings. But what they´re doing is a 24/7 bombardement which, i believe, furthers division. And any expert on school shootings will tell you that this kind of exagerated coverage is just playing into the hand of the shooter. And I think we´re playing into the hands of ISIS.
I know that it´s just as futile as finding political will for century long occupation.

So your solution is once again to put your hands up in the air and say "well we can't do anything. Out of our hands." With an attitude like that it is in fact out of our hands.

My solution is to step back and analyse how bad the situation is.
After doing that I´ve come to the conclusion that it is far from as bad as it looks like in the media. Terrorists kill very few people. Media coverage, though, acts like terrorists are an existential threat to our society. They´re not. I mean, it would be nice to get rid of these fuckers but there are a bunch of things that are vastly more important.

Also, why do you keep saying "nothing"? We´ve been bombing them for years. That isn´t nothing. Governments keep arresting terrorist. There is surveillance in place and secret services are doing their jobs. Sometimes American tourists stop them on Belgian trains. Every once in a while a terrorist is successful. But most are not.
Other than that we have to see to that we integrate immigrants better than in the past or some of the current batch will turn towards terrorism just like the last batch. This is actually something that isn´t a mere pipe dream unlike shutting up the media or decades of occupation.

[Purple]

So? We still don´t put as many resources towards preventing murder as we theoretically could. We accept a certain amount of murder because the alternative would be worse.

And what in your view is preferable? Doing nothing whilst they have free reign to kill whom ever they like when ever they like?

My argument is that we shouldn´t get hysterical and we shouldn´t give the terrorists free pr. One result of hysteria and free pr is that idiots will turn hostile towards immigrants. This hostility is going to alienate some immigrants and turn a certain percentage of immigrants into the arms if ISIS. Just like frustrated young Europeans with immigrant back ground have been flocking towards ISIS in the past.

Well yea, sure. That goes without saying. I just don't really see why you feel the need to make this argument when talking to me when I've newer brought anything about the migrants up. It just feels like a side tangent that's so "well duh" that it does not warrant discussion.

Well, if you agree that we should bring our media to shut the fuck up instead of causing hysteria. They can report, just like they can report on school schootings. But what they´re doing is a 24/7 bombardement which, i believe, furthers division. And any expert on school shootings will tell you that this kind of exagerated coverage is just playing into the hand of the shooter. And I think we´re playing into the hands of ISIS.
I know that it´s just as futile as finding political will for century long occupation.

Honestly I'd want the public to get riled up. People should be angry. And that anger should be aimed, controlled and carefully shaped to allow us to gather the political will to crush ISIS once and for all. For all his stupidity Bush actually did that part right when he wanted to invade Iraq. Get the public to hate the enemy and the political will to kill them will come.

My solution is to step back and analyse how bad the situation is.
After doing that I´ve come to the conclusion that it is far from as bad as it looks like in the media. Terrorists kill very few people. Media coverage, though, acts like terrorists are an existential threat to our society. They´re not. I mean, it would be nice to get rid of these fuckers but there are a bunch of things that are vastly more important.

And that's where we disagree. Nothing is more important for a nation than preventing foreign entities from killing their citizens at will. A country and government that can not provide that basic level of security frankly has no legitimacy.

Also, why do you keep saying "nothing"? We´ve been bombing them for years. That isn´t nothing. Governments keep arresting terrorist. There is surveillance in place and secret services are doing their jobs. Sometimes American tourists stop them on Belgian trains. Every once in a while a terrorist is successful. But most are not.

If someone keeps hitting you and all you do is keep applying bandaids than you are not doing nothing, true. But you are doing the next thing to nothing. Fix the problem, not the symptoms. That by the way is why I think this whole authoritarian streak the west has been on is idiotic. You don't fix the terrorist threat by turning your country into a police state. You fix it by exterminating all the terrorists.

Other than that we have to see to that we integrate immigrants better than in the past or some of the current batch will turn towards terrorism just like the last batch. This is actually something that isn´t a mere pipe dream unlike shutting up the media or decades of occupation.

This again goes without saying. Not that I have not been saying it for what... days now. In fact it's been said so many times on this forum alone that I really don't see the need to repeat it.

[Civil War Man]

IF, for example, the US really didn't give a fuck about "brown people", as is often the accusation, after 9/11 we would have simply nuked Afghanistan, the Taliban, and everyone else near them into oblivion. Would not have taken even a full morning to do it. But we didn't. Why? Because we don't actually like killing people, we don't think it's a good thing, and we want to be the good guys.

Until the west really, truly, is so angry that collectively the people are willing to pay the price in blood, in broken, dead bodies and destroyed cities, the current crew of Bad Guys - by whatever name or acronym they're known this week - aren't going to go away.

Even that hypothetical "kill everyone and let God sort them out" attitude would only have helped the people we are supposed to be fighting. To paraphrase the Cracked editorial about the attacks, the people who did this are not ignorant of the west's capabilities. They know we can bomb them with impunity, and they know we have the will to do it, because we've been doing it to them for years. They didn't attack because they think we're too weak to retaliate. They did it because they know we are too weak to resist the impulse to retaliate.

Because every time we've lashed out in response to an attack, we always wind up hitting just as many people who were not involved in the attack that provoked us, if not more. Just look at the situation with the Syrian refugees. ISIS claims credit for the attack in Paris, and in their flailing many of our leaders are deciding that our response should be to punish people trying to get away from ISIS.

[Elheru Aran]

Not much I can add to it, but here's a pretty decent link:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/11/17 ... -us-image/

On Friday evening you stole the life of an exceptional person, the love of my life, the mother of my son, but you will not have my hatred.

So no, I will not give you the satisfaction of hating you. You want it, but to respond to hatred with anger would be to give in to the same ignorance that made you what you are.

Us two, my son and I, we will be stronger than every army in the world. I cannot waste any more time on you as I must go back to [my son] who has just woken from his sleep.

He is only just 17 months old, he is going to eat his snack just like every other day, then we are going to play like every other day and all his life this little boy will be happy and free.

Because you will never have his hatred either.

[Channel72]

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.

The political landscape and culture is simply too dissimilar for this analogy to work. Germany already had a history of liberalism and parliamentary democracy before a right-wing anti-Semite hijacked the nation. Plus, Middle Eastern politics are just fucking impossible. The complex network of intertwined sectarian, religious and national agendas make it really difficult to support any one faction without causing sectarian chaos. Actual secular, inspiring political movements, like the Arab spring, tend to get quickly hijacked by sectarian interests. And any Western army that invades the region will soon be seen as an enemy, after the army lingers for a bit, which in turn serves as a rallying point for jihadism and feeds the cycle of sectarian violence. That's obviously why Obama is so adamant about getting the locals to clean this up. And honestly, the only reason I disagree with his position is because in this case, we basically just took a giant shit on Mesopotamia and then left the locals to deal with our mess.

Really, the best hope for the Middle East was the wave of Ba'athist pan-Arab nationalist leaders of the 60s and 70s. Sadly, they either turned into brutal assholes, or made the mistake of aligning with Communists, so the US disrupted their regimes.

That said, I still think it's worth sending a coalition of US/European troops to aid the Kurds and Iraqi army in retaking Mosul. Then we can just let the remnants of ISIS flee Westward, where hopefully Assad and Putin will finish them off.

After that ... bleh... it's another impossible situation. With ISIS gone, and cities like Sinjar and Mosul completely laid waste, it will be an enormously expensive project to stabilize and rebuild Syria and Northern Iraq. Not to mention the endless waves of leftover ISIS fighters (who just don't know when to stop) continuously planting car bombs and kidnapping people...

Plus, many of the survivors completely hate each other. The Kurds, Shia and especially the Yazidis are likely to just be itching for a very bloody revenge on the Sunni Arabs once the dust settles. They were very badly betrayed, after all, so who can blame them.

Plus there's various other ISIS-like groups festering elsewhere in Syria, although they're unlikely to be anywhere near as successful as ISIS. ISIS pretty much won the political lottery by taking advantage of a simultaneous political vaccum in Syria, weak border control in Iraq, and loads of shiny new US military equipment and intact oil fields left sitting there for the taking. That sort of luck won't happen again.

Anyway, the best solution is probably to just send in a contigent of Western soldiers to help retake Mosul, cutting off ISIS from the oil fields. At that point their only remaining safe haven will be Raqqah, which will eventually fall to advancing Syrian forces with Russian support. But it's unlikely the situation will improve that significantly once ISIS is gone (except for those who were actually living in Raqqah or Mosul...) since either Assad will resume control and return to his usual Saddam-Hussein-lite crackdowns, killing loads of more people, or else he'll lose control again as various factions (perhaps in his own military, like the FSA) take advantage of the situation yet again. I mean how many times is Putin coming to the rescue before this gets stupid?

The other option is to replace him, but like... with who? Some useless Sunni Islamist theocrat? Or another Alawite Ba'athist whom the US is unlikely to approve of, and whom the ~70% Sunni population will hate? (Maybe we should put a Jew on the Syrian throne, just for the laughs. At least it would unite everyone in their disapproval...) I'd prefer a secular leader, like perhaps somebody from the FSA ... except there's no reason to imagine any of these people can manage to keep Syria from falling apart again. The US tried (with minimal competence) to knit together a multi-ethnic government in Baghdad where Kurds, Sunnis and Shia would have an equal part. That basically resulted in a weak Shia bureaucracy that can't even stand up to ISIS, and leans towards oppressing Sunnis anyway.

The point is, getting rid of ISIS is the easy part. After that, the road ahead is entirely unclear, and I don't think anybody on Earth really is capable of putting together a plan that won't in some way falter badly under unpredictable sectarian outbursts. Plus, any Western involvement in the region will quickly become unpopular back home as everyone loses interest, because we forgot about what happened in Paris already ... leading to another early withdrawal from the region, which will promptly be taken advantage of by another ridiculous Jihad factory, etc., etc,., ad infinitum

[jwl]

France is to call for an effective suspension of the Schengen Agreement on open borders across Europe this week, as it demands other European nations begin border identity checks inside Europe’s free movement zone, diplomatic sources have confirmed to The Telegraph.
The radical step follows the Friday-night massacre in Paris and will lead French proposals at an emergency meeting of EU interior ministers in Brussels on Friday.
Border between France and Belgium
Border between France and Belgium Photo: Alamy
“The French are going to push hard for everyone else to institute border controls, particularly Belgium, but across the wider euro area. To all intents and purposes it will be a temporary suspension of Schengen,” the source said.
Claude Moraes, the Labour MEP and chairman of the European Parliament's Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs Committee, said that the French demands would test Schengen “to the limits” even if remaining technically within the terms of the agreement.
“The code allows you flexibility. Hollande will push Schengen flexiblity to a point it hasn't gone to before,” he told The Telegraph.
“Closures during football tournaments or the G7 were dramatic but nothing compared to what he wants - multiple border closures for security reasons. Closures that can happen quickly for intelligence alerts. The code would allow for it, but it is unprecedented.
"He will call for Schengen to remain but for it to survive it has to have this unprecedented flexibility for the new terrorist reality."
• Paris attacks: Suspect 'arrested' by Belgian police - latest news
• Eurocrats are in tragic denial about the Paris attacks
At the same time Francois Hollande, France’s president, is to announce that he will extend draconian emergency powers for a further three months at a landmark speech in Paris this afternoon.

The speech at Versailles in which Mr Hollande will invoke rarely-used powers to address both houses of the French parliament is being billed by diplomats as a “highly significant” moment for Europe as it digests the security implications of the Paris atrocities.
Chief among the French demands is a radical internal tightening of the Schengen Agreement which was already under pressure from the migrant crisis.
This year several countries, including Germany, Austria, Sweden and Hungary have introduced temporary border controls, raising questions about the sustainability of Schengen even before the latest Paris massacre.

Vehicles queue at the Bardonnex Customs control at the border between France and Switzerland, following the deadly Paris attacks,
Other French proposals include more checking of identities, both for travellers entering the EU from outside Europe but also – crucially – on travellers moving within Europe.
Sources said it was too early to say whether the new measures proposed by France would be temporary or indefinite, but expected they would last for a considerable period of time.
'Because terrorists cross Europe's external borders and internal borders, we want the proposals that are made to be enacted quickly'
Bernard Cazeneuve
The news that the terror cell that conducted the attacks was based in Belgium has raised clear concerns about secondary movement of terrorists inside the EU free-movement zone which France says must now be urgently addressed.
France also wants the immediate adoption of the controversial Passenger Name Records (PNR) system for planes, trains and ships which has long been blocked by the data protection lobby which objects to the bulk collection of so much information as contrary to the Lisbon Treaty.
The demand for the use of PNR includes not only for external entries, but also for intra-EU travel, a move that would require new European legislation in order to force passenger carriers to turn over data.

Sources said legislation to enable PNR for intra-EU travel could be put through rapidly if there was sufficient political backing.
France also wants greater use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) which cross references border identity checks with a vast database of known criminals, stolen vehicles and passports and other security data.
Bernard Cazeneuve, the French interior minister, prefigured the French demands in remarks on Sunday in which he said that “systematic and coordinated checks on borders inside the European Union” were now essential for the fight against terrorism.
“Because terrorists cross Europe's external borders and internal borders, we want the proposals that are made and the measures taken by France as those put in place by other European countries ... to be enacted quickly," he added.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rders.html

[Channel72]

I think, now more than ever, it's important to take note of the way Muslims in Paris have responded to the attacks:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/europe/pa ... =obnetwork

ISIS will 'drag you to hellfire,' Muslim leaders say

Paris (CNN)Muslim leaders gathered at a makeshift memorial in Paris on Monday to pay their respects to those killed in terror attacks and warn members of their community against joining ISIS.

Several of the attackers are believed to have been French nationals who traveled to Syria to join ISIS. According to the French interior ministry, France is the largest source of European jihadis in Iraq and Syria with at least 570 French nationals fighting in the ranks of ISIS.

Abdalali Mamoun, an imam at a southern Paris mosque, was one of a 20-strong group who came to lay flowers near the Bataclan theater where scores of people attending a rock concert were gunned down. He urged young French Muslims to steer clear of ISIS's unholy war.

"You're mistaken," Mamoun said. "You're mistaken in supporting that movement, ISIS.

"It will drag you to your death, to hellfire, because suicide and slaughter are not permitted in Islam."

Another member of his group insisted that the killers were indiscriminate in their choice of targets. "As French citizens, and as human beings, we have been wounded by this attack," Yasser Laouti, spokesman for the Collective Against Islamophobia in France, said.

"They killed Christians, Muslims and Jews indiscriminately."

... of course, that story was buried somewhere in the depths of CNN's website, whereas the story about Donald Trump beating his chest and saying he'd blow up ISIS real good is making headlines...

[Channel72]

..

[The Romulan Republic]

ISIS is not just a small territory, it's also an ideology. You can wipe it out of Syria, or Iraq, but that doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

Nor would a serious, boots-on-the-ground invasion followed by occupation and reeducation for at least a generation be without bloodshed on both sides.

Again, how many people are you willing to kill to achieve your goal?

That has been the crux of the problem for the west all along - we don't really like to kill people. We try to avoid killing and dying for the most part. We don't want to do that.

The guys on the other side, though - they LIKE killing people. They have no problem spilling blood - theirs, yours, that other guy's over there.... everyone's, in fact.

IF, for example, the US really didn't give a fuck about "brown people", as is often the accusation, after 9/11 we would have simply nuked Afghanistan, the Taliban, and everyone else near them into oblivion. Would not have taken even a full morning to do it. But we didn't. Why? Because we don't actually like killing people, we don't think it's a good thing, and we want to be the good guys.

Until the west really, truly, is so angry that collectively the people are willing to pay the price in blood, in broken, dead bodies and destroyed cities, the current crew of Bad Guys - by whatever name or acronym they're known this week - aren't going to go away.

Now, the west could choose to tolerate the occasional atrocity rather than engage in a very nasty, bloody conflict. That is what we've been doing these past 15 or so years. Are you happy with that solution?

Are you seriously fucking suggesting that we should engage in mass killing on the scale of World War II? Or even that we should be nuking middle eastern countries?

The idea that such would be advisable is morally bankrupt, and the idea that it is necessary is absurd. IS is a relatively tiny organization compared to the Axis powers, and is far from having universal popular support even in the countries it has captured territory in. So your post just comes off as the usual idiocy which thinks that we need to be "stronger" (i.e. more brutal and heavy handed) and that victory can be achieved if only you pile up a high enough body count. As opposed to the reality, which is that such tactics will likely simply mean more people turning against us unless we're prepared to take them to the point where there's literally no one left (i.e. genocide), in which case we would have become as bad as IS.

As to the World War II deNazification thing Purple brought up, I would say the parallel doesn't fit for similar reasons. IS is not Nazi Germany, and treating it like it is would be stupid.

I don't think either mass killing or mass occupation and reeducation of countries in the manner of World War II is necessary here.

Edit: That said, I could see the argument for sending in US ground troops to defeat IS in Iraq. But I also know that doing so would immediately be branded evil American imperialism and lead to a huge political backlash, as well as probably more recruitment for IS.

While I think their are aspects of the current strategy that need improvement, I actually think the basic strategy of "Diplomacy to bring everyone else together against IS, combined with limited airstrikes to support local ground forces" isn't a bad one. It'll just take time, but guess what- wars generally aren't won overnight.

What needs far more attention is a) sharpening our game when it comes to the propaganda war and b) being willing to invest an obscene amount of money in helping these countries rebuild once the fighting settles down.

[Purple]

As to the World War II deNazification thing Purple brought up, I would say the parallel doesn't fit for similar reasons. IS is not Nazi Germany, and treating it like it is would be stupid.

I don't think either mass killing or mass occupation and reeducation of countries in the manner of World War II is necessary here.

And honestly I think that the very reason why it would work is because of the difference in scale. In WW2 Germany everyone was in some way in support of the Nazis. Decades of propaganda made sure of that. ISIS has not been around for that long and they are far too brutal to ever get the kind of universal support even among those that actually want a caliphate. Thus a well run occupation could produce wonders.

Now would the death toll be high? Yea it would. But not only would it not be as high as broom suggests but frankly we would be saving more lives than we take. And I am not talking about European lives either but the lives of the people on the ground being butchered by ISIS whilst we turn the other way so as not to get our own hands dirty. Wars are not won without killing people.

[Broomstick]

[Are you seriously fucking suggesting that we should engage in mass killing on the scale of World War II? Or even that we should be nuking middle eastern countries?

Way to miss the fucking point.

As I said - we have the CAPABILITY. We do NOT have the desire. Did you blow past that in search of something to argue about. The fact that we could but did not indicates that, in fact, it's NOT all about killing brown people or Muslims or Arabs or whatever.

The opposition, however, has no such qualms about mass slaughter.

Do you get it now?

IS is a relatively tiny organization compared to the Axis powers, and is far from having universal popular support even in the countries it has captured territory in.

A decade ago it didn't even exist.

It is a small thing now - but if allowed to grow how big will it get?

It really is a lot like cancer: left alone and ignored it will grow and metastasize. The trick is how to remove it with minimal damage to anything/anyone else.

I don't think either mass killing or mass occupation and reeducation of countries in the manner of World War II is necessary here.

Then what do you think is necessary?

[The Romulan Republic]

[Are you seriously fucking suggesting that we should engage in mass killing on the scale of World War II? Or even that we should be nuking middle eastern countries?

Way to miss the fucking point.

As I said - we have the CAPABILITY. We do NOT have the desire. Did you blow past that in search of something to argue about. The fact that we could but did not indicates that, in fact, it's NOT all about killing brown people or Muslims or Arabs or whatever.

The opposition, however, has no such qualms about mass slaughter.

Do you get it now?

You said, and I quote:

"Until the west really, truly, is so angry that collectively the people are willing to pay the price in blood, in broken, dead bodies and destroyed cities, the current crew of Bad Guys - by whatever name or acronym they're known this week - aren't going to go away.

Now, the west could choose to tolerate the occasional atrocity rather than engage in a avery nasty, bloody conflict. That is what we've been doing these past 15 or so years. Are you happy with that solution?"

That is saying that it is a choice between mass killing on a gargantuan scale and perpetual terrorism. Based on the context, I can reasonably infer that you are saying that the war can only be won through WW2 style tactics or worse.

That you point out our unwillingness to do so is not the same as saying you agree that we shouldn't do so.

I responded to what you said. I don't need to look for things to argue about, because there's plenty of stupidity and assholishness in plain sight. If you were unclear, that's on you, not me. If you are accusing me of trolling, take it up with the mods or fuck off.

A decade ago it didn't even exist.

It is a small thing now - but if allowed to grow how big will it get?

It really is a lot like cancer: left alone and ignored it will grow and metastasize. The trick is how to remove it with minimal damage to anything/anyone else.

First, I would question the assumption that it will continue to grow indefinitely, but of course, let's not take any chances in that respect.

Secondly, therefore, I would point out again that engaging in wholesale slaughter is not going to help.

Then what do you think is necessary?

Read what I just edited into my post.

[The Romulan Republic]

As to the World War II deNazification thing Purple brought up, I would say the parallel doesn't fit for similar reasons. IS is not Nazi Germany, and treating it like it is would be stupid.

I don't think either mass killing or mass occupation and reeducation of countries in the manner of World War II is necessary here.

And honestly I think that the very reason why it would work is because of the difference in scale. In WW2 Germany everyone was in some way in support of the Nazis. Decades of propaganda made sure of that. ISIS has not been around for that long and they are far too brutal to ever get the kind of universal support even among those that actually want a caliphate. Thus a well run occupation could produce wonders.

Now would the death toll be high? Yea it would. But not only would it not be as high as broom suggests but frankly we would be saving more lives than we take. And I am not talking about European lives either but the lives of the people on the ground being butchered by ISIS whilst we turn the other way so as not to get our own hands dirty. Wars are not won without killing people.

Of course wars typically involve killing people. But they also involve a lot more than that, and their are reasons we discourage indiscriminate killing. We've been killing people for quite a while and it hasn't won the war.

Past experience tells me that their are good reasons to avoid an occupation of Iraq. It tells me that an occupation will likely be widely seen as evil American imperialism, rapidly prove unpopular and possibly politically unsustainable in America, and be a recruitment tool for IS and its like.

Never mind that any atrocities committed by US troops in the process (and realistically, their will be some, with or without official sanction), will alienate the very people we are trying to reeducate.

Never mind that to have American troops occupy portions of Iraq and Syria and reeducate the population might well have to be done without the consent of either local government, which means invading sovereign nations and implementing outright regime change again, probably costing us lots of local allies, and in the case of Syria potentially engaging Russia.

Idiocy.

Maybe we should have engaged in such a campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan years ago, but guess what... I think that ship has sailed.

[Simon_Jester]

Way to miss the fucking point.

As I said - we have the CAPABILITY. We do NOT have the desire. Did you blow past that in search of something to argue about. The fact that we could but did not indicates that, in fact, it's NOT all about killing brown people or Muslims or Arabs or whatever.

The opposition, however, has no such qualms about mass slaughter.

Do you get it now?

You said, and I quote:

"Until the west really, truly, is so angry that collectively the people are willing to pay the price in blood, in broken, dead bodies and destroyed cities, the current crew of Bad Guys - by whatever name or acronym they're known this week - aren't going to go away.

Now, the west could choose to tolerate the occasional atrocity rather than engage in a avery nasty, bloody conflict. That is what we've been doing these past 15 or so years. Are you happy with that solution?"

That is saying that it is a choice between mass killing on a gargantuan scale and perpetual terrorism. Based on the context, I can reasonably infer that you are saying that the war can only be won through WW2 style tactics or worse.

...She is pointing out a crude and unpleasant fact. There actually are organized bodies of armed men in the Middle East who have no interest in secularism, compromise, democracy, or peaceful coexistence. They're there. They exist.

No amount of talking is going to make them go away. No number of bargaining tables will make them go away. They actually do believe in waging war for religious reasons and are prepared to do brutal and horrific things, in the belief that these things are right and good, as steps toward their idea of a perfect political order.

That you point out our unwillingness to do so is not the same as saying you agree that we shouldn't do so.

Why does she even have to?

I mean... are you so desperate to find a would-be genocidaire to yell at that you'll invent one if none materializes in front of you?

Exactly how does one go about pointing out harsh realities like "the bad guys are determined and won't just give up and go home, as long as they're still alive" to you, if your reaction to such a statement is "HOW DARE YOU USE THE WORD 'KILL' WITHOUT BENDING OVER BACKWARDS TO RULE OUT GENOCIDE!?"

This kind of constant, willful assumption of bad faith on the part of your debating partner makes intelligent conversation impossible.

[The Romulan Republic]

...She is pointing out a crude and unpleasant fact. There actually are organized bodies of armed men in the Middle East who have no interest in secularism, compromise, democracy, or peaceful coexistence. They're there. They exist.

The existence of such groups is something I never denied, and is obvious to anyone who's watched the news in the last 14 years, so how about you stop talking to me like I'm a fucking three year old in an attempt to build a straw man?

And Broomstick did a lot more than point out the existence of such a reality. She argued, or appeared to be arguing, for a specific solution that I don't feel is advisable.

No amount of talking is going to make them go away. No number of bargaining tables will make them go away. They actually do believe in waging war for religious reasons and are prepared to do brutal and horrific things, in the belief that these things are right and good, as steps toward their idea of a perfect political order.

A straw man, and a particularly despicable one.

I never said we should not fight IS. I see this sort of shit over and over again- if you're not in favour of maximum brutality, you're soft and in favour of appeasement. Fuck you.

I don't know what's changed, if its the board culture or just me, but I've noticed of late that a lot of people feel free to blatantly misrepresent my positions. I have grown very tired fucking tired of it.

I mean... are you so desperate to find a would-be genocidaire to yell at that you'll invent one if none materializes in front of you?

Exactly how does one go about pointing out harsh realities like "the bad guys are determined and won't just give up and go home, as long as they're still alive" to you, if your reaction to such a statement is "HOW DARE YOU USE THE WORD 'KILL' WITHOUT BENDING OVER BACKWARDS TO RULE OUT GENOCIDE!?"

Not what I said, scum bag.

I'm not even saying she's necessarily advocating genocide. I'm saying the kind of brutality she appears to feel is necessary is not only unjustified but doesn't work, unless you define success as taking it to the point where their is nobody left.

In other words, I'm saying she hasn't thought it through.

This kind of constant, willful assumption of bad faith on the part of your debating partner makes intelligent conversation impossible.

Pot calling the kettle black.

[Purple]

Of course wars typically involve killing people. But they also involve a lot more than that, and their are reasons we discourage indiscriminate killing. We've been killing people for quite a while and it hasn't won the war.

So don't kill indiscriminately? Kind of not hard to do that. You just have to stay away from strategic bombing, poison gas or atomic weapons and stick to good old bullets.

Past experience tells me that their are good reasons to avoid an occupation of Iraq. It tells me that an occupation will likely be widely seen as evil American imperialism, rapidly prove unpopular and possibly politically unsustainable in America, and be a recruitment tool for IS and its like.

The occupation of Iraq failed for the reason that it was not managed properly. America newer really attempted to impose the kind of measures I was talking about to Iraq. Instead they just propped up an ineffectual government whilst taking a weak hands off approach.

Never mind that any atrocities committed by US troops in the process (and realistically, their will be some, with or without official sanction), will alienate the very people we are trying to reeducate.

Believe it or not civilized western countries in general manage to reign their troops in from committing atrocities assuming that there is political will to do so. The american examples are simply a case of that will not being there. And frankly if by virtue of some unseen force america or anyone else gets the will to actually fight ISIS properly the will required to reign their troops in is a small feat by comparason.

Never mind that to have American troops occupy portions of Iraq and Syria and reeducate the population might well have to be done without the consent of either local government, which means invading sovereign nations and implementing outright regime change again, probably costing us lots of local allies, and in the case of Syria potentially engaging Russia.

That's why I say coordinate with the Russians to ensure that the resulting outcome is to everyone's benefit.

Maybe we should have engaged in such a campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan years ago, but guess what... I think that ship has sailed.

It's newer too late to do things right.

[The Romulan Republic]

So don't kill indiscriminately? Kind of not hard to do that. You just have to stay away from strategic bombing, poison gas or atomic weapons and stick to good old bullets.

Its a bit more complicated than that, of course.

The occupation of Iraq failed for the reason that it was not managed properly. America newer really attempted to impose the kind of measures I was talking about to Iraq. Instead they just propped up an ineffectual government whilst taking a weak hands off approach.

I don't really want to get into arguing what went wrong with Iraq, especially since the whole thing was ill-advised to being with, but I think we can both agree that the US and its allies fucked up royally one way or another. Atrocities allowed to go unchecked, failure to invest sufficiently in rebuilding the country, and failure to weed out corruption and incompetence in the Iraqi government we set up all come to mind.

Believe it or not civilized western countries in general manage to reign their troops in from committing atrocities assuming that there is political will to do so. The american examples are simply a case of that will not being there. And frankly if by virtue of some unseen force america or anyone else gets the will to actually fight ISIS properly the will required to reign their troops in is a small feat by comparason.

Actually, sadly, I think its a lot easier for America to find the will to fight than the will to hold its own troops fully accountable. Which isn't to say that we shouldn't demand reform in that area.

That's why I say coordinate with the Russians to ensure that the resulting outcome is to everyone's benefit.

Do you honestly see a plausible scenario where Russia agrees to accept a large American force occupying all or part of Syria long term? Because I sure as hell don't.

I see it as a great way to piss away whatever diplomatic progress has lately been made in Syria and then some, though.

It's newer too late to do things right.

Of course not, but it is sometimes too late for a particular solution to be viable. Part of good leadership is adapting your tactics and strategy to changing circumstances.

[Purple]

Its a bit more complicated than that, of course.

Of course. I was being in jest but I think you understand the underlying point.

I don't really want to get into arguing what went wrong with Iraq, especially since the whole thing was ill-advised to being with, but I think we can both agree that the US and its allies fucked up royally one way or another. Atrocities allowed to go unchecked, failure to invest sufficiently in rebuilding the country, and failure to weed out corruption and incompetence in the Iraqi government we set up all come to mind.

Those and a failure to ideologically subvert the population to the sort of western values needed to maintain the sort of country they were trying to build. That's the big one. Without that any attempt at building a western style democracy is going to end with a system that by all counts should work but doesn't because it has no legitimacy with the population that's supposed to live in it.

Actually, sadly, I think its a lot easier for America to find the will to fight than the will to hold its own troops fully accountable. Which isn't to say that we shouldn't demand reform in that area.

But is it easier for america to find a will to fight properly? Also why are you fixated only on america? What happened to the rest of OTAN?

Do you honestly see a plausible scenario where Russia agrees to accept a large American force occupying all or part of Syria long term? Because I sure as hell don't.

Of course I do. It's quite an obvious one too. The same one that worked for Germany in 1945. Just give Putin his piece of the pie.

I see it as a great way to piss away whatever diplomatic progress has lately been made in Syria and then some, though.

I was going to make some sort of snide remark but I am genuinely drawing a blank here. Diplomatic progress and Syria just do not fit in the same sentence lately.

Of course not, but it is sometimes too late for a particular solution to be viable. Part of good leadership is adapting your tactics and strategy to changing circumstances.

Which is exactly what I am suggesting. Abandon the silly notions of homegrown liberalism and democracy and adopt the fact that a large scale occupation and reeducation effort is needed.

[Channel72]

Abandon the silly notions of homegrown liberalism and democracy and adopt the fact that a large scale occupation and reeducation effort is needed.

Exactly. And it's a good thing Google just came out with new Arab mind control brain implants™, so we can just cheaply and effectively make millions of Arabs do whatever we want. Fantastic strategy. I hear these new brain implants also have a convenient "non-Jihad" mode, so we just need to be sure to activate that setting, and then everything will be fine.

[Simon_Jester]

...She is pointing out a crude and unpleasant fact. There actually are organized bodies of armed men in the Middle East who have no interest in secularism, compromise, democracy, or peaceful coexistence. They're there. They exist.

The existence of such groups is something I never denied, and is obvious to anyone who's watched the news in the last 14 years, so how about you stop talking to me like I'm a fucking three year old in an attempt to build a straw man?

Because you keep circling back to how it is "unacceptable" to do any of a variety of things in an attempt to defeat the groups in question. You keep not bothering to offer alternatives, you keep posturing about how you have righteously rejected all the standard bad options... and you keep dancing around the point that the issue may not actually go away if it is dealt with using only the relatively light tools you deem acceptable.

It really shouldn't be controversial that sometimes, if you restrain yourself in the list of acceptable means for solving a problem, your attempt to solve the problem will simply fail.

If you'd at least acknowledge that there is a cost to saying "we will never send ground troops, we will never back an evil dictator, we will never encourage bad countries to interfere in the region..." I could respect that somewhat. And maybe I would stop thinking of you like an unusually articulate three year old.

It's when you behave as though saying "we won't do evil things" is enough, that I see it as childish. I perceive you acting as though saying "we won't do evil things" ends the conversation. As if nobody has to worry about the probable results of our actions as long as we "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil."

International affairs don't work that way. Actions continue to have consequences even when the actions are motivated by righteousness. The consequences are sometimes predictable- and sometimes negative consequences that a sensible person plans for, even if they continue to be motivated by righteousness.

I never said we should not fight IS. I see this sort of shit over and over again- if you're not in favour of maximum brutality, you're soft and in favour of appeasement. Fuck you

I, and others before me, are trying to state, as a matter of obvious, basic common sense, that determined armed groups cannot be wished away. They will resist, fight back, and history indicates that when they are "dealt with" using half measures, they will survive and continue to pose a problem. Whether the half measures include military weapons or not is beside the point- Da'esh will do its best to survive and continue the fight whether it is attacked with ballots or with bullets.

Why are you even arguing with this?

I honestly can't think of a reason, unless one is unduly committed to the "never compromise, and never admit that the cost of refusal to compromise can include losing" school of thought. Which is an unhealthy mindset and isn't worth being committed to.