Terror attack on Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris

[Simon_Jester]

There is some connection between the events, however, which is maybe more direct than people think. For example, the radicalization of the attackers followed after an acquaintance of theirs had been showing them pictures from Abu Ghraib prison, where US and British soldiers were torturing Arabs.

Conceded. But let us say... suppose any non-Muslim people had been radicalized by seeing the torture and abuse of their countrymen or co-religionists.

Odds are they would have picked a target other than a satirical newspaper. Pretty sure you would have. I know I would have. And I doubt I even need to explain why.

ETA:
Simon, I'm not sidestepping the question, it's just that I think the ultimate causes behind the shooting are more deserving of debate than the proximate ones.

And honestly, I think that if you think that their interpretation of Islamic strictures was not the ultimate cause of their choosing to attack that particular target in that particular fashion... You do not understand the roots of the war they're fighting.

To you the Koran may just be one more pile of mumbo-jumbo, interchangeable with any other pile of mumbo-jumbo, all irrelevant to the enlightened Western atheist, Mark II anticolonialist subtype.

To you, the Koran may be a thing which cannot really motivate men (and women) to kill (and die). Perhaps the ultimate cause is racial, or economic, or something comprehensible, something that is not just a direct, logical consequence of believing "there is no god but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God."

Thing is, the Kouachi brothers and their associates would not agree with you on that point.

Aren´t most terrorists social outsiders? Perhaps this is the key to decreasing the danger. Have less social outsiders.

If you are of the oppinion that the terrorists religion is at least partially to blame and concentrate on that aspect you leave yourself in quite a powerless situation. After all you can critisize the religion all day long but people will still follow the religion.

If you accept that bad integration and marginalisatzion is at least part of the problem you can actively do something against it by supporting better integration politics and actively integrating people in day to day life. This is the more uncomfortable path but I think the only effective one.

In this case, the terrorists do not appear to have been outcasts within the French Muslim immigrant community.

Now, if you say the French need to do a better job keeping their Muslim immigrants from being marginalized as a whole... I am totally in agreement with you and have been saying so for years, I think that's a very very true thing.

OK, thought experiment, there's a guy who calls himself a Christian but doesn't believe in the cruxifiction and that Jesus was the son of God but is very compassionate and selfless.

He is not a Christian. Thinking Jesus was a nice guy doesn't make you a Christian any more than thinking the current Pope is a nice guy makes you a Catholic.

God told him in his dreams that this was in fact the right way to be a Christian and everyone else got it wrong. Who are you to speak against the word of God...

He doesn't fit the definition of 'Christian' agreed upon by a broad, inter-sectarian set of Christians. If he is only deviating a little from the Nicene Creed there might be some room for debate; there are people who disagree with the Nicene Creed because of its position on the Trinity, who most Christians still consider to themselves be Christians. It depends on the exact details.

If, due to denying the divinity of Christ and the fact of the crucifixion, he is not a Christian... he might be better classified as a ____-ist, or something: a believer in a new revelation that simply is not Christianity. I don't see the problem. Why is this an issue?

See, that's what you have to deal with when it's all arbitrary make-belief. If I claim that the christian God came to me and told me that it's really all about being a shoemaker and to worship the Holy Shoelace of Addidas, then there's nothing whatsoever that the other christian denominations can do to prove that I'm doing it wrong and they're doing it right. Once "magic", for lack of a better word is allowed to enter the picture all bets are off.

They can't prove you're wrong, but they can prove you're not in compliance with the Nicene Creed (or other, similar creeds), and therefore not a Christian. Which doesn't make you bad, just... not a Christian.

Another example, there are christian denominations out there whose core teaching are diametrically opposed. See Catholicism and Calvinism on the issues of faith, fate, works and usage of scripture. That means either one of them is right or both are wrong but both can't be right. If you allow however both to retain the label of Christianity then you just show how useless it is, because at least one of them is in fact not being Christian. See what I mean?

Well no. Because the core belief set of Christianity does not contain statements about salvation by faith versus salvation by works, or about how to interpret scripture. About the Trinity, yes. About the fact of salvation through baptism and repentance of sins, and so on, yes.

About any of the things Catholicism and Calvinism disagree on? Nope. Not really.

[K. A. Pital]

But let us say... suppose any non-Muslim people had been radicalized by seeing the torture and abuse of their countrymen or co-religionists.

Odds are they would have picked a target other than a satirical newspaper. Pretty sure you would have. I know I would have. And I doubt I even need to explain why.

Yeah, well, I'm a product of an older epoch, the XX century, when killing bystanders was considered bad even if it happened, and political violence was more targeted. Nowadays it seems that the last vestiges of that code, which was never really followed to the letter, but somehow kept many incidents from escalating to greater tragedies, are gone.

[jwl]

Said lynch mob would be swiftly kettled (and possibly arrested depending on what they do), Charlie Hebdo would get back to operating again.

I doubt many people would read Charlie Hebdo in India, and I don't doubt that people might try to sue it, but I don't think it would be banned and I certainly don't think anything like public stoning is going to happen. India isn't Saudi Arabia, it's a democratic country with free speech and all the rest of it.

Again, give a (good) example of something like this actually happening in India and I might be more willing to believe you.

What? I just gave you 3 instances where an Hindu lynch mob turns up to lead a pogrom against another religion. Either you are deliberately indulging in some form of amnesia, or you are one of those "India is Great" tripe so often caricatured the Goodness Gracious Me sitcom.

India has free speech. HAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHHAHAHAH.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... s-in-india

Seriously, you have gotta be fucking kidding me. India. Free speech. I have never seen a far worse oxymoron in my life. Fuck, the other damn sacred cow in India is not insulting Gandhi, or insinuating that he had weird sexual tendencies.

Oh, you mean this: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 1#p3881891. I simply missed that post at the time (I found it now by searching your history). Those are decent examples I suppose, although you would be better to provide links so I can see the context, and I know from talking to an indian that modi organised an attack is just an attempted political campaign by the other party and it was proven in court that he was not, in fact, responsible (whilst the other party was in power, I think, so you can't claim institutional bias).

However, whilst those examples are showing a small extent of what you are talking about, they are not in a high enough magnitude for it to fully support your initial claim. You suggested that the oppression would be enough to stop charlie hebdo operating and indeed that all the staff of charlie hebdo would be publicly stoned. Since there are still very public and active moques, sikh temples, and church buildings in india, these attacks have not stopped the relevant groups from operating, so why should the same thing happen to charlie hebdo? Furthermore, this kind of thing is not unique to india, in my country (britain) you have moques and church halls being burnt down too. Charlie Hebdo itself was subject to a firebombing in france, but it still continued operating afterwards.

Modi supporting one of these attacks is potentially more problematic, but even if it is true (which is suspect), him supporting something like that secretly is very different to translating it to the law. To do that, he needs the support of his own and other parties, which will prove problematic.

Now onto your most recent post.

No, I don't think that "India is Great". India has a great deal of problems, but most of them are economic rather than in human rights.

Regarding your link, that describes three situations where somebody tried to sue someone for publishing something they didn't like, and they voluntarily decided to not publish it instead of pay legal costs. The same kind of thing can happen in western countries, in fact there was the recent high-profile case where cinemas refused to screen "the interview" (no suing involved though). And it seems that the nature of cases were individual publications, so lawyers are going to have to act pretty fast if they want to stop charlie hebdo operating, considering it's a weekly newspaper.

[salm]

OK, serious question here, how would you define integration? Where do you draw the line and define a integrated muslim vs a non-integrated one and how do you get from the latter to the former? What do you do about muslims who bring their cultural-religious baggage with them to these societies, anywhere from muslim calls to prayer to refusal to touch pork to harsh social penalties for premarital sex or abortions or ostracisation of homosexuals? And if the answers to these are "islamic culture and its followers need to adapt to the times", how is this not different from calling for a reformation and reexamination of Islamic doctrine?

Decently integrated means that everybody has the same opportunity to "make it" in a society, no ghettoisation takes place and no parallel societies are formed.

Cultural differences like not eating pork don´t matter as they don´t affect anybody besides the person not eating pork. Differences like disliking homosexuals do matter and are exactly the differences that integration is supposed to get rid of.

If you want to call it a reformation feel free to do so. It just can´t be a forced or rushed one because that is not going to work.

This is a complex process and will require decades of time and plenty of patience. However, at the moment, Europe as the integrating society has far from optimal integration mechanisms and needs to reevaluate and adapt these mechanisms.
If these mechanisms improve my prediction is that there will be vastly less problems with badly integrated minorities in Europe.

[salm]

In this case, the terrorists do not appear to have been outcasts within the French Muslim immigrant community.

Now, if you say the French need to do a better job keeping their Muslim immigrants from being marginalized as a whole... I am totally in agreement with you and have been saying so for years, I think that's a very very true thing.

The one in the jewish store has a history of crime since being a teenager and the other two were in prison before as well. They grew up in an orphans, so non of these people seems to have had a stable upbringing. This obviously doesn´t absolve them of anything but shows that in this case it probably wasn´t stable personalities commiting the crimes once again indicating that perhaps the religion isn´t as important as a lot of people think and having a stable character is of way larger importance.

Now, since we can´t do much about peoples religion we can try to create living conditions under which as many people as possible remain stable. Kind of like combatting bullying in order to avoid school shootings.

And yes, the French, like the rest of Europe, needs to do a better job at integrating immigrants.
I´ve been saying that for years as well and probably will continue to say it for years because this attack will soon be forgotten, normality will kick in and immigrants will continue to be marginalized like ever.

[Terralthra]

And now a German newspaper which reprinted the cartoons in question in their reporting after the attack in France has been firebombed.

Berlin (AFP) - A German tabloid that paid tribute to those killed at Charlie Hebdo by reprinting cartoons from the French satirical paper mocking the Prophet Mohammed was firebombed Sunday, police said.

With security services on high alert after a jihadist killing spree in Paris, police in the northern German port city of Hamburg said no one was at the headquarters of the regional daily Hamburger Morgenpost at the time of the attack, which caused only slight damage.

Hamburg police said it was "too soon" to tell whether there was a connection between the Charlie Hebdo tribute and the firebombing, which would be the first attack against the cartoons since Wednesday's massacre of 12 people at the French weekly.

"Rocks and then a burning object were thrown through the window," a police spokesman told AFP.

"Two rooms on lower floors were damaged but the fire was put out quickly."

The Hamburger Morgenpost, known locally as the MOPO, had splashed the Charlie Hebdo cartoons on its front page after the massacre at the Paris publication with the headline "This much freedom must be possible!".

Police said the attack had occurred at about 0120 GMT and that two men, aged 35 and 39, seen acting suspiciously near the scene were detained and are being questioned.

The newspaper, which has a circulation of around 91,000, offered regular updates on the firebombing on its website.

"Thick smoke is still hanging in the air, the police are looking for clues," it said in its initial story, under the headline "Arson attack on the MOPO - Due to the 'Charlie Hebdo' cartoons?".

Later Sunday it had removed any reference to Charlie Hebdo but quoted the regional representative body for the media as calling the attack a "cowardly and insidious act of terror against press freedom".

Editor-in-chief Frank Niggemeier said in a statement said his team was "shocked that something like this could happen in a cosmopolitan and liberal city like Hamburg".

He declined to speculate about a motive and said the Monday edition would go to press as planned.

Hamburg is Germany's second city, with a population of around 2.4 million.

- Solidarity with French cartoonists -

Several European newspapers ran the cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed on their front pages in a gesture of solidarity with the murdered French cartoonists and in defence of free speech.

On Sunday the offices of a Belgian newspaper that published the cartoons were evacuated after it received an anonymous bomb threat, its staff said.

The Hamburg firebombing comes at a time of heightened tensions over the rise of a new anti-Islamic movement in Germany.

The right-wing populist group, "Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident"(PEGIDA), has called for its 12th weekly march in the eastern city of Dresden Monday to be dedicated to "the victims of terrorism in Paris".

Justice Minister Heiko Maas accused the group of trying to exploit the killings and urged it to call off its rally.

"The victims do not deserve to be misused by rabble-rousers like these," he told the daily Bild.

On Saturday about 35,000 people, organisers said, took to the streets in Dresden against PEGIDA.

And several Muslim groups have called a silent march in Berlin on Monday to denounce violence and call for social cohesion.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, who was in Paris Sunday for a massive march for the victims, on Saturday addressed members of her party in Hamburg.

She stressed the need for the exchange of security intelligence among Europe's secret services, particularly between members of the Schengen passport-free zone.

Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere told DPA news agency the Hamburg attack showed "that we have reason to be concerned and on alert" but he urged caution in assigning blame until the probe was completed.

Hamburg's Islamist scene came to global attention in 2001 when it emerged that three of the suicide hijackers from the September 11 attacks on the United States, including ringleader Mohammed Atta, had lived and studied in the city.

Pictures at the link. The fact that it was firebombed for running the headline "This much freedom must be possible" is...ironic, I suppose, in a dark sort of way.

[Broomstick]

Well... when does WWIII start?

Because that's where this is headed. A newspaper firebombed in Hamburg. A call by ISIL to attack targets in the US. People gunned down in France. These are people who want to impose their system on the rest of the world. It's not a war of nation vs. nation but rather of competing ideologies and societies. I don't see the ISIL/extremist side compromising. I don't want my side to compromise with these asshats.

So.... this isn't going to stop in the foreseeable future. Even if "the West" kowtowed to every demand they'd just come back with more.

[Simon_Jester]

Honestly, this is no more likely to escalate into World War III than the old anarchists at the turn of the century (as in, the last century) were responsible for escalating into World War I. They were everywhere, it seemed, they'd attack nearly everything- but they were rarely more than a minority participant in someone else's revolution.

On the scale of the civilized world today, these are pinpricks, and that won't change.

[Zaune]

Honestly, this is no more likely to escalate into World War III than the old anarchists at the turn of the century (as in, the last century) were responsible for escalating into World War I. They were everywhere, it seemed, they'd attack nearly everything- but they were rarely more than a minority participant in someone else's revolution.

They did however serve to provide a suitable casus belli for Great Powers who were looking for any excuse for a good solid war to show Johnny Foreigner what's what and/or create employment and boost the economy.

As someone whose country's elected leaders seem to have convinced themselves that the First World War was a just and noble undertaking in the name of liberty, I am a little concerned about this.

[Simon_Jester]

Honestly, this is no more likely to escalate into World War III than the old anarchists at the turn of the century (as in, the last century) were responsible for escalating into World War I. They were everywhere, it seemed, they'd attack nearly everything- but they were rarely more than a minority participant in someone else's revolution.

They did however serve to provide a suitable casus belli for Great Powers who were looking for any excuse for a good solid war to show Johnny Foreigner what's what and/or create employment and boost the economy.

What, anarchists? No, no they did not. Nationalists did- but nationalists generally had specific, localized aims and only struck on a regional/global level specifically pursuant to those aims. Widespread international terrorism is too diffuse to turn into something capable of waging a world war.

As someone whose country's elected leaders seem to have convinced themselves that the First World War was a just and noble undertaking in the name of liberty, I am a little concerned about this.

I recall that passage. I honestly felt, reading it over, that Cameron didn't make as strong a claim in that direction as he's made out to have made.

Also, well. Honestly, modern neoliberalism is too interested in beggar-thy-neighbor oligarchy to have much time or energy to spend on foreign adventurism. Just like how kleptocrats rarely initiate wars, because they know better than anyone how hollow and bankrupt their state is. So I wouldn't be too worried about major wars breaking out over such matters.

[jwl]

Well... when does WWIII start?

Because that's where this is headed. A newspaper firebombed in Hamburg. A call by ISIL to attack targets in the US. People gunned down in France. These are people who want to impose their system on the rest of the world. It's not a war of nation vs. nation but rather of competing ideologies and societies. I don't see the ISIL/extremist side compromising. I don't want my side to compromise with these asshats.

So.... this isn't going to stop in the foreseeable future. Even if "the West" kowtowed to every demand they'd just come back with more.

Are you serious? Apart from a single militarily insignificant country with no allies (if you count isis as a country), Islamic extremists are all guerrillas. The only muslim country possibly capable of setting off WWIII is Pakistan and they aren't interested.

[AniThyng]

OK, serious question here, how would you define integration? Where do you draw the line and define a integrated muslim vs a non-integrated one and how do you get from the latter to the former? What do you do about muslims who bring their cultural-religious baggage with them to these societies, anywhere from muslim calls to prayer to refusal to touch pork to harsh social penalties for premarital sex or abortions or ostracisation of homosexuals? And if the answers to these are "islamic culture and its followers need to adapt to the times", how is this not different from calling for a reformation and reexamination of Islamic doctrine?

Decently integrated means that everybody has the same opportunity to "make it" in a society, no ghettoisation takes place and no parallel societies are formed.

Cultural differences like not eating pork don´t matter as they don´t affect anybody besides the person not eating pork. Differences like disliking homosexuals do matter and are exactly the differences that integration is supposed to get rid of.

If you want to call it a reformation feel free to do so. It just can´t be a forced or rushed one because that is not going to work.

This is a complex process and will require decades of time and plenty of patience. However, at the moment, Europe as the integrating society has far from optimal integration mechanisms and needs to reevaluate and adapt these mechanisms.
If these mechanisms improve my prediction is that there will be vastly less problems with badly integrated minorities in Europe.

Granted I am not from Europe, but these are the kinds of things I need to deal with in my society with regards to "moderate" Islam as seen by some. And Malaysia is not exactly a theocratic state with no external exposure. We have internet here, and tremendous exposure to western pop culture, literature and a substantial amount of people who have studied overseas at western universities.

https://grandmarquis.wordpress.com/2014 ... extremist/

I want to clarify that I have nothing against them personally. What I am against is the people who put them in the list and claimed that they are the voices of moderation that represent the Muslims whereas many Muslims (including me) and Malays are against their thinking and ideology. What more when some of them are well known for carrying ideology that is against the main stream understanding of Islam. Take for example the ladies in the list, whom none is wearing tudung. Zainah Anwar is also known to claimed that covering one’s hair is unnecessary in Islam, whereas the mainstream Muslim understanding all over the world is that it is compulsory.

The more correct definition that fits them is Tolerate. These people are not moderate, they are just more tolerable, for example, some are more tolerable to western lifestyle where they don’t mind to wear bikini or drinking in a party with alcohol. So does in political view. Some are more tolerable to opposing views.

What it clearly tells you is that Zainah, Marina, and the other ladies in the list are not the moderate according to the Muslim standard. They are indeed the extremists, the liberals!

This is the alter ego and ignorance of many of the non-Muslim today. What exhibits by the Star is the result of this alter ego. They believe these few figures are the “moderates” so they put them as the moderate voices of Malaysia without an iota to think if the mainstream Muslim actually agree with them. Arrogance is one thing, but such ignorance is unacceptable.

Note that Marina Mahathir is the daughter of Ex-Prime Minister Mahathir and that generally gives her a lot of leeway to, well, be a liberal, ironic as that may sound. Most of the other malay-muslims on that list are leading moderates/liberals that by western standards might indeed be merely moderate.

[salm]

@ AnyThing:

I don´t think I´ve used the word moderate in this thread once. It´s not a very useful word because it is prone to being misunderstood for the reasons you gave.
I don´t care too much about moderation either. People can have extreme views if they want to as long as they don´t affect others with them negatively (within a certain boundary). I might be against these views but I want it to be possible for other people to have these views.
I know a couple of anarchists whose views are rather extreme for example but they don´t go out and bomb other people, and they are great people to party with so I enjoy hanging out with them even though their political views are not compatible with my democratic views.

Things like drinking alcohol, wearing head scarfs (by own free will), bikinis or eating pork are as much my business as a vegetarian eating meat or some dude wearing latex hot pants or going fully nude in the park. I don´t care about that and neither should anybody else. And if they care they need to suck it up.
BTW, only 30% of German Muslim women wear head scarfs and only 7% of muslim girls don´t take part in mixed gendered swimming education in school, so I guess a German moderate Muslim is something vastly different than a Malaysian moderate.


Now, I am not fully sure if I understood you correctly. Are you agreeing with this grandmarquis site you linked to or did you link it in order to show how some people in Malaysia think about moderates who might not be so moderate after all? Or are you the site owner?

[AniThyng]

@ AnyThing:

I don´t think I´ve used the word moderate in this thread once. It´s not a very usefull word because it is prone to being misunderstood for the reasons you gave.
I don´t care too much about moderation either. People can have extreme views if they want to as long as they don´t affect others with them negatively (within a certain boundary). I might be against these views but I want it to be possible for other people to have these views.
I know a couple of anarchists whose views are rather extreme for example but they don´t go out and bomb other people, and they are great people to party with so I enjoy hanging out with them even though their political views are not compatible with my democratic views.

Things like drinking alcohol, wearing head scarfs (by own free will), bikinis or eating pork are as much my business as a vegetarian eating meat or some dude wearing latex hot pants or going fully nude in the park. I don´t care about that and neither should anybody else. And if they care they need to suck it up.


Now, I am not fully sure if I understood you correctly. Are you agreeing with this grandmarquis site you linked to or did you link it in order to show how some people in Malaysia think about moderates who might not be so moderate after all? Or are you the site owner?

LOL. Man I have to admit I'm vaguely disappointed that I could be mistaken to have agreed with the site or be the site owner. Well, it's half true - I personally of course disagree with the site owner's opinions, but I agree that what he says is not his own imagined BS but actually represents the opinions of actual people (plural).

I linked it to show how some people in Malaysia who are practicing Sunni Muslims (and who for whatever reasons choose to blog in english (not perfect english, I noticed) rather that malay, which to me implies a certain level of westernization or intent to be read by an audience that reads in english) think about the concept of 'moderation' and 'liberalism', and why it can be a road fraught with difficulty even if we all agree murder (but not, oh, I don't know, being jailed or forced to recant after "counselling") is out of the question. And "let you do what you will and I'll do what I will" is a very western idea that's...well, unlike Christianity afaik, where Christianity can be interpreted to suit a seperation of church and state, Islam has no such seperation, Islam and the State cannot/should not be seperated and therefore it stands to reason that personal deviation can not be 'tolerated' by the state. Hence the prevalent of literal state religious police in many muslim countries. (and even the most secular of tham all, Turkey seems to be held secular by force of the military...)

[Broomstick]

Well... when does WWIII start?

Because that's where this is headed. A newspaper firebombed in Hamburg. A call by ISIL to attack targets in the US. People gunned down in France. These are people who want to impose their system on the rest of the world. It's not a war of nation vs. nation but rather of competing ideologies and societies. I don't see the ISIL/extremist side compromising. I don't want my side to compromise with these asshats.

So.... this isn't going to stop in the foreseeable future. Even if "the West" kowtowed to every demand they'd just come back with more.

Are you serious? Apart from a single militarily insignificant country with no allies (if you count isis as a country), Islamic extremists are all guerrillas. The only muslim country possibly capable of setting off WWIII is Pakistan and they aren't interested.

First of all, there is this concept called "hyperbole" which, like the concept "joke", is often lost on people.

Second, wars can and have been triggered by "insignificant" events, either singular ones or a steady accumulation of them.

Sure, yeah, pinpricks... but eventually someone, somewhere is either going to manage escalate the damage, or the response.

What do you propose? That such attacks be ignored? They aren't normal crimes, there are connections between these "unrelated" events.

[jwl]

Well... when does WWIII start?

Because that's where this is headed. A newspaper firebombed in Hamburg. A call by ISIL to attack targets in the US. People gunned down in France. These are people who want to impose their system on the rest of the world. It's not a war of nation vs. nation but rather of competing ideologies and societies. I don't see the ISIL/extremist side compromising. I don't want my side to compromise with these asshats.

So.... this isn't going to stop in the foreseeable future. Even if "the West" kowtowed to every demand they'd just come back with more.

Are you serious? Apart from a single militarily insignificant country with no allies (if you count isis as a country), Islamic extremists are all guerrillas. The only muslim country possibly capable of setting off WWIII is Pakistan and they aren't interested.

First of all, there is this concept called "hyperbole" which, like the concept "joke", is often lost on people.

Second, wars can and have been triggered by "insignificant" events, either singular ones or a steady accumulation of them.

Sure, yeah, pinpricks... but eventually someone, somewhere is either going to manage escalate the damage, or the response.

What do you propose? That such attacks be ignored? They aren't normal crimes, there are connections between these "unrelated" events.

Which is why I asked if you were serious.

I wasn't saying that the attacks should be ignored. All was saying was that Al Q, ISIS and co. are never going to get anywhere. The reason they gained any land in the first place was because the west wasn't there to stop them. Any western military wouldn't run away from a handful of shock troops and leave their tanks behind.

[Broomstick]

If the west continues to do nothing then such groups as ISIL will continue to acquire territory. Down the line this could well result in nation states based on such ideologies - or did you think Boko Haram and ISIL are not trying to establish their own little states?

[jwl]

What do you mean continue to do nothing? The response right now doesn't look like nothing to me.

[Broomstick]

What response is the west (and really, I'd like to come up with a better term than that) taking against Boko Haram? They asked on the internet to return those poor school girls abducted and made into slaves? Mostly, it seems that the response is "that's Nigeria's problem".

ISIL? What is being done isn't effective. The west is arming proxy fighters in the form of Iraqis and Kurds. Didn't we try the proxy fighting thing in Korea and Vietnam?

ISIL has a stated goal of the Middle East first, the world next. Granted, right now they don't look capable but who would have thought a bunch of German thugs in the 1920's would wind up marching across Europe in the 1940's? Do I think that likely? No - because most groups of "terrorists", "rebels", or whatever other label you care to apply usually don't amount to anything. Once in awhile one does, though.

On top of that, we have whiners like Crown maintaining this is all about poor oppressed brown people standing up for themselves or some sort of post-colonial reckoning, which isn't helping. It's not - ISIL and Boko Haram don't give a fuck about skin color or race though they will use language of that sort if it further their cause. They're fighting a religious war. That's why they kill so many "fellow Muslims" for not being Muslim enough. A concept Crown obviously doesn't understand because he regards all religion as delusional fairy tales not to be taken seriously, rather than God's Own Truth. Which gets back to all of this being about competing ideologies. The thing is, while the "western world" is willing to tolerate other religions/cultures/customs/etc. even when those others act in a manner deemed offensive the Islamist extreme is NOT tolerant. For all the accusations of the west meddling in the affairs of others (much of which is true) the groups on the other side of this conflict have no interest in tolerance, their intention is to either convert or exterminate. Hence the mass graves, forced "conversions", and redemption through slavery bullshit. The west does have a lot of bad deeds to account for in the past, but no western power has lined people up and methodically shot them to death since WWII. Yet ISIL is doing that on a regular basis.

At what point does the west intervene? Oh, wait - that has been done, albeit poorly.

At what point does the west stop pulling punches? Because the brutal fact is that there are several nations that could literally obliterate ISIL and Boko Haram strongholds if so motivated. The fact we have weapons like nukes and gas and don't use them is seen as a weakness by the opposition, even if our restraint is laudable to our ethics.

Maybe the world decides to suffer the pinpricks for another 100 years. I don't know. The more I learn about history the more I realize my ability to predicts events is poor to nil.

[The Romulan Republic]

Jesus Christ. Are you suggesting that the West should nuke and gas Middle Eastern countries? Let's be honest about what you're talking about if you are. You're advocating genocide. Nukes are not precise weapons.

After 911, America destroyed its international reputation and its civil liberties with its brutal response to terrorism, yet your position is that we weren't brutal enough.

If that's what you think, join the fucking Tea Party or the Neo-Nazi shit faces because that's the kind of person you are.

As an American, people like you are part of why so many people hate America, and I'm disgusted to share a country with you.

And I'll tell you what happens if we start using nukes: the rest of the world regards us as insane (quite rightfully), and Russia, North Korea, and China probably all nuke us preemptively out of self-preservation. World War III. But at least we will have killed a few nuts in the Middle East.

[Simon_Jester]

Broomstick?

While I get that you think there is a serious and growing problem here, and I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, I... kind of think you need to stop and take a breath here.

What response is the west (and really, I'd like to come up with a better term than that) taking against Boko Haram? They asked on the internet to return those poor school girls abducted and made into slaves? Mostly, it seems that the response is "that's Nigeria's problem".

Well, what would you have us do? Exactly how many infantry regiments exist to be committed to rescue hostages taken in a civil war on another continent? This ties into a question I ask again a little later: Do you seriously expect the US to fight wars against every bunch of rebels on the planet?

ISIL? What is being done isn't effective. The west is arming proxy fighters in the form of Iraqis and Kurds. Didn't we try the proxy fighting thing in Korea and Vietnam?

It depends on the proxies. It also depends on whether the other side has serious backers, and whether there are any regional powers with an incentive to limit the spread of the group we consider a threat. On this issue the Iranians are a backstop, as are the Israelis; both nations have their own reasons not to let a group like ISIL run out of control. Turkey ought to be such a backstop but that is perhaps problematic because ISIL is fighting a group they already hate for ethnic reasons.

By contrast, in Vietnam there was no meaningful backstop in case the proxies lost, which meant the US specifically had to undertake an unlimited commitment.

ISIL has a stated goal of the Middle East first, the world next. Granted, right now they don't look capable but who would have thought a bunch of German thugs in the 1920's would wind up marching across Europe in the 1940's? Do I think that likely? No - because most groups of "terrorists", "rebels", or whatever other label you care to apply usually don't amount to anything. Once in awhile one does, though.

Does that mean we have to declare all-out war on every group of ragtag lunatics in the world, on the off chance that one of them is the next Nazi party?

Because no nation on Earth has the strength to do that.

On top of that, we have whiners like Crown maintaining this is all about poor oppressed brown people standing up for themselves or some sort of post-colonial reckoning, which isn't helping... It's not - ISIL and Boko Haram don't give a fuck about skin color or race though they will use language of that sort if it further their cause. They're fighting a religious war. That's why they kill so many "fellow Muslims" for not being Muslim enough. A concept Crown obviously doesn't understand because he regards all religion as delusional fairy tales not to be taken seriously, rather than God's Own Truth.

Have you been reading our posts? Because Crown is doing the opposite of that. Now, most of what you say I could reasonably apply to, say, Metahive... attributing a position to the wrong person... not good.

Again, I suggest you take a breather.

Which gets back to all of this being about competing ideologies. The thing is, while the "western world" is willing to tolerate other religions/cultures/customs/etc. even when those others act in a manner deemed offensive the Islamist extreme is NOT tolerant. For all the accusations of the west meddling in the affairs of others (much of which is true) the groups on the other side of this conflict have no interest in tolerance, their intention is to either convert or exterminate. Hence the mass graves, forced "conversions", and redemption through slavery bullshit. The west does have a lot of bad deeds to account for in the past, but no western power has lined people up and methodically shot them to death since WWII. Yet ISIL is doing that on a regular basis.

This has been going on in the Third World since World War Two and before. It's not that this is new, it's that in most of the world this never stopped happening. The exceptions are all areas with (for their times) strong, well-ordered governments and a (by local standards) prosperous economy. The Pax Romana comes to mind, as does modern Europe which achieves the same condition of relative peace by different and in my opinion better means.

The Middle East does not have this kind of peace. It cannot be imposed from outside without a massive "war of the continents" that will predictably kill many millions and which risks destroying that which we would wish to save.

And there's not a lot we can do to fix that, given that any worthwhile polity in the region that might establish such a peace has been methodically destroyed, often by our own efforts.

At what point does the west intervene? Oh, wait - that has been done, albeit poorly.

At what point does the west stop pulling punches? Because the brutal fact is that there are several nations that could literally obliterate ISIL and Boko Haram strongholds if so motivated. The fact we have weapons like nukes and gas and don't use them is seen as a weakness by the opposition, even if our restraint is laudable to our ethics.

First of all, I'm not sure "the opposition" thinks that way. Second of all, I am quite certain that NATO nuclear doctrine should not be governed by the fear of looking 'weak' to a bunch of jumped-up bandits in technicals. Thirdly, you're old enough to remember "we had to destroy the village in order to save it," right?

It's not just that it's unethical to fight a war in which you will predictably have to destroy that which you set out to save. It's pointless.

Maybe the world decides to suffer the pinpricks for another 100 years. I don't know. The more I learn about history the more I realize my ability to predicts events is poor to nil.

The Middle Eastern insurgencies we face today are no more dangerous than the Communist insurgencies of fifty years ago. If anything they are less dangerous because they have no single, organized backer with substantial forces of their own.

If we got through that era without an apocalyptic battle of the continents, we can get through this one too.

[jwl]

What response is the west (and really, I'd like to come up with a better term than that) taking against Boko Haram? They asked on the internet to return those poor school girls abducted and made into slaves? Mostly, it seems that the response is "that's Nigeria's problem".

I was referring to daash with that remark. With boko haram, the west are doing something, they're just not doing as much as they could. Britain and america are giving anti-guerrilla training to Nigerian troops, that should come in handy in the future.

ISIL? What is being done isn't effective. The west is arming proxy fighters in the form of Iraqis and Kurds. Didn't we try the proxy fighting thing in Korea and Vietnam?

Didn't you notice half the world going in with bombs and stuff? Yeah, they have no ground troops and the attacks are highly restrained but this level of air assault will make it difficult for them to continue, in iraq at least.

ISIL has a stated goal of the Middle East first, the world next. Granted, right now they don't look capable but who would have thought a bunch of German thugs in the 1920's would wind up marching across Europe in the 1940's? Do I think that likely? No - because most groups of "terrorists", "rebels", or whatever other label you care to apply usually don't amount to anything. Once in awhile one does, though.

The reason those german thugs got anywhere at all was because they switched tactics from violence to dirty politics then took advantage of germany's resources. Daash isn't interested in doing this.

To be fair, germany at the time didn't have a huge military power either because of the treaty of versailles, but they had a large industrial base to allow them to build one. Iraq doesn't have this, and militaries have moved on now from what they were like in WWII anyway.

[jwl]

And I'll tell you what happens if we start using nukes: the rest of the world regards us as insane (quite rightfully), and Russia, North Korea, and China probably all nuke us preemptively out of self-preservation. World War III. But at least we will have killed a few nuts in the Middle East.

Sounds unlikely to me, that would be suicidal. It would escalate tensions though I imagine, and if we are talking about the US and not "the west", it would cost the US its allies.

[TheHammer]

On a related note, does anyone still want to try and take the position that Anwar Al-Awlaki wasn't a legitimate military target?

[Simon_Jester]

My impression of my position on the issue is this:

The problem was never that al-Awlaki was necessarily not a legitimate target.

My real problem was that the government never made a treason case against al-Awlaki prior to having him executed as a traitor. Which is essentially what the drone strike did. It represented the executive branch deciding that al-Awlaki was levying war against the US (i.e. treason), and having him killed via robot assassin, without benefit of trial.

No citizen of a democracy should be singled out for execution by the state and killed, without some formal procedure in which rules of evidence are honored and a record of the proceedings is realistically available to the public.

Or, more simply... no Star Chambers allowed.

Now, this is not to say al-Awlaki's actions did or did not rise to the level of building a treason case against him (or a murder case, or something else justifying his execution). The point is that a bunch of random guys from the CIA don't get to meet with the president in secret and compile a list of American citizens to be targeted for assassination without public oversight.