Situation in Paris

[ray245]

Well, airstrikes are not defensive, so the west isn´t "only" relying on defensive mechanisms.

I'll argue that it is defensive because it's primarily a strategy of containment. Everyone has admitted that air strikes alone is not enough to defeat ISIS. It's a really great tool from stopping them from carrying out successful offensive, but that means nothing unless you have troops that could cover the ground.

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.

The French did not experience such a massive attack on their home soil in nearly 70 years. A whole generation have lived a life without worrying about massive terrorist attacks that focus on killing so many civilians without warning. The world remembered a time before 9/11. Terrorist attacks have always been around, but the scale of such attacks on Western countries home soil is a relatively recent phenomomen.

For many people, being on the defensive is to concede defeat. It means having to be even more frightened their entire life and they utterly hate that. It's why extreme "solutions" seems appealing to them.

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.

I think some people are happy with merely destroying ISIS as opposed to trying to fix the mess in the Middle East. It's why everyone is starting to talk about a scenario where Assad will get away for his crimes as long as they could whack ISIS. In other words, the Middle East could blow themselves up as often as they want as long as no one is trying to bomb the West.

[salm]

The French did not experience such a massive attack on their home soil in nearly 70 years. A whole generation have lived a life without worrying about massive terrorist attacks that focus on killing so many civilians without warning. The world remembered a time before 9/11. Terrorist attacks have always been around, but the scale of such attacks on Western countries home soil is a relatively recent phenomomen.

For many people, being on the defensive is to concede defeat. It means having to be even more frightened their entire life and they utterly hate that. It's why extreme "solutions" seems appealing to them.

I don´t see it that way. The terrorists successfully blow up something here and there, the population turn hysterical for a while, the government introduce new, more authoritarian laws and then everything goes back to normal. All in all people are pretty happy with how things are going. Most people probably don´t spend more than a minute or two per day thinking about terror. And that´s when they see it on the news.
And that´s how it´s supposed to be. That´s why I propose the media not artificially cooking up the situation.

I think some people are happy with merely destroying ISIS as opposed to trying to fix the mess in the Middle East. It's why everyone is starting to talk about a scenario where Assad will get away for his crimes as long as they could whack ISIS. In other words, the Middle East could blow themselves up as often as they want as long as no one is trying to bomb the West.

Sure. Some people were also happy with "merely" marching into Iraq and kicking out Saddam. See what good that did.
If you can install Assad as a stable leader after all that has happened then fine. Better than the status quo. It´s a bit questionable if that is possible, though, isn´t it? I assume he has lost quite a lot of backing in the population.
I think "the mess" is the reason why scum like ISIS can bread. So unless someone manages to clean up the mess we´ll just have the next ISIS pop up. We can of course destroy them again but that would just be a continuation of the politics of containment you are talking about, albiet on a different level.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Sure. Some people were also happy with "merely" marching into Iraq and kicking out Saddam. See what good that did.
If you can install Assad as a stable leader after all that has happened then fine. Better than the status quo. It´s a bit questionable if that is possible, though, isn´t it? I assume he has lost quite a lot of backing in the population.
I think "the mess" is the reason why scum like ISIS can bread. So unless someone manages to clean up the mess we´ll just have the next ISIS pop up. We can of course destroy them again but that would just be a continuation of the politics of containment you are talking about, albiet on a different level.

Then the solution is to use ground troops and do the equivalent of Marshall Planning Syria and carving out a chunk for the Kurds.

We absolutely cannot make the situation on the ground there any worse. Their infrastructure is already in ruins, for example. We would, of course, have to have a civil conversation with Putin. Let him know we have zero intention of removing their influence in Syria, but Assad needs to go, or this bullshit wont ever end there. Putin is evil, but he is rationally evil. He might go along with joint operations. The handy thing about Da'esh is that they are a concrete organization that has set up a state. It can be killed or at least its ability to prosecute war can be killed. So we go in with enough force to get rid of Assad (we can even use assassination for it, whatever), provide sufficient direct military support along with the Russians to let the Free Syrian Army do most (but not all) of the infantry heavy lifting (we would supplement and train their boots to the extent they need it). Help rebuild the infrastructure and *slowly* transition to a local democratically elected government that *just so happens* to have its military supplied with T-72s and MiG fighters by the Russians.

Or some variation on that. I am spit-balling.

But if we want this to end, we have to use ground troops. Anything else is half-measures, or wishful thinking.

[The Romulan Republic]

We sure as hell can make the situation in Syria worse.

IS taking the whole country? That's worse. An accident leading to an exchange of fire between Russia and the US? That's worse.

Certainly the status quo is unacceptable, and that should really go without saying except that I know some asshole will probably straw man me if I don't say it. But it can definitely get worse if we don't get it right.

[salm]

Ground troops without political will to stay there and finance this behemoth of a task is also half-measures and wishful thinking.

Do you believe this political is there or will be there in the future? I´m not optimistic.

[ray245]

I don´t see it that way. The terrorists successfully blow up something here and there, the population turn hysterical for a while, the government introduce new, more authoritarian laws and then everything goes back to normal. All in all people are pretty happy with how things are going. Most people probably don´t spend more than a minute or two per day thinking about terror. And that´s when they see it on the news.
And that´s how it´s supposed to be. That´s why I propose the media not artificially cooking up the situation.

Except they could most certainly create additional panic among the population. They could simply announce the target they want to attack ( even if they aren't actually planning it) and cause constant evacuation and etc. Terrorism only needs SOME successful attack to constant frighten the population.

It's already causing massive problems for the Muslim population in Europe because there are plenty of people that fear/mock them. Refugees are being rejected in many countries because of this fear as well. Things aren't going back to "normal".

Sure. Some people were also happy with "merely" marching into Iraq and kicking out Saddam. See what good that did.
If you can install Assad as a stable leader after all that has happened then fine. Better than the status quo. It´s a bit questionable if that is possible, though, isn´t it? I assume he has lost quite a lot of backing in the population.
I think "the mess" is the reason why scum like ISIS can bread. So unless someone manages to clean up the mess we´ll just have the next ISIS pop up. We can of course destroy them again but that would just be a continuation of the politics of containment you are talking about, albiet on a different level.

If the US was merely happy with kicking out Saddam, they won't be spending YEARS trying to build a democratic nation in Iraq only to have it fall apart the second the US left the place.

We sure as hell can make the situation in Syria worse.

IS taking the whole country? That's worse. An accident leading to an exchange of fire between Russia and the US? That's worse.

Certainly the status quo is unacceptable, and that should really go without saying except that I know some asshole will probably straw man me if I don't say it. But it can definitely get worse if we don't get it right.

IS is hardly in a position to take the whole country as long as the bombings could prevent any major offensive by ISIS. In fact, it's the lack of western and Russian air support that allowed ISIS to expand so rapidly in the first place. It's the decision to scale down military involement in Iraq and Afghanistan that allowed the Taliban and ISIS to seize so much control of lands in the the first place.

[Broomstick]

Help rebuild the infrastructure and *slowly* transition to a local democratically elected government that *just so happens* to have its military supplied with T-72s and MiG fighters by the Russians.

Given what a fucking mess has been made of trying to impose democracy maybe we should take the radical step of considering other forms of government.

Don't get me wrong, I much prefer democracy myself despite all the flaws in how it is put into practice, but it does seem that in the ME authoritarian governments are more stable than democratic ones. If the choice is between dictators and kings or chaos and ISIS the dictators and kings, however much we may loathe them, may be the lesser evil.

[salm]

Except they could most certainly create additional panic among the population. They could simply announce the target they want to attack ( even if they aren't actually planning it) and cause constant evacuation and etc. Terrorism only needs SOME successful attack to constant frighten the population.

It's already causing massive problems for the Muslim population in Europe because there are plenty of people that fear/mock them. Refugees are being rejected in many countries because of this fear as well. Things aren't going back to "normal".

And this is a direct consequence of hysterical reaction. If the whole attacks wouldn´t be hyped up to no end and analized rationally this fear would be revealed as what it is: Unnecessary. We don´t have to fear stuff that kills so few people. The main problems are hysterical reactions, not the death tol itself. Or else we´d have to shut down traffic.

If the US was merely happy with kicking out Saddam, they won't be spending YEARS trying to build a democratic nation in Iraq only to have it fall apart the second the US left the place.

We were talkig about "some people".
Furhtermore, the USA half-assed their job. That´s the problem. Years and years of work still have to be considered half-assing because the task is so enormous.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ground troops without political will to stay there and finance this behemoth of a task is also half-measures and wishful thinking.

Do you believe this political is there or will be there in the future? I´m not optimistic.

I am not exactly sanguine about the prospect either, but as it stands, it seems like it is the only chance of having anything that even looks like a positive outcome. Either Assad wins and the horror continues, or Da'esh wins, and the horror gets worse. Or a third option. Reconstruction, which may or may not work but the worst feasible outcome is probably not as bad as the best outcome of the status quo. This is not like Iraq. We are not going from a despotic but stable state to miserable failure. The nightmare scenario for Syria has already happened.

We sure as hell can make the situation in Syria worse.

IS taking the whole country? That's worse. An accident leading to an exchange of fire between Russia and the US? That's worse.

Certainly the status quo is unacceptable, and that should really go without saying except that I know some asshole will probably straw man me if I don't say it. But it can definitely get worse if we don't get it right.

Da'esh (ISIS gives them too much dignity) wont be able to do that if a military intervention is at all competently executed. If you have to reach that far, it is not worth considering. Syria is not Vietnam. They dont have the civilian population on their side, they dont have a jungle or lemming-esque networks of tunnels built over several decades, and they dont have a neutral or US "allied" country nearby they can hide in either.

An accidental exchange of fire between the US and Russia is a possibility, Blue on Blue happens, but it will only go beyond an accident if either side thinks a shooting war with another first rate military over an accident is in their interests. Something I very much doubt will occur.

As for you, what the hell do you propose? I saw some BS about a non-violent solution from you a while back, which is rubbish on its face. It is not as if Da'esh is going to stop killing people and committing genocide by way of sexual slavery if we promise to be nice to them, or for any material gains. We have nothing they want that they could not more easily gain through force of arms, and they are not exactly into the enlightened self-interest thing.

So what do you want to see happen that is not a pacifists opium dream? Our help reinstalling Assad as a despot? Oh yeah, that will work. Oh. Wait. No. Because precisely no one but foreign entities (and some religious minorities shit-scared of Da'esh) wants him in power. He wont have anything at all like legitimacy, and all we will have created as some sort of postbellum arabic Pinochet hell that will once again rapidly spiral into a failed state.

Given what a fucking mess has been made of trying to impose democracy maybe we should take the radical step of considering other forms of government.

What other form? It is going to be a military junta for a while, frankly. We cannot exactly install a monarchy. What other form of government is a better option? A dictatorship might work, but we cannot exactly pick the dictator. The best dictatorships (and quasi-dictatorships) are the ones that have legitimacy and likely no one we install will have that. They have to... become. On their own. Either they get a stable arab democracy or the democracy morphs into a quasi-dictatorship. That could work. Imposition of a hand-picked dictator wont.

Keep in mind, Syria is likely going to need to be partitioned. It is not viable to have Sunni and Shi'ite muslims trying to hammer out a state. That never works. Not unless they unite on their own later. And there is going to have to be a sovereign Kurdistan.

Furhtermore, the USA half-assed their job. That´s the problem. Years and years of work still have to be considered half-assing because the task is so enormous.

I would not call it enormous. Incompetently executed. Had we done it right and with ANY coherent occupation and counter-insurgency doctrine worth mentioning, we could have done much better in the time allotted. But the Bush Administration pointedly did not bother with occupation planning or ROE that made fucking sense.

[jwl]

What about bits of Syria getting absorbed into existing middle Eastern states like Iran, Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkey? Could that work?

[Alyrium Denryle]

What about bits of Syria getting absorbed into existing middle Eastern states like Iran, Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkey? Could that work?

It *could* but not by direct conquest by those powers. Lest you get a war for independence later. And the only way it would work is if the sections in question were contiguous and comprised of overwhelming majorities of the host-country appropriate sect (Shia to Iran etc)

[ray245]

And this is a direct consequence of hysterical reaction. If the whole attacks wouldn´t be hyped up to no end and analized rationally this fear would be revealed as what it is: Unnecessary. We don´t have to fear stuff that kills so few people. The main problems are hysterical reactions, not the death tol itself. Or else we´d have to shut down traffic.

The alternative is to make ourselves so immune to constant terrorist attacks like what is going on in the Middle East and Africa. People are hysterical because such attacks are rare. It's basic human nature.

We were talkig about "some people".
Furhtermore, the USA half-assed their job. That´s the problem. Years and years of work still have to be considered half-assing because the task is so enormous.

Which in part have to do with trying to build a democratic government when it has zero legitimacy among much Iraqi in the first place. It's a government with such an ineffective military force that would allow 30,000 troops to abandon the country's second biggest city when they are faced with a few hundred ISIS fighters.

You are trying to build a nation state where no strong concept of nationalism even exists in the country, and having a very well armed population that could easily launch a rebellion against the central government any time they wished. Any strong and effective government always need to be be able to monopolise violence, be it liberal democracy or dictatorship.

Given what a fucking mess has been made of trying to impose democracy maybe we should take the radical step of considering other forms of government.

Don't get me wrong, I much prefer democracy myself despite all the flaws in how it is put into practice, but it does seem that in the ME authoritarian governments are more stable than democratic ones. If the choice is between dictators and kings or chaos and ISIS the dictators and kings, however much we may loathe them, may be the lesser evil.

It's not about choosing between authoritarian government or democratic ones. Any government hoping to control a country that is full of different factions needs an utterly strong and effective military that could make anyone else think twice about going against the government.

It's especially hard when some factions receive a massive amount of funds to undermine the government all the time. Any form of government in the Middle East and North Africa seeking to rule the country smoothly needs certain symbols of legitimacy. For some, it would be having a democracy ( in the case of Tunisia), for others it would be having a royalty.

Nationalism is fundamentally competing with religion as an imagined community for many people in the Middle East. Any social support they receive tends to be from Islamic organisation ranging from Mosques to Islamic NGOs. The concept of imagining themselves as one people is a difficult problem to resolve. It's particularly why ISIS is so attractive for so many people as a nation-state. They have certain symbols of authority, ( in this case the Qur'an) to legitimise their rule. Some people embraced Islamic factions in the Syrian civil war because they are the ones seen as being capable of creating legit government.

Until people there could see secular nationalism as a legitimate symbol of government, things will not change.


The last thing there was a major nationalistic movement going on in the Middle East, it was a pan-Arabic one as opposed to a one based on a particular nation state. The West have now utterly discredited the pan-Arabic in the eyes of people thanks to all their leaders being bombed and attacked by the West constantly.

[Channel72]

I don´t see it that way. The terrorists successfully blow up something here and there, the population turn hysterical for a while, the government introduce new, more authoritarian laws and then everything goes back to normal. All in all people are pretty happy with how things are going. Most people probably don´t spend more than a minute or two per day thinking about terror. And that´s when they see it on the news.
And that´s how it´s supposed to be. That´s why I propose the media not artificially cooking up the situation.

That's... not really how I'm seeing things here. You're correct, that terrorism shouldn't be a concern for most people, except the reality is that it simply is. Many people really are scared. It doesn't matter the statistics ... not only is it constantly on the news, but anyone who lives in a major city is acutely aware of the increased police presence after these things. I mean, ISIS just threatened to attack New York the other day ... I doubt the threat is credible, or that they even have any sort of concrete plan beyond a vague "to do list" type thing, but that hasn't stopped the NYPD from becoming even more ubiquitous than they already are. The fact is, terrorism "works", to the extent that it really does scare a lot of people shitless, and it forces local police forces and mayors to scramble around, looking "prepared" and all, and beef up police presences/security measures just in case (and also just to show voters that the officials they elected are actually doing ... something, even if it's basically just for show).

I mean, all ISIS has to do is release some stupid low-res video on Youtube saying tough things ... and then every major city has to run around, going through the motions of "being vigilant".

[ray245]

That's... not really how I'm seeing things here. You're correct, that terrorism shouldn't be a concern for most people, except the reality is that it simply is. Many people really are scared. It doesn't matter the statistics ... not only is it constantly on the news, but anyone who lives in a major city is acutely aware of the increased police presence after these things. I mean, ISIS just threatened to attack New York the other day ... I doubt the threat is credible, or that they even have any sort of concrete plan beyond a vague "to do list" type thing, but that hasn't stopped the NYPD from becoming even more ubiquitous than they already are. The fact is, terrorism "works", to the extent that it really does scare a lot of people shitless, and it forces local police forces and mayors to scramble around, looking "prepared" and all, and beef up police presences/security measures just in case (and also just to show voters that the officials they elected are actually doing ... something, even if it's basically just for show).

I think it's time everyone stops assuming that the general public reacts to acts of terrorism in a rational manner as opposed to an emotional based one. No matter how well educated the population is, people WILL be prone to panic. Those that aren't tend to be relatively few in number.

Logical responses and arguments are generally ineffective for a population facing terrorism.



The fact that people wants to react differently to the threat of ISIS after an major attack on Paris as oppose to before the attack is a HUGE indication how people generally behave. Education can only do so much to change people's mind. We are largely irrational under duress. It's impossible to avoid this.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That's... not really how I'm seeing things here. You're correct, that terrorism shouldn't be a concern for most people, except the reality is that it simply is. Many people really are scared. It doesn't matter the statistics ... not only is it constantly on the news, but anyone who lives in a major city is acutely aware of the increased police presence after these things. I mean, ISIS just threatened to attack New York the other day ... I doubt the threat is credible, or that they even have any sort of concrete plan beyond a vague "to do list" type thing, but that hasn't stopped the NYPD from becoming even more ubiquitous than they already are. The fact is, terrorism "works", to the extent that it really does scare a lot of people shitless, and it forces local police forces and mayors to scramble around, looking "prepared" and all, and beef up police presences/security measures just in case (and also just to show voters that the officials they elected are actually doing ... something, even if it's basically just for show).

I think it's time everyone stops assuming that the general public reacts to acts of terrorism in a rational manner as opposed to an emotional based one. No matter how well educated the population is, people WILL be prone to panic. Those that aren't tend to be relatively few in number.

Logical responses and arguments are generally ineffective for a population facing terrorism.

For my part, the terrorism is kinda secondary. Sure, it would be nice to get rid of it, loss of life from terrorism will take a loooong time to equalize the loss of innocent life from invading Syria.

No no. The genocide by way of sexual slavery, mass execution of religious minorities, the cultural and intellectual impoverishment of millions of people, the refugee crisis. THOSE make a military response justifiable.

[salm]

The alternative is to make ourselves so immune to constant terrorist attacks like what is going on in the Middle East and Africa. People are hysterical because such attacks are rare. It's basic human nature.

It is because tv/internet/newspaper cover it 24/7.
If the media did the same with traffic accidents people would be hysterical about traffic as well.

Which in part have to do with trying to build a democratic government when it has zero legitimacy among much Iraqi in the first place. It's a government with such an ineffective military force that would allow 30,000 troops to abandon the country's second biggest city when they are faced with a few hundred ISIS fighters.

You are trying to build a nation state where no strong concept of nationalism even exists in the country, and having a very well armed population that could easily launch a rebellion against the central government any time they wished. Any strong and effective government always need to be be able to monopolise violence, be it liberal democracy or dictatorship.

So what? That doesn´t change anything about it being difficult.

[salm]

not only is it constantly on the news,

That´s my point.

[The Romulan Republic]

Da'esh (ISIS gives them too much dignity) wont be able to do that if a military intervention is at all competently executed. If you have to reach that far, it is not worth considering. Syria is not Vietnam. They dont have the civilian population on their side, they dont have a jungle or lemming-esque networks of tunnels built over several decades, and they dont have a neutral or US "allied" country nearby they can hide in either.

An accidental exchange of fire between the US and Russia is a possibility, Blue on Blue happens, but it will only go beyond an accident if either side thinks a shooting war with another first rate military over an accident is in their interests. Something I very much doubt will occur.

As for you, what the hell do you propose? I saw some BS about a non-violent solution from you a while back, which is rubbish on its face. It is not as if Da'esh is going to stop killing people and committing genocide by way of sexual slavery if we promise to be nice to them, or for any material gains. We have nothing they want that they could not more easily gain through force of arms, and they are not exactly into the enlightened self-interest thing.

So what do you want to see happen that is not a pacifists opium dream? Our help reinstalling Assad as a despot? Oh yeah, that will work. Oh. Wait. No. Because precisely no one but foreign entities (and some religious minorities shit-scared of Da'esh) wants him in power. He wont have anything at all like legitimacy, and all we will have created as some sort of postbellum arabic Pinochet hell that will once again rapidly spiral into a failed state.

This makes me really fucking angry. I posted a very clear, very simple response to something you which said nothing about negotiating with IS, pacifism, or supporting Assad. While I respect pacifism as a philosophy, I am not an advocate of absolute pacifism and I have never argued for simply negotiating with IS. Indeed, I have repeatedly posted about my support for military action against them. And my opinion of Assad is well known on this board, or should be for all the times I've posted about it, and is something I have been harshly criticized for in the past (for not supporting backing him).

I hoped against hope, despite the increasingly frequency with which people on this board apparently feel it is acceptable to misrepresent me, that I would not again be subjected to such tactics again. You did it anyway, you sorry little piece of shit.

So fuck you, you cowardly cum bag.

I am not going to give you the benefit of the doubt as to weather you are a liar, because I know you are not an utter illiterate imbecile and I don't believe you are delusional. But for the benefit of any very stupid people reading this who actually believe this tripe, let me be very clear:

I am not arguing for a diplomatic solution with IS or anyone like them. I have never argued for a diplomatic solution with IS or anyone like them. I have argued for a diplomatic solution when it comes Russia, and Assad, and with regard to other elements of the Syrian civil war, but not with IS or anyone like them. I feel like a coward and a fool even saying this, because it is blindingly obvious and to point it out implies that this lie constitutes an argument worth addressing, that I have need to defend my character from such a disgusting and obviously false attack.

Simon_Jester falsely claimed that I thought we could beat IS through wishful thinking, that I was unaware of IS's evil. I refuted him. Broomstick followed this up by doubling down with foul, sick, disgusting comments suggesting that I sympathize with IS and view them as victims, in what I can only assume is an attempt to paint me as a terrorist sympathizer to discredit me. Considering the severity of the attack on my character, and that this is an allegation which in the current political climate could quite conceivably make me a target for violence or law enforcement investigation, I consider this inexcusable and beneath contempt. I had intended to step aside from that debate until a moderator could address it. However, since you are making similar allegations, and may have been influenced by others to view me in this light, I am forced to address it lest this despicable slander gain traction.

Let me repeat this very clearly for all of you: I do not support negotiating with IS. Got that through your thick skulls, you dumb fucks? I mean, I could theoretically see negotiating to get a hostage back or something, but even that is probably futile with these sick fucks. I support the airstrikes in Iraq. I do not support a full scale ground deployment because I believe it may make things worse, and I do not support air strikes in Syria because of the risk of a clash with Russia. I have stated this very clearly, here and in the past.

Oh, and as to what I would have us do- I've posted a bit about all that. Go back and read it if you want to know, though perhaps you should sober up first. However, I am not sure why a lack of a plan on my part would invalidate my criticisms of your plan. You want to argue that a particular policy is best? The burden of proof is on you.

I remember America after 911. I remember those who questioned any military action being branded weak or terrorist sympathizers. Hell, I remember looking at some of the old threads on this board back around the 2003 invasion of Iraq and being stunned by the level of crazed pro war rhetoric, and thinking how much things had changed. I guess they haven't. One big attack, and its 2001 again.

In a few years, when y'all have switched back to being anti-war and attacking the evil American imperialists, I hope your faces burn with shame when you remember this thread.

And let me be very clear- anyone who I see suggesting that I sympathize with IS or that I believe we should seek a diplomatic solution with them in the future will be reported for their lying.

[Channel72]

Calm down. If multiple people are misrepresenting you in the same way, it's likely you're not communicating clearly. It's less likely that multiple people have some weird desire to misrepresent you on purpose.

Although, if it makes you feel better, I never got the impression you were arguing that we should negotiate with ISIS.

[The Romulan Republic]

I cannot for the life of me think of anything I've said that a reasonable person could possibly see as either sympathizing with IS or thinking we can stop them through diplomacy. Its so utterly alien to my true view. I suppose I might have said something that, taken out of context, could be construed in such a manner, but certainly no one who has followed my posting on the subject in any detail could honestly draw that conclusion without being an utter imbecile or delusional.

And I don't think there's anything "weird" about it at all, or even that its necessarily all on purpose (though I believe some of it is). Its contemptible, but not weird. I think its at least partly another iteration of "You're with us or you're with the terrorists" type thinking. With a healthy dose of general black and white thinking where people assume that if you're not with them, you're at the other extreme. Plus once a lie or misunderstanding starts, it has a way of gaining traction.

Perhaps I should calm down, take the God Damn high road. But tell me: how calm would you fucking be if people were misrepresenting you in this manner and had done so repeatedly? I think having people falsely treat me as so stupid and ignorant I don't know how bad IS is or that we have to fight them, or worse suggesting that I sympathize with them, is a fucking good reason for anger, especially at a time like this.

Edit: To be honest, I recognize that this has gotten out of hand, and I'd be just as happy to step aside and take a break. But if I did that without addressing peoples' attacks against me, I would appear to be conceding the validity of those attacks.

[ray245]

It is because tv/internet/newspaper cover it 24/7.
If the media did the same with traffic accidents people would be hysterical about traffic as well.

They already do. It's just that most people simply don't pay too much attention to accidental deaths constantly. There's a much greater degree of personal responsibility for traffic accidents than terrorist attacks. Most humans treat terrorist attacks different from accidents. If we do not, then terrorism will never be as effective as it is today.

So what? That doesn´t change anything about it being difficult.

It helps if the west doesn't try and build a government that is seen as weak and a mere puppet of the West in the first place. There are many people in Syria and Iraq that doesn't give two shit about secularism and liberalism. Trying to find such a leader and expect the general public to support him is highly unlikely.

I cannot for the life of me think of anything I've said that a reasonable person could possibly see as either sympathizing with IS or thinking we can stop them through diplomacy. Its so utterly alien to my true view. I suppose I might have said something that, taken out of context, could be construed in such a manner, but certainly no one who has followed my posting on the subject in any detail could honestly draw that conclusion without being an utter imbecile or delusional.

And I don't think there's anything "weird" about it at all, or even that its necessarily all on purpose (though I believe some of it is). Its contemptible, but not weird. I think its at least partly another iteration of "You're with us or you're with the terrorists" type thinking. With a healthy dose of general black and white thinking where people assume that if you're not with them, you're at the other extreme. Plus once a lie or misunderstanding starts, it has a way of gaining traction.

Perhaps I should calm down, take the God Damn high road. But tell me: how calm would you fucking be if people were misrepresenting you in this manner and had done so repeatedly? I think having people falsely treat me as so stupid and ignorant I don't know how bad IS is or that we have to fight them, or worse suggesting that I sympathize with them, is a fucking good reason for anger, especially at a time like this.

Edit: To be honest, I recognize that this has gotten out of hand, and I'd be just as happy to step aside and take a break. But if I did that without addressing peoples' attacks against me, I would appear to be conceding the validity of those attacks.

No one is trying to accuse you of seeking a diplomatic solution with IS. People are unhappy because you seems to argue in favour of carrying on the status quo and hoping the problem of will go away if we do not disturb ISIS enough. People are unhappy with merely responding to the next terrorist attacks. People are unhappy with living in constant fear whenever they travel to places like Tunisia, Egypt or France for a holiday or work. Because that is what ISIS is doing. It seems to the world that there is less and less safe places in the world to live in and travel to.

There's only so much a security team could do against a really determined terrorist.

[The Romulan Republic]

No one is trying to accuse me of seeking a diplomatic solution with IS?

Alyrium Denryle did just that. Would you like me to quote it again?

As to what you say about the status quo- I support some of what we're doing now. I think there is room for improvement. I've said this before as well. I do not support latching on to likely harmful and counterproductive strategies in a desperate, knee-jerk desire to do something.

Do I have all the answers? No. And why should I be expected to? I'm not the Patron Saint of Foreign Policy, to solve all the woes of the Middle East that have baffled more qualified minds than any posting here for decades. But I do think some of the suggestions posted here are dubious at best, for reasons I have tried to articulate.

I understand people are afraid and frustrated. I really do. But those emotions should not be allowed to dictate foreign policy. When they do... well, you get something like the Bush years post-911.

Edit: I mean, really. Is one attack, in another country at that, enough to make people forget the unreasoning fear that swept over America, and the very bad choices to which it lead?

[salm]

They already do. It's just that most people simply don't pay too much attention to accidental deaths constantly. There's a much greater degree of personal responsibility for traffic accidents than terrorist attacks. Most humans treat terrorist attacks different from accidents. If we do not, then terrorism will never be as effective as it is today.

No they don´t. I´ve never in my life seen a multy day campaign of every single newspaper/tv station/internet magazine reporting on a traffic accident, often with multiple articles about it on the front page combined with news tickers that are updated by the minute.

[Broomstick]

And this is a direct consequence of hysterical reaction. If the whole attacks wouldn´t be hyped up to no end and analized rationally this fear would be revealed as what it is: Unnecessary. We don´t have to fear stuff that kills so few people. The main problems are hysterical reactions, not the death tol itself. Or else we´d have to shut down traffic.

Fear is not hysteria, fear is not panic.

I buckle my seat belt because I fear death in a traffic accident - but I still drive every day. My fear of death in traffic is a healthy fear that makes me take reasonable precautions against accident. This is opposed to panic.

You can not tell people not to fear something that threatens them, but you can tell them to be reasonable about that fear. Tell people to put away the MP3 players and smart phones and pay attention to their surroundings, note anything suspicious. That is, in fact, how the train attack was thwarted - some people noticed something bad was starting, were alert, and took action before all hell broke loose. That is a reasonable response to terrorism.

Instead of instilling panic the media should be telling people how to take reasonable precautions to minimize their already small chances of being the particular person caught in an attack. When showing a video of the recent Paris attack point out that the proper response is to do what many in a cafe/bar did - get behind something, under something, cover your head, wait for an opportunity to flee to a safer location then do so. People who have a plan, who have something to do if an emergency occurs are much better off than those who don't.

It should be no different than fire drills, or tornado drills in the US Midwest, or earthquakes in California or Japan. Here's a hazard that we can't eliminate, here are possible warning signs, here is what you do. People don't stay out of buildings despite the risk of fire, people live in the Midwest despite the risk of tornadoes, people live all over the world on top of quake zones or next to volcanoes, people should be able to live their lives with the risk of terrorism.

But don't dismiss it as "few people get killed". That trivializes the dead and people will think you daft for NOT fearing death. Tell people that it's rare to be that person actually in the situation, but if it happens here are things you can do (list steps). Is it always going to work? No - but it gives people some control back, and that sense of control has a lot to do with the average person continuing to live their life.

[salm]

But perhaps it would make sense to report about the fact that the number of terror victims in Europe has been rapidly declining since the 70s.
The public has it backwards. The public thinks that terror is rising.