Situation in Paris

[Esquire]

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

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

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

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

I'm pointing out a flaw in your suggestion. It's all well and good to say "let's take a third, nonviolent option," but you have yet to show that such an option is plausible or even possible. President Assad, as of this writing, is winning; why should he accept limits on his own power when the opposition is either gone or hated even more than he is?

This whole thing started because President Assad refused to bow to democratic pressure, you'll recall. Why would that change now that his most outspoken critics are dead, exiled, or villified the world over?

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

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

I'm absolutely not suggesting that. Again, I've worked with moderate activists in the US and Syria, and with the refugee populations throughout the Middle East. The desire is there, it's just not one that has any real power behind it. I'd appreciate a citation for Russia allowing a regime change, though - I suspect there's more caveats and/or exceptions than you make it seem like. If indeed they have any intention of keeping their word.

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

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

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

No argument here; I was mostly speaking about the politicians in power. They, I'm sure, mostly want to use the right-wing nut vote to keep getting elected.

To sum up, stop hopping up and down indignantly and produce a workable suggestion grounded in real political fact. Refusing to acknowledge that some people really aren't nice Western democrats at heart is what got us into this mess in the first place.

[The Romulan Republic]

Simon_Jester, I'm going to be blunt (and yet still probably more civil than you deserve).

I am obviously not saying all the things you claim I am saying. I obviously do not need it explained to me that groups like IS exist, that they are vile, and that they are going to keep fighting. I obviously have not claimed that they will go away from diplomacy or wishful thinking, and I obviously have not claimed we should not fight them. And I feel ridiculously even pointing this out because it should be fucking obvious. But I would not want to give the impression that I was unable to refute your misrepresentation, clumsy and pathetic though it is. Yet you have ignored my words, and basically restated your straw manning.

Yes, I believe that their are certain methods that are inexcusable, both for moral reasons and because they may make the situation worse. I object to excessive brutality and mass murder. I object to acts that are likely to escalate the conflict. I make no apology for that. If you feel that that makes me a naive imbecile, so be it.

You seem to think that the mere existence of people like IS is a rebuttal to this and a justification for your condescension, that their existence automatically justifies using such methods regardless of their morality, legality, or practicality. This is the kind of ignorant, clumsy, arrogant, balls over brains approach to foreign policy that I would expect from a Republican Presidential candidate.

As to alternatives, your misrepresentation notwithstanding, I have mentioned possible alternatives. As I said (in response to Broomstick, I believe), I think that we need to continue the policy of limited bombing in support of local ground forces while working diplomatically to unite everyone against IS, that we need to be doing better counting IS's propaganda, and that we need to be prepared to invest a lot of money in rebuilding certain countries. I also think we need to stop alienating our Muslim population in the west by treating them as the enemy. You may not like this approach or consider it viable, but that is not the same as my failing to offer an approach.

If you want to have an honest, respectful debate, I'm always happy to do so. But if you are going to insist on broken record lying and strawmanning, then I have better uses of my time.

Edited to fix a minor omission and clarify who I was addressing.

[Dartzap]

Just awoke to news on the radio that the planner of the attack has allegedly been found in a house in Paris. Two hour gunfight, multiple explosions and several police injuries, and it's still going on.

[Broomstick]

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.

Do you think there are not already dead bodies and blood in the streets? You think there are not already destroyed cities and towns?

You said "I can reasonably infer" but that merely indicates your interpretation of my words. You are ASSUMING I am a monster, or that I, personally, would want to see death on a mass scale. I don't. I don't want that at all and my long-term posting here should make that clear - but you probably haven't read everything I've ever posted and I don't expect you to.

Right now, what we're doing - despite the people we've killed in combating this threat - isn't solving the problem and continuing to do what we're doing is, yes, perpetual terrorism.

If we stop fighting ISIS will only continue to kill more people. It's what they do. They've made it very clear that is a major objective for them. They kill those we are not them.

Another tactic is to go all out. Would that truly result in WWII scale of carnage? I don't know. It will be a lot bloodier than what we've done already. They've been bombing Raqqah for days now, do you think people haven't died from that? Are you under the illusion there hasn't already been carnage?

If there's another way I don't know it - if you do please enlighten us.

I do know that our current situation results in dead people but seems to do little to solve the causes.

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

It is neither saying we should or shouldn't. It is pointing out we are unwilling. Why do you go from that to assuming I want mass slaughter?

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.

Their stated goals include taking over the world down the line. Since they've so far held to what they've said why should I doubt that?

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

Engaging in less-than-wholesale slaughter does not seem to be helping. What do YOU suggest we do? You're big on condemnation but you haven't proposed a solution. Do you just want to sit and pout and whine about how terrible it all is?

Then what do you think is necessary?

Read what I just edited into my post.

Your "solution" comes down to doing more of what we're already doing. How well is that working out for the world?

[wautd]

I really hope they catch at least one psycho alive. Otherwise the conspirancy nuts thinks it's all a hoax or something

[salm]

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?

Nothing. You keep saying that. It´s not true. We are simply not doing "nothing". And they don´t have free reign to kill whom wever they like. See that´s the hysteria I´m talking about. Non of this is true but you act as if they were an existential threat to our civilization. And I think that´s at least partially due to the media hyping the whole thing to no end. Man, now we´ve got live tickers from the shootout between the French police and a terrorist suspect. The fuck? Livetickers used to be for football games.

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.

You wanted to know why I think that we should ignore the attack. I admit that "ignore" was too strong of a word. We should not ignore it but treat it as what it is i.e. not the end of the world. The immigrants and hate from idiots they might face is part of the reason why I think this is important.

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.

Ok, then we completely disagree.

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.

You´re hysteric. They´re neither killing at will and France is way above a basic level of security. Your claim is absurd.

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.

Bombing the enemy is not applying bandaids. They have been bombing ISIS for years. Your view of reality has been distorted by the media hype.

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.

You asked what my suggestions were.
I´m not suggesting that you personally are against refugees or something. Sorry if it looked like that.

[The Romulan Republic]

I really hope they catch at least one psycho alive. Otherwise the conspirancy nuts thinks it's all a hoax or something

You really think that would make a difference to what those people think?

[Broomstick]

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.

If you can't it's because you lack the imagination.

The US fucking allied with Stalin and the USSR to counter a mutual threat, once upon a time. During the Cold War they managed to at least speak to each other and cooperate on mutual ventures. We sure as hell can get together with present-day Russia and counter this threat. If there is one thing the US and Russia have demonstrated it is the ability to work together even when we don't particularly like each other's governments.

Doesn't mean it will be easy. Some Americans will have to swallow the word “compromise” - which inclines me to think the problems and reluctance here are not on the Russian side of the equation.

I am obviously not saying all the things you claim I am saying. I obviously do not need it explained to me that groups like IS exist, that they are vile, and that they are going to keep fighting.

If multiple people are doing that, though (and they are) then it is time for you to consider that what they are hearing when you speak and what you are trying to say are not the same thing.

Yes, I believe that their are certain methods that are inexcusable, both for moral reasons and because they may make the situation worse. I object to excessive brutality and mass murder. I object to acts that are likely to escalate the conflict. I make no apology for that. If you feel that that makes me a naive imbecile, so be it.

Yes, I do.

Here's the problem – the other side thinks brutality, torture, slavery, and murder are GOOD things. They do inexcusable, immoral things and fucking brag about them. They have and continue to engage in brutality. They have committed not only mass murder but also genocide. THEY are escalating the conflict – they've recently bombed an airplane and shot up several hundred people in Paris counting the wounded as well as the dead. WE are not the instigators of this, THEY are. This is not a matter of the poor, downtrodden third world protesting foreign interference, these people have an intent to conquer.

You seem to think that the mere existence of people like IS is a rebuttal to this and a justification for your condescension, that their existence automatically justifies using such methods regardless of their morality, legality, or practicality.

No, their mere existence is not an automatic justification for anything. What you fail to grasp, though, is that ISIS is not play-acting. They really do think we are evil, that things we value highly like freedom of thought and religion, equal rights of women, men and women interacting in public are evil and should be stamped out. They really do think they are good, and they really do think killing people of different beliefs, public death by torture, mass killing in the name of their god, using women as fucktoys, buying and selling women for sexual pleasure, and so on are good things.

Their world and our world are not compatible. We might be able to bring ourselves to leave them be, if they would only agree to stay in one small spot and not bother the rest of us... but they can't do that. To them, to NOT attempt to convert the rest of the world to their viewpoint is an unmitigated evil. God would be very, very angry with them if they ignored the festering evil around them, they must kill it with fire (and bullets and bombs and anything else they can get their hands on).

Are they presently an existential threat to the rest of the world (not just the west – they hate everyone not them, remember)? No – but they sure as hell are a pain in the ass. If they continue to grow and acquire resources they will require more and more effort and ugliness to eradicate. How far will that have to go? I don't know.

As to alternatives, your misrepresentation notwithstanding, I have mentioned possible alternatives. As I said (in response to Broomstick, I believe), I think that we need to continue the policy of limited bombing in support of local ground forces while working diplomatically to unite everyone against IS, that we need to be doing better counting IS's propaganda, and that we need to be prepared to invest a lot of money in rebuilding certain countries. I also think we need to stop alienating our Muslim population in the west by treating them as the enemy. You may not like this approach or consider it viable, but that is not the same as my failing to offer an approach.

Uh-huh – the current status quo. How well is that working out? I suppose we can point to some small progress here and there... but we haven't eliminated the threat, have we?

“Limited bombing” is still bombing. It's still dead bodies and body parts and blood running in the gutters. It's still broken buildings. It's not what happened to Dresden or Tokyo in WWII, but it's still killing people and breaking things. The people killed aren't less dead because the bombing was “limited”. Do you really understand that or not?

WHAT ground forces? The Kurds, so long as the ammo holds out, seem able to stand their ground but other people have fled before ISIS. They really are scary bastards, so I'm told.

Currently, various nations ARE trying to work things out diplomatically – hence Obama and Putin have a little talk at the G20. Do you think the French aren't talking to the Russians and Americans? Of course they are. There is a shit-ton of diplomacy being done but that sort of diplomacy isn't easily or quickly done.

Hell, just having three nations currently bombing the same city without anyone accidentally slamming into or shooting the wrong party is a pretty good trick to pull off. You think that's happening without a lot of mutual talking?

But talk isn't going to solve the problem here. The best outcome of diplomacy will be coordinated action. “Coordinated action” that will probably involved killing more people and breaking more things.

That's what war is: you kill people and break things. Only children and the naïve think differently. It's utterly fucking brutal, hence why it is referred to as “hell”. Even “limited” war is that, the main difference between limited and not limited being that with the former some of the world can go to bed at night without fearing a bomb will wake them up.

You keep framing this as America vs. the Middle East. That's not what this is. ISIS isn't at war with the US, they are at war with everyone who isn't them. Write that on your shaving mirror so you can read it every morning. Last Friday I heard someone say “just how many nuclear powers is ISIS determined to piss off?” which is a good summation of how ISIS just keeps jabbing a pointed stick in the eye of everyone else. They downed a Russian airliner. They attacked Paris... they haven't gotten around to the US yet but have declared their intention to do so. I'm sort of wondering when they'll go after China.

Given that France could just as easily nuke ISIS as the US or Russia could, and hasn't, is yet one more indication that “the west” has not, in fact, gone all out. NOBODY wants to go all out, except maybe ISIS. They are, in fact, counting on that restraint.

Consider, too, that Assad has, in fact, used poison gas in the war in Syria. ISIS seems to take that as a challenge and encouragement rather than a deterrent. The war in Syria has already moved beyond the conventional, not by action of anyone in the west but by a local

What do we do if limited warfare doesn't work? What if doing it the conventional way is too costly? – because no one in the west has infinite money and resources to throw at this. OK, maybe we could do it conventionally IF we were willing to ramp things up to a WWII style production of weapons and delivery systems... do you want that? I don't, not particularly. Not even US style where we just didn't have new cars for a few years and some minor food rationing and people got killed on the job because fuck employee safety, we're at war. Not UK style, with more serious rationing and restrictions. On the other hand, if a few years of that would end ISIS... yeah, I could make that trade off. The problem is, things never go back to what they were before. And if we did go to that you can be absolutely sure that the slaughter on the battlefield will be orders of magnitude worse than it is now. You don't need NBC warfare to burn down a city and kill a hundred thousand and more in a single night – see Tokyo, March 9-10, 1945.

The west (some of us) remember what happened last time the limits were removed, and I think it gives us pause. We don't want to unleash total warfare again. I think such restraint on the part of the world's major powers is a good thing. To ISIS, on the other hand, it is probably incomprehensible to have a weapon and NOT use it. That's a significant difference between the two sides.

[The Romulan Republic]

Do you think there are not already dead bodies and blood in the streets? You think there are not already destroyed cities and towns?

Ah, I see you've adopted the Simon_Jester liar tactic of "State the blindly self-evident to The Romulan Republic, implying he's too stupid and ignorant to understand it, even if it contradicts what he actually says, as if summarizing the situation will prove that your preferred solution is the correct one".

I'm not going to keep wasting my time with this shit indefinitely.

You said "I can reasonably infer" but that merely indicates your interpretation of my words. You are ASSUMING I am a monster, or that I, personally, would want to see death on a mass scale. I don't. I don't want that at all and my long-term posting here should make that clear - but you probably haven't read everything I've ever posted and I don't expect you to.

Of course I haven't read and memorized everything you've ever posted. And while I have never known you to be a particularly vicious, pro-war, or bigoted, I will not assume that your position is unchanging or consistent, particularly when much of the world has seen a huge shift in its views regarding terrorism and the Middle East in the last few days.

You may not want to see death on a mass scale, but I cannot see any reasonable interpretation of your words that does not suggest that you think it is necessary. At best, you are being contradictory.

Right now, what we're doing - despite the people we've killed in combating this threat - isn't solving the problem and continuing to do what we're doing is, yes, perpetual terrorism.

I don't claim that our strategy now is perfect, and I have suggested ways its could be improved. However, I also think that frankly, winning wars take time, and switching to a highly dubious new strategy because the current one is taking time or needs improvement is questionable at best.

If we stop fighting ISIS will only continue to kill more people. It's what they do. They've made it very clear that is a major objective for them. They kill those we are not them.

Why do you say this, unless to imply that I am opposed to fighting IS?

As nothing I have said would come close to reasonably giving that impression, I can only assume that this is shameless dishonesty, an attempt to paint me as an "appeaser" or someone who wants to surrender to terrorists because I do not support your preferred methods. In which case, this isn't the Republican primary.

Another tactic is to go all out. Would that truly result in WWII scale of carnage? I don't know. It will be a lot bloodier than what we've done already. They've been bombing Raqqah for days now, do you think people haven't died from that? Are you under the illusion there hasn't already been carnage?

Of course not. But this is just more of the "disingenuous condescension" tactic.

However, the fact that people have died in war does not mean that any approach, no matter how much more costly, is therefore acceptable. This should, of course, be obvious as well. So what do you think you're proving?

If there's another way I don't know it - if you do please enlighten us.

I do know that our current situation results in dead people but seems to do little to solve the causes.

I offered you suggestions. I don't claim they are certain to succeed, because as a rule, only an idiot makes predictions about the future like that. But I am at least fairly confident that they won't make things vastly worse, which an all out ground invasion very well might.

In any case, just because I am not a world class foreign policy expert with a perfect solution to all the Middle East's problems does not mean I cannot see the flaws in what you propose.

It is neither saying we should or shouldn't. It is pointing out we are unwilling. Why do you go from that to assuming I want mass slaughter?

Its not on that that I based my accusation. It is on your clearly laying out an argument that we could not win without doing so.

Their stated goals include taking over the world down the line. Since they've so far held to what they've said why should I doubt that?

Misrepresentation, again.

I am under no illusions as to IS's goals. But I am also under no illusions that their is an infinitely large recruitment and resource base for them to draw on.

They can say they're going to conquer the world all they want, but it doesn't mean they actually can.

Engaging in less-than-wholesale slaughter does not seem to be helping.

No, that doesn't sound at all like an argument for engaging in wholesale slaughter. Not at all.

What do YOU suggest we do? You're big on condemnation but you haven't proposed a solution. Do you just want to sit and pout and whine about how terrible it all is?

I see no need to repeat myself, least of all to a someone who is either too stupid, too dishonest, or both to acknowledge what I am saying.

Your "solution" comes down to doing more of what we're already doing. How well is that working out for the world?

More of what we're doing, plus a greater emphasis on diplomacy (with people other than IS, obviously, since some contemptable people are spreading the idea that I am against fighting IS) and a more effective campaign against IS's propaganda.

So, do you not bother to read what I say, are you incapable of comprehending it, or are you a liar?

I know which one my money's on.

[cmdrjones]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ation.html


that sound is you whistling.... that thing you are waltzing past is the graveyard

[cmdrjones]

Not giving fuckers like this publicity is what experts usually recommend. Unfortunately that is impossible because news companies want money.

ps: Terrorists kill very few people over a long period of time. So fuck it.

Fuck you coward

Edit: I take that back, that should have been: Fuck off, Traitorous coward.

What part of that makes him a traitorous coward? Experts do, in fact, recommend not placing emphasis on the attackers, but rather the victims as part of the reason religious/political terrorists, mass shooters, and crazy ass bombers do what they do is to garner publicity for whatever their cause is. And statistically your being killed or injured by a terrorist, mass shooter, or crazy ass bomber is very, very low. I don't like the display of apathy, but over the last 2 decades it's been one of the above like at least once a month, so it's completely understandable.

But <FACTS AND A GENERAL AMBIVILANCE ABOUT THESE EVENTS YOU DON'T LIKE>, so "RAAAAARRR TRAITOROUS COWARD!!!", I guess?

Context... if war has begun and someone who is nominally on your side has an opening move of "fuck it" i'd call that person a c-c-c-c-c... a c-c-c-c-c.... man I just don't seem to be able to say it.... weird.

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ation.html


that sound is you whistling.... that thing you are waltzing past is the graveyard

Was that directed at me?

Oh, terrorists exist and are a threat. Therefore everything I argue is wrong. Because I definitely denied the existence of terrorists and the threat they pose. And this definitely isn't sarcasm.

And while this time they had the good grace to report on something real, as a rule, I would attach zero credibility to anything coming from the Daily Mail. Find some sources that aren't racist rags, okay?

[The Romulan Republic]

To anyone questioning or dismissing the possibility of diplomatic success in Syria:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kerry-syria-plan.13323779

A ceasefire between Syria's government and opposition could be just weeks away from reality, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday as he visited Paris to show solidarity with France after last week's attacks.

Speaking to reporters at the residence of the U.S. ambassador to France, Kerry said the ceasefire envisioned by the political process agreed upon in Vienna on Saturday would exponentially help efforts to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group, which has claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks that killed 129 people, as well as end the drawn-out Syrian conflict, now more than four years old.

Metrojet Flight 9268: Russia confirms bomb destroyed plane in Egypt

"That's a gigantic step," Kerry said. "If we can get that done, that opens up the aperture for a whole bunch of things. We're weeks away conceivably from the possibility of a big transition for Syria, and I don't think enough people necessarily notice that, but that's the reality."

"We are not talking about months, we are talking about weeks, hopefully," he said.

Saudi Arabia is expected to host a meeting of Syrian opposition figures by mid-December, at which they are to agree on a delegation to send to talks with representatives from President Bashar Assad's government. Once those negotiations begin, a ceasefire is to take effect, according to the agreement reached in Vienna.

Such a ceasefire would free nations supporting Syria's various factions to concentrate more on the Islamic State, which is ineligible for the truce and has come under greater military scrutiny since Friday's attacks in Paris.

'We are not talking about months, we are talking about weeks, hopefully.'
- U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry
"Out of this event in Paris will come an even greater level of vigilance and co-operation in some places that may have been a little bit less concerned about things hitting them in certain parts of the world," Kerry said.

Kerry began his day Tuesday in meetings with staffers at the U.S. Embassy in Paris and French President François Hollande.

With Hollande, Kerry said the civilized world must boost its efforts to combat ISIS by going after the group at its core. He said the bombing of a Russian passenger jet, along with recent attacks in Lebanon and Turkey, made it clear that more pressure must be brought to bear on the Islamic extremists.

"My sense is everybody understands that with Lebanon's attacks, with what's happened in Egypt, with Ankara, Turkey, and attacks in Paris, we have to step up our efforts to hit them at the core where they're planning these things and also obviously to do more on borders in terms the movement of people," he said.

Hollande plans to visit Washington within the next week to meet with President Barack Obama to discuss further co-operation on fighting Islamic extremism and dealing with Syria.

Now, it could be lies. It could fall apart. But while I have many complaints against Obama, his administration has netted at least two huge diplomatic accomplishments- the Iranian nuclear deal and improving relations with Cuba. Give them a chance, at least, before writing off diplomacy.

Edit: Which is not to say that all credit would go to America, of course. A successful ceasefire would by its nature require cooperation from numerous parties.

[salm]

Context... if war has begun and someone who is nominally on your side has an opening move of "fuck it" i'd call that person a c-c-c-c-c... a c-c-c-c-c.... man I just don't seem to be able to say it.... weird.

Everything else aside, how does the word "coward" make sense?
From a different point of view I can see how somebody might see me as an asshole without a shred of empathy but where is the cowardice in wanting people to look at attacks like this rationally?

[Alkaloid]

Context... if war has begun and someone who is nominally on your side has an opening move of "fuck it" i'd call that person a c-c-c-c-c... a c-c-c-c-c.... man I just don't seem to be able to say it.... weird.

Conversely, if a war has begun and someone espouses a strategy of "do exactly what the enemy wants" I'd call that person a gibbering moron not mentally fit to participate in reasoned discussion on the subject.

Frankly it's pretty telling of your limited understanding of this whole scenario that you somehow think this has "begun". France has been bombing ISIS in it's current form for months, and in some form or another for years. Shit, there have been millions of western troops stomping around the Middle East and bombing things with loosely defined goals and no observable strategy trying to 'solve' terrorism for a decade and a half. At this point you're just a modern equivalent of the veteran of a colonial war announcing that they only way to win world war 1 is to advance into machine gun fire and artillery harder, dammit! Then you call anyone who suggests a slightly different (and possibly remotely effective) strategy a coward.

[Channel72]

So the French police conducted an early morning raid on the hideout of the guy who planned the attacks. They killed 2 people and arrested 7. Also, a woman involved in the attacks blew herself up with a suicide vest. It still seems unclear exactly who was killed and who was arrested, and apparently there's at least one suspect still unaccounted for.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... ast-2-dead

Heavily armed police and military descended on a Paris suburb before dawn, targeting what they believed was the hideout of the architect of last week’s terrorist violence in a raid that led to two deaths and seven arrests.
Paris prosecutor Francois Molins said one young woman blew herself up, and another extremist was killed by bullets and hand grenades during the seven-hour operation that saw authorities cordon off the center of Saint Denis, the very Paris suburb where Friday’s attacks began.

Phone taps, surveillance and witness accounts led investigators to believe that Abdelhamid Abaaoud, a 20-something Belgian citizen who called himself a “terrorist tourist” on Facebook, was holed up in Saint Denis, Molins said. As the operation ended at about 11:30 a.m., his whereabouts were unknown. The identities of the dead and those detained were still being checked.

“I was woken up by the sound of gun shots. I looked outside the window and there were police vans everywhere,” said Koukene Nadir, 36, who lives close by the pedestrian shopping street in the heart of the old town that was sealed off. “It lasted for about 15 minutes, and then again we heard a blast at around 7.”

Five men were barricaded in the apartment as the area was surrounded by police, soldiers and vehicles including police vans and military trucks. As the standoff dragged on, with schools and shops shut, the bells from the basilica where French kings were entombed chimed every 15 minutes.

Helicopters Circle

One civilian was injured by gunfire, Mayor Didier Paillard told France 2 television, after failing to stop “when told by police because they wanted to enter the building.” People living in the area were told to stay indoors. Helicopters circled the area.

President Francois Hollande tracked the operation from his office at the Elysee Palace, with Prime Minister Manuel Valls and the ministers of the interior, defense and justice as the focus swung back to the streets of Paris from the global stage. Hollande this week urged the U.S. and Russia to set aside their differences over Syria and Ukraine and work together. Russia and France, long at loggerheads over their approach to the war in Syria, took steps toward a united military front against Islamic State in response to the massacre in Paris and a downed plane in Egypt.

The aircraft-carrier Charles de Gaulle was due to sail from the Mediterranean port of Toulon on Wednesday, a deployment that will boost the number of French jets available for strikes in Syria to 48 from the current 12.
France has stepped up bombing of Islamic State targets at the terror group’s stronghold in Raqqa, Syria. Families of Islamic State leaders and fighters have started leaving Raqqa and are headed to Mosul, in northern Iraq, according to the U.K.-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the Syria war through activists on the ground.

Taken Into Custody

An unidentified person interviewed by BFM TV, who said the targeted apartment was his, said he didn’t know the people staying at his flat were suspected extremists. Asked how they ended up there, he replied: “I was asked to help out, so I helped out. I was asked to put some people up for two or three days so I helped out.” He added: “I learned about it the same as you.” He was later taken into custody.

Abaaoud, the son of a Moroccan shopkeeper, joined the ranks of the Islamic State a few years ago. Boasting a high profile on social media, Abbaoud is also linked by French officials to a failed assault on a Paris-bound high-speed train in August and a plot to attack a church in the city in April.

Belgian security officials began tracking him in March 2014 after he appeared in a video behind the wheel of a pickup truck dragging mutilated bodies to a mass grave.

The attacks on Friday at seven sites in the Paris area killed 129 people and injured more than 300. French police have conducted a dragnet across the country since then, carrying out hundreds of raids and searches.
After French police arrested 23 suspected extremists in a nationwide crackdown on Monday and conducted 128 raids that night, the investigation had spread to Belgium and Germany. Security forces are seeking Salah Abdeslam, who police believe was an accomplice to the Paris attacks and whose brother Brahim Abdeslam has been named as one of the suicide bombers.

Belgian prosecutors on Monday charged two suspects detained after the attacks, while other searches in the Brussels district of Molenbeek failed to lead to new arrests. Seven people were arrested Tuesday in a German town near the Belgian border before being released once police established that Abdeslam wasn’t among them.
In Saint Denis, a man near the scene of the raid who gave his name only as Said, and described himself as a French Muslim, welcomed the police operation. “It’s about time the police come to Saint-Denis to get rid of these supposed Muslims,” he said. “Hopefully this is the beginning of the solution for the neighborhood and for France.”

[salm]

So this is the "nothing" we´re talking talking about. I see.
Good to see that terrorists can freely roam Europe with no retribution whatsoever.

[ray245]

So this is the "nothing" we´re talking talking about. I see.
Good to see that terrorists can freely roam Europe with no retribution whatsoever.

Although such tactic is ultimately a defensive one. You are only capable to responding to terrorist attack as opposed to ending their ability to organise it in the first place. It's mentally draining for a population to shut up and carry on for the rest of their life with the threat of terrorism constantly hanging over their head. People WANT to spend their entire life without even worrying about the possibility of terrorist attacks.

To accept the idea that you can't stop the jihadist movement to many people is to concede defeat. IS doesn't have to occupy the west to win the war. All they need is to make the western world live their entire lives in constant fear to win. It's why people are willing to carry out suicide attacks in the first place, because they don't need to live to enjoy their fruits of victory. Any successful attack that involves blowing themselves up is a victory. It's a psychological war, not just as physical one.

[salm]

So this is the "nothing" we´re talking talking about. I see.
Good to see that terrorists can freely roam Europe with no retribution whatsoever.

Although such tactic is ultimately a defensive one. You are only capable to responding to terrorist attack as opposed to ending their ability to organise it in the first place. It's mentally draining for a population to shut up and carry on for the rest of their life with the threat of terrorism constantly hanging over their head. People WANT to spend their entire life without even worrying about the possibility of terrorist attacks.

To accept the idea that you can't stop the jihadist movement to many people is to concede defeat. IS doesn't have to occupy the west to win the war. All they need is to make the western world live their entire lives in constant fear to win. It's why people are willing to carry out suicide attacks in the first place, because they don't need to live to enjoy their fruits of victory. Any successful attack that involves blowing themselves up is a victory. It's a psychological war, not just as physical one.

So are you saying that killing/imprisoning them after they commited an attack is the only tactic that is used? Because there appear to be quite a bunch of other counter terror measures in actions at any given time. You know, surveillance, bombs, secret services. Stuff like that.

[Channel72]

Speaking of endless sectarian bloodshed... I knew this would happen ... now that ISIS has been driven out of Sinjar, the Yazidis are getting their revenge.

http://www.albawaba.com/news/yazidis-bu ... ort-770224

Earlier this week, the formerly Daesh-controlled town of Sinjar was retaken by the Iraqi-Kurdish forces with the aid of US airstrikes. While the operation was celebrated as a success, NPR reports that Yazidis in the city are now looting and burning Muslim homes in the town.

Situated in the northern region of Iraq, Sinjar had been under Daesh (ISIS) control since August 2014 until last week's offensive. The Yazidis, an Iraqi-Kurdish group in the region have been specifically targeted by Daesh for their faith in what many consider to be a genocide. Stories have been recounted of rape, enslavement, and mass killings during the year that Daesh controlled the town, and a reported 2,000 Yazidis had been killed under the occupation.

This week, Kurdish forces discovered a mass grave filled with over 75 women, corroborating some of the horrors that Yazidis have been detailing over the past year. Some from the Kurdish minority remember Muslims in the community aiding Daesh in identifying Yazidi families. Now that Sinjar has been liberated, Muslims are fleeing the town in fear of retribution for the actions of Daesh.

NPR relates that mosques are being burned down in Sinjar and Yazidis have been burning and looting abandoned Muslim homes in what some Yazidis see as retaliation for the suffering and degradation that they endured under Daesh control. A large portion of the peshmerga forces who led the offensive in Sinjar are Yazidis from the town who are also participating in the raids.

As displaced Yazidis from Sinjar return to their destroyed homes and businesses to reclaim their lives, they must not only deal with the danger left behind by Daesh in the form of mines and bombs, but also with the question of how to rebuild their lives and community.

This is why this situation is so fucking difficult. A post-ISIS Syria/North Iraq is not going to suddenly become a pleasant place.

[Broomstick]

Do you think there are not already dead bodies and blood in the streets? You think there are not already destroyed cities and towns?

Ah, I see you've adopted the Simon_Jester liar tactic of "State the blindly self-evident to The Romulan Republic, implying he's too stupid and ignorant to understand it, even if it contradicts what he actually says, as if summarizing the situation will prove that your preferred solution is the correct one".

No, you really do seem that oblivious. As I said, if more than one person seems to making the same “mistake” in regards to what you are posting you should consider that the failure to communicate may be originating from you.

I'm not going to keep wasting my time with this shit indefinitely.

And yet... you are still here.

Of course I haven't read and memorized everything you've ever posted. And while I have never known you to be a particularly vicious, pro-war, or bigoted, I will not assume that your position is unchanging or consistent, particularly when much of the world has seen a huge shift in its views regarding terrorism and the Middle East in the last few days.

You may not want to see death on a mass scale, but I cannot see any reasonable interpretation of your words that does not suggest that you think it is necessary. At best, you are being contradictory.

I think it MIGHT be necessary.

I sincerely hope it is not, but if it does become necessary then I will resign myself to the necessity. Sometimes there is no good answer and you must pick the lesser evil.

I don't claim that our strategy now is perfect, and I have suggested ways its could be improved. However, I also think that frankly, winning wars take time, and switching to a highly dubious new strategy because the current one is taking time or needs improvement is questionable at best.

We've had the “whack-a-mole” strategy for 14 years now. We may win battles but we don't seem to be making overall progress in this war. There is nothing wrong with discussing other options.

If we stop fighting ISIS will only continue to kill more people. It's what they do. They've made it very clear that is a major objective for them. They kill those we are not them.

Why do you say this, unless to imply that I am opposed to fighting IS?

I'm not convinced that you understand they they have a world view incompatible with ours.

If there's another way I don't know it - if you do please enlighten us.

I do know that our current situation results in dead people but seems to do little to solve the causes.

I offered you suggestions. I don't claim they are certain to succeed, because as a rule, only an idiot makes predictions about the future like that. But I am at least fairly confident that they won't make things vastly worse, which an all out ground invasion very well might.

Or a truly all-out effort, including but not limited to a ground invasion, might actually work. We don't know. Could go either way.

Given that 14 years ago none of these terrorist groups had a proto-nation and now one of them does does not encourage me to think that continuing the current strategy won't make things worse in the long run.

It is neither saying we should or shouldn't. It is pointing out we are unwilling. Why do you go from that to assuming I want mass slaughter?

Its not on that that I based my accusation. It is on your clearly laying out an argument that we could not win without doing so.

Here's how it looks to me:

There's a rabid dog coming down the street. It has already bitten people and given them rabies. I am considering the options of either containing the dog or simply shooting it dead – not because I hate the rabid dog on a personal level but because it would be intolerable to allow it to continue to be a threat to other people and animals. Meanwhile, you're going “maybe we can treat it and make it all better!”.

We can't cure rabies. We can either confine the rabid dog until it dies – with the attendant risks of it possible getting lose again, danger to those doing the confining, those taking care of it – or we can kill it.

They can say they're going to conquer the world all they want, but it doesn't mean they actually can.

Doesn't mean they can't, either – the more time they have and the more resources they acquire the more dangerous they become. Even if they “only” acquire the MENA, or a slice of Europe, or whatever it could get extremely ugly.

Engaging in less-than-wholesale slaughter does not seem to be helping.

No, that doesn't sound at all like an argument for engaging in wholesale slaughter. Not at all.

There ARE points on the spectrum between “what we are doing now” and “glass Raqqah” you know...

Hell, even in WWII no one seemed to resort to poison gas like in WWI, so apparently even the Nazis and Imperial Japanese had some standards!

[ray245]

So are you saying that killing/imprisoning them after they commited an attack is the only tactic that is used? Because there appear to be quite a bunch of other counter terror measures in actions at any given time. You know, surveillance, bombs, secret services. Stuff like that.

I'm saying those measures are defensive as well. It's about preventing an attack from happening by stopping it in its planning stages, not stopping people who wants to plan such attacks from existing in the first place.

People aren't happy right now because they know there will be cracks in security, and it's impossible to find every single plan of theirs before they execute it. THAT is mentally draining and not something they are happy with.

People want to END terrorism as opposed to merely stopping it. They want to put an end to terrorist planning attacks in Syria and Iraq, places that are under IS control and beyond the reach of any police force. Right now there no police force in the world that could touch the heads of IS and THAT's what people are unhappy about.

Merely dropping bombs over their heads isn't going to stop them from returning to bases or rebuilding their bases elsewhere. Then there's the problem of Assad and the Iraqi army being ineffective in carrying out any major offensive against IS and similar groups. You can bomb as many ISIS buildings as you want but that isn't going to drive them out of major cities like Mosul. Bombing the entire city isn't an option to anyone so the only choice you have is to find ways to actually invade those cities and occupy it.

If there's one thing we learn from the past events in recent years, it's that countries like Iraq and Afghanistan would be in a state of near-collapse the second western troops pull out, and that will allow Islamic terrorist groups to outright hold territories and form some sort of nation-state/empire.

[Channel72]

Then there's the problem of Assad and the Iraqi army being ineffective in carrying out any major offensive against IS and similar groups. You can bomb as many ISIS buildings as you want but that isn't going to drive them out of major cities like Mosul. Bombing the entire city isn't an option to anyone so the only choice you have is to find ways to actually invade those cities and occupy it.

We joke about the Iraqi army's ineffectiveness - and certainly, they haven't really produced great results. But if you actually follow what's going on on the ground on a weekly or monthly basis, it's not like they're sitting around being ineffective and lazy. They're constantly involved in combat operations in Anbar especially around Ramadi. They're literally engaging ISIS on a daily basis. And the Iraqi Prime Minister is constantly complaining that Obama isn't living up to his promises regarding air support. The fact is, the Iraqi army is constantly working to push ISIS back from expanding further South towards Baghdad, while at the same time getting involved in seriously intense, brutal, urban warfare around the Ramadi area. And remember that ISIS often employs suicide bombing tactics as a military strategy. A few weeks ago a bunch of ISIS fighters loaded up a Humvee with explosives and basically just rammed into an Iraqi military checkpoint ... it's hard to defend against things like that when your enemy literally doesn't give a shit about their own life.

That's not to say there hasn't been lots of incompetence and setbacks. The commanders who fled from Ramadi were court martialed. But again, these guys are out there, daily, going through hell, engaging ISIS in brutal urban warfare. And it's mostly a stalemate, with various key buildings/locations often temporarily secured by the Iraqi army, only to be lost again when ISIS comes back with a coordinated suicide attack.

Despite all that, they've had many successes that simply aren't reported that much outside of Arab media. It's just that everyone is frustrated with how slow it takes. Regardless, ISIS is basically holed up in Ramadi and Mosul, and the Iraqi and Kurdish forces have fought really hard against a very brutal enemy to even get to this point.

But really, ISIS fighters are stubborn, hardcore motherfuckers. An all-out invasion into Ramadi or Mosul would likely result in massive destruction and civilian casualties, no matter what. One time, Shia militias engaged ISIS within a soccer stadium in Ramadi. They successfully drove ISIS out of the stadium ... and then ISIS fucking detonated the entire stadium, killing everyone inside. We can expect that any army that full on invades Mosul or Ramadi is going to deal with constant land mines, suicide bombers, etc., basically total war and destruction, against an enemy that would literally rather explode than surrender. For all we know, ISIS has rigged half the city to explode at this point. That's why this is so difficult.

[ray245]

Then there's the problem of Assad and the Iraqi army being ineffective in carrying out any major offensive against IS and similar groups. You can bomb as many ISIS buildings as you want but that isn't going to drive them out of major cities like Mosul. Bombing the entire city isn't an option to anyone so the only choice you have is to find ways to actually invade those cities and occupy it.

We joke about the Iraqi army's ineffectiveness - and certainly, they haven't really produced great results. But if you actually follow what's going on on the ground on a weekly or monthly basis, it's not like they're sitting around being ineffective and lazy. They're constantly involved in combat operations in Anbar especially around Ramadi. They're literally engaging ISIS on a daily basis. And the Iraqi Prime Minister is constantly complaining that Obama isn't living up to his promises regarding air support. The fact is, the Iraqi army is constantly working to push ISIS back from expanding further South towards Baghdad, while at the same time getting involved in seriously intense, brutal, urban warfare around the Ramadi area. And remember that ISIS often employs suicide bombing tactics as a military strategy. A few weeks ago a bunch of ISIS fighters loaded up a Humvee with explosives and basically just rammed into an Iraqi military checkpoint ... it's hard to defend against things like that when your enemy literally doesn't give a shit about their own life.

That's not to say there hasn't been lots of incompetence and setbacks. The commanders who fled from Ramadi were court martialed. But again, these guys are out there, daily, going through hell, engaging ISIS in brutal urban warfare. And it's mostly a stalemate, with various key buildings/locations often temporarily secured by the Iraqi army, only to be lost again when ISIS comes back with a coordinated suicide attack.

Despite all that, they've had many successes that simply aren't reported that much outside of Arab media. It's just that everyone is frustrated with how slow it takes. Regardless, ISIS is basically holed up in Ramadi and Mosul, and the Iraqi and Kurdish forces have fought really hard against a very brutal enemy to even get to this point.

But really, ISIS fighters are stubborn, hardcore motherfuckers. An all-out invasion into Ramadi or Mosul would likely result in massive destruction and civilian casualties, no matter what. One time, Shia militias engaged ISIS within a soccer stadium in Ramadi. They successfully drove ISIS out of the stadium ... and then ISIS fucking detonated the entire stadium, killing everyone inside. We can expect that any army that full on invades Mosul or Ramadi is going to deal with constant land mines, suicide bombers, etc., basically total war and destruction, against an enemy that would literally rather explode than surrender. For all we know, ISIS has rigged half the city to explode at this point. That's why this is so difficult.

I am certainly not denying that the Iraqi army had achieved some success. Which was why I emphasised on their failure to embark on major offensive as opposed to minor ones.

The Iraqi and the Syrian army can lay siege on Mosul and any other major cities as long as they want and nothing would change in the short run. ISIS would still have a base of occupation even if they are under constant bombing for years. They have entire CITIES worth of buildings to hide under and there's no way you could do anything unless you are willing to bomb every single building block in Mosul/Ramadi.

Until those major cities could be retaken, any security measures we take will ALWAYS be on the defensive. That kind of pressure can be rather horrible because it can easily drive the society into a siege mentality like Israel.

[salm]

So are you saying that killing/imprisoning them after they commited an attack is the only tactic that is used? Because there appear to be quite a bunch of other counter terror measures in actions at any given time. You know, surveillance, bombs, secret services. Stuff like that.

I'm saying those measures are defensive as well. It's about preventing an attack from happening by stopping it in its planning stages, not stopping people who wants to plan such attacks from existing in the first place.

People aren't happy right now because they know there will be cracks in security, and it's impossible to find every single plan of theirs before they execute it. THAT is mentally draining and not something they are happy with.

People want to END terrorism as opposed to merely stopping it. They want to put an end to terrorist planning attacks in Syria and Iraq, places that are under IS control and beyond the reach of any police force. Right now there no police force in the world that could touch the heads of IS and THAT's what people are unhappy about.

Merely dropping bombs over their heads isn't going to stop them from returning to bases or rebuilding their bases elsewhere. Then there's the problem of Assad and the Iraqi army being ineffective in carrying out any major offensive against IS and similar groups. You can bomb as many ISIS buildings as you want but that isn't going to drive them out of major cities like Mosul. Bombing the entire city isn't an option to anyone so the only choice you have is to find ways to actually invade those cities and occupy it.

If there's one thing we learn from the past events in recent years, it's that countries like Iraq and Afghanistan would be in a state of near-collapse the second western troops pull out, and that will allow Islamic terrorist groups to outright hold territories and form some sort of nation-state/empire.

Well, airstrikes are not defensive, so the west isn´t "only" relying on defensive mechanisms. How does that matter anyway? If a purely defensive mechanism is successful in preventing attacks then it´s a fine strategy.
Now ending terrorism would be really nice but sounds like a pipe dream. Can you remember a time without terror? I can´t. Terror threats have been around all my life and as soon as one terror organisation is gone the next one pops up.

Like said before, if you want to destroy ISIS with ground troops I´d be all for it as long as we´re willing to stay there as long as it needs. But history shows that we allmost never stay as long as it needs. We pull out after a while and in some cases scum like ISIS pops up and fills the power vacuum.
Destroying ISIS is easy if political will exists. The aftermath is difficult.