Situation in Paris

[Flagg]

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?

Wanting rationality from someone who equates apathy towards attacks any person with a brain knew would hit the west somewhere at some point with cowardice is like wanting rotting shit to smell like fresh cinnamon buns.

The funny part is that a good portion of the people I see on FB and other places with French flags and offering unequivocal solidarity with the French people were some of the same "Boycott France" "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys" "Freedom Fries" douchebags all butthurt because the French were too intelligent to join the US in it's moronic crusade against secular, anti-Wahhabism, and potential partner regimes in putting down Al Qaeda in the years after 9/11. If the irony weren't so pathetic it would be funny.

[ray245]

As several people have already said there are no "nice" people to back in this. The "legtimate" government has been rejected pretty thoroughly by the Syrians, to the point that the country has descended into chaos among factions that are, to our eyes, just as appalling, or more so, than Assad.

I would say the issue of legitimacy right now is mostly determined by which faction can achieve military victory over everyone else. If Assad wins, they will be seen as the most legit party because they destroyed every other rivals. If ISIS wins, they will achieve legitimacy over the rest of the faction because they have already killed anyone in their way.

People hate to admit it, but the ability to project violence is one way of guaranteeing a sense of legitimacy. If the Union lost the US civil war, then it would have much weaker legitimacy even among people living in the Union.

I've been hearing lots of people hoping for a "legit" government of Syria to rise to power without explaining how can this government develop a sense of legitimacy among its people. People more "moderate" and more respectful of human rights and democracy certainly isn't going to make any other faction respect them. Being the most humane organisation does not provide legitimacy in the eyes of many people fighting in the Syrian civil War right now.

People AREN'T flocking to support any US-backed faction other than the Kurds even though the US is throwing massive amount of money. The US have spent half a billion trying to train "moderate" fighters, and only 4 of them remain in this fight. 4!






Many people have lost faith in the Syrians to back any "moderate" faction left in this war. Many people have not lost faith even among the refugees that they will respect the more liberal culture in Western Europe when they see how little support any "liberal" faction have in the Syrian Civil War. (Note, I am not saying the refugees aren't willing or able, but it's about the perception of them among some right-wing supporters).

How people perceive the Syrians as a community of people must be understood in a context where any "moderate" faction in the Syrian civil war has been utterly defeated for a very long time. Many "moderate" or "liberal" refugees flee from Syria because there is no "moderate" or "liberal" faction left in the war. They are running because they have a choice between Assad and ISIS/other jihadist group.

It's time we try and wake up from a dreamland where we can find "moral" factions that the West can feel comfortable backing. There are no "moral" factions left to back. If the West seriously want to have a "moral" government that controls Syria, they have to basically occupy Syria at this stage.

[Ralin]

The funny part is that a good portion of the people I see on FB and other places with French flags and offering unequivocal solidarity with the French people were some of the same "Boycott France" "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys" "Freedom Fries" douchebags all butthurt because the French were too intelligent to join the US in it's moronic crusade against secular, anti-Wahhabism, and potential partner regimes in putting down Al Qaeda in the years after 9/11. If the irony weren't so pathetic it would be funny.

Could you elaborate? Because I'm not seeing anything funny or ironic about it. It's pretty much how French people reacted to 9/11, after all

[Alyrium Denryle]

I actually might have gone for kicking out Assad by force over the gassing, at least if not for the issue of Russia. Hell, I might go for it now if not for the issue of Russia, though I retain major misgivings about large scale ground deployments. When I feel that their is a more than a minuscule chance of military conflict between nuclear powers, a war almost inevitably moves into the "not worth it" category for me.

See, provided we reach an entente with Russia, I dont think that will be an issue. If we went in guns blazing and took out their military bases yes, but if we sat down across the table and said "Ok, Putin, you and we both know that even if Assad wins this war, he has lost any legitimacy he once had, and short of annexation, which you cannot reasonably do, and prolonged military occupation which you also cannot reasonably do this civil war is going to continue. If not a month from Assad's victory, then a matter of a few years. He will be too weak to maintain control for long enough to rebuild the country. No matter what, your ally is gone. But if you are the hero now, the population might very well see you as a friend, or at least not HATE you when the dust settles."

Putin might go for that. He does care about his legacy, if I recall certain arguments Sarkozy made to him regarding Georgia properly.

Blue on Blue happens. Everyone involved knows that. The Russians know it, we know it, and our militaries are more or less professional about it. More to the point, neither side in such an instance will think it is in their interests to go to war over an accident. It is not a nuclear escalation when two squads of soldiers get confused.

1. Backlash over a perceived imperialist occupation.

That is an issue, but doing an occupation right will alleviate it somewhat. No no-bid contracts to Halliburton, use UN or NATO peacekeeping troops as much as possible, Kurds can police their own territory etc. No Fucking Drones except in Close Air Support of infantry. Get civil government services (as opposed to legislative etc) up as quickly as possible and rebuild infrastructure as fast as possible (mass deploy the army corps of engineers...). Basic police, fire services etc. At this point, everyone and their mother is going to know that this is a humanitarian/global security force. So unless we do something to prove this incorrect we should be fine. Though the tumblrites will tumblr, and the civilian population likely wont like us much, but they will like us a hell of a lot more than the raging madmen they are dealing with now.

Plus... attacking "our" civilians is a cassus belli on its own. No imperialism required. You will note that we were NEVER accused of imperialism with Afghanistan by anyone sane. No nation-state or group of allied nation states can accept attacks made against it/them by state actors (and Da'esh is a de facto state actor at this point). They must respond back militarily or they are failing in their first duty of government, which is maintain their sovereignty, territorial integrity, and lives of its citizens.

2. Possible resulting increase in Jihadi recruitment.

That might be a thing, but that risk has to be weighed against what is already going on. In humanitarian terms, it is far worse to have a group of jihadists who control territory than a dozen groups that dont.

3.Atrocities that may be committed by those troops.

That happens in war. On the other hand, compared to Da'esh, nothing a few troops who snap really measures up on the kilonazi meter.

4. Lack of political will for it.

That is my only real misgiving yes. Doing everything right requires the political will. Blasting the airwaves with atrocities committed by Da'esh might do it though. Nobody likes slavers. These fuckers are slavers of the most vile kind.

Maybe you didn't accuse me of sympathizing with them (that was more directed at some of Broomstick's comments), but you think, or claim to think, that I want to achieve a diplomatic solution with them, and that's horse shit.

I mean, if IS magically transformed into a group that was open to such a thing, maybe then, but I might as well wish for Q to snap his fingers and make it all go away. And probably not even then, because they've committed so many crimes I wouldn't be satisfied with any concessions less than all their leadership and a lot of their rank and files in prison for life for war crimes.

Alright then.

Though, given my opposition to the death penalty for civil crimes, I would be perfectly happy executing these fuckers. Crimes against civilization/humanity are a somewhat higher class of crime than mere murder, in my view. But that is a discussion for another time.

I am aware that airstrikes can kill civilians, of course, though I believe we should try to minimize such casualties as much as possible, and of course not deliberately target civilians.

The thing with air strikes is that they really do require a spotter on the ground to avoid hitting civilians in an urban setting. A drone operator or pilot cannot make the determination with the available optics whether a cylindrical object is an RPG or a camera tripod, as we have seen. Even if they can, overpressure and shrapnel will kill a lot more civilians than a few dozen soldiers going in and clearing the city block.

ROE need a bit of adjusting...

I also accept the need for infantry. However, my hope is that it can be done largely with local troops. No, that hasn't succeeded yet. But let's be honest. No strategy is going to end this in a day. Send in a huge ground force and IS simply goes underground and wages an insurgency like we fought for years in Iraq and Afghanistan before they ever showed up. Unless we're prepared to basically level whole neighbourhoods, anyway. And probably even then.

There is no one really left. We would need to raise and train them ourselves, civil police first, then military, with a clear distinction between the two. Which is why, ideally, we would get local police forces online as fast as possible. In the interim though, we would need something like UN peacekeepers and MPs. An insurgency only really works if the local population sides with the insurgents. Which... the locals by and large dont, last I checked. In some areas they might, but that is not most of the country.
Without that, they dont have places to hide and they dont have a means of resupply. Iraq and Afghanistan went the way they did largely because we alienated the civilian population. Badly. That is, as far as I know anyway. I could be wrong there.

Also, maybe I'm overreacting, but doesn't "goat fuckers" have some racist/Islamophobic connotations to it?

Not that I am aware. It is what I generally use to describe creepy-ass death cultists. Camel-fuckers likely has that connotation. If goat-fuckers does, I will select some other barnyard animal. Ducks, maybe.

[Ralin]

Putin might go for that. He does care about his legacy, if I recall certain arguments Sarkozy made to him regarding Georgia properly.

Didn't Sarkozy straight up say something like "But do you really want to be lumped in with George W Bush?"

[Wild Zontargs]

Since it didn't qualify for the Political Cartoons thread, I'll re-post this here:

It must be incredibly frustrating as an Islamic Jihadist not to have your views and motives taken seriously by the societies you terrorize, even after you have explicitly and repeatedly stated them. Even worse, those on the regressive left, in their endless capacity for masochism and self-loathing, have attempted to shift blame inwardly on themselves, denying the Jihadists even the satisfaction of claiming responsibility.

It’s like a bad Monty Python sketch:

“We did this because our holy texts exhort us to to do it.”

“No you didn’t.”

“Wait, what? Yes we did…”

“No, this has nothing to do with religion. You guys are just using religion as a front for social and geopolitical reasons.”

“WHAT!? Did you even read our official statement? We give explicit Quranic justification. This is jihad, a holy crusade against pagans, blasphemers, and disbelievers.”

“No, this is definitely not a Muslim thing. You guys are not true Muslims, and you defame a great religion by saying so.”

“Huh!? Who are you to tell us we’re not true Muslims!? Islam is literally at the core of everything we do, and we have implemented the truest most literal and honest interpretation of its founding texts. It is our very reason for being.”

“Nope. We created you. We installed a social and economic system that alienates and disenfranchises you, and that’s why you did this. We’re sorry.”

“What? Why are you apologizing? We just slaughtered you mercilessly in the streets. We targeted unwitting civilians – disenfranchisement doesn’t even enter into it!”

“Listen, it’s our fault. We don’t blame you for feeling unwelcome and lashing out.”

“Seriously, stop taking credit for this! We worked really hard to pull this off, and we’re not going to let you take it away from us.”

“No, we nourished your extremism. We accept full blame.”

“OMG, how many people do we have to kill around here to finally get our message across?”

[Channel72]

^
I mean, yeah, groups like ISIS are obviously motivated by Islam... but that's not really saying much. Firstly, it's impossible to separate Islamism from geopolitics, as Islam is inherently a political religion. But it helps to note that groups like ISIS have similar ideologies to many other Jihadist groups throughout Syria, Iraq and Libya. It's not like ISIS and Al Nusra Front, for example, whose ideology is pretty much indistinguishable from ISIS, are cooperating in any sense. They've spent a lot of time fighting each other, which reveals something which is more like a simple power-struggle among rival warlords than a total devotion to Islamic principles. In fact, if you ever read ISIS' stupid "magazine", Dabiq, you see that they spend more time railing against Al Qaeda and followers of Mullah Omar in Afghanistan, than they do criticizing the West. They're obviously a bit insecure about their claims of being the "real deal" Caliphate being taken seriously by the Muslim world at large.

Of course, the idea behind the Western apologetic attitude being parodied here is that rampaging Jihadist militias wouldn't even exist without US/Western intervention. Which is true, of course: right now there are at least 5 or 6 major Jihadist factions controlling various territories in Libya, and it's the same situation in Syria. ISIS is the most successful and gets the most media coverage, but if you just look at a map of Syria you see that ISIS is just one among many Jihadist rebel groups currently claiming territory.

Still, it's like, the US can't even fucking touch a Middle Eastern country without it instantly turning into Jihad-central. But that merely reveals that US intervention serves more as a enabling agent, or catalyst, for forces which already existed prior to US intervention. I mean, it's not like these Jihadist groups didn't exist under Saddam or Assad. They simply never had the opportunity to seize power. The US didn't really create them, it just enabled them.

So who created them? Well, it's already been mentioned several times in this thread, but this NY Times opinion piece, I think, summarizes the situation nicely:

Black Daesh, white Daesh. The former slits throats, kills, stones, cuts off hands, destroys humanity’s common heritage and despises archaeology, women and non-Muslims. The latter is better dressed and neater but does the same things. The Islamic State; Saudi Arabia. In its struggle against terrorism, the West wages war on one, but shakes hands with the other. This is a mechanism of denial, and denial has a price: preserving the famous strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia at the risk of forgetting that the kingdom also relies on an alliance with a religious clergy that produces, legitimizes, spreads, preaches and defends Wahhabism, the ultra-puritanical form of Islam that Daesh feeds on.

Wahhabism, a messianic radicalism that arose in the 18th century, hopes to restore a fantasized caliphate centered on a desert, a sacred book, and two holy sites, Mecca and Medina. Born in massacre and blood, it manifests itself in a surreal relationship with women, a prohibition against non-Muslims treading on sacred territory, and ferocious religious laws. That translates into an obsessive hatred of imagery and representation and therefore art, but also of the body, nakedness and freedom. Saudi Arabia is a Daesh that has made it.

The West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia is striking: It salutes the theocracy as its ally but pretends not to notice that it is the world’s chief ideological sponsor of Islamist culture. The younger generations of radicals in the so-called Arab world were not born jihadists. They were suckled in the bosom of Fatwa Valley, a kind of Islamist Vatican with a vast industry that produces theologians, religious laws, books, and aggressive editorial policies and media campaigns.

One might counter: Isn’t Saudi Arabia itself a possible target of Daesh? Yes, but to focus on that would be to overlook the strength of the ties between the reigning family and the clergy that accounts for its stability — and also, increasingly, for its precariousness. The Saudi royals are caught in a perfect trap: Weakened by succession laws that encourage turnover, they cling to ancestral ties between king and preacher. The Saudi clergy produces Islamism, which both threatens the country and gives legitimacy to the regime.

One has to live in the Muslim world to understand the immense transformative influence of religious television channels on society by accessing its weak links: households, women, rural areas. Islamist culture is widespread in many countries — Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Mali, Mauritania. There are thousands of Islamist newspapers and clergies that impose a unitary vision of the world, tradition and clothing on the public space, on the wording of the government’s laws and on the rituals of a society they deem to be contaminated.

It is worth reading certain Islamist newspapers to see their reactions to the attacks in Paris. The West is cast as a land of “infidels.” The attacks were the result of the onslaught against Islam. Muslims and Arabs have become the enemies of the secular and the Jews. The Palestinian question is invoked along with the rape of Iraq and the memory of colonial trauma, and packaged into a messianic discourse meant to seduce the masses. Such talk spreads in the social spaces below, while up above, political leaders send their condolences to France and denounce a crime against humanity. This totally schizophrenic situation parallels the West’s denial regarding Saudi Arabia.

All of which leaves one skeptical of Western democracies’ thunderous declarations regarding the necessity of fighting terrorism. Their war can only be myopic, for it targets the effect rather than the cause. Since ISIS is first and foremost a culture, not a militia, how do you prevent future generations from turning to jihadism when the influence of Fatwa Valley and its clerics and its culture and its immense editorial industry remains intact?

Is curing the disease therefore a simple matter? Hardly. Saudi Arabia remains an ally of the West in the many chess games playing out in the Middle East. It is preferred to Iran, that gray Daesh. And there’s the trap. Denial creates the illusion of equilibrium. Jihadism is denounced as the scourge of the century but no consideration is given to what created it or supports it. This may allow saving face, but not saving lives.

Daesh has a mother: the invasion of Iraq. But it also has a father: Saudi Arabia and its religious-industrial complex. Until that point is understood, battles may be won, but the war will be lost. Jihadists will be killed, only to be reborn again in future generations and raised on the same books.

The attacks in Paris have exposed this contradiction again, but as happened after 9/11, it risks being erased from our analyses and our consciences.

Apart from equating the Saudis and ISIS (ISIS is obviously much worse...), this article is a pretty accurate assessment of the situation.

It also tangentially addresses that key question which Westerners always argue about after these sort of major terrorist attacks: Are groups like ISIS representative of "real" Islam, or are they are a perversion of Islam? On the one hand, who gives a shit? - ISIS is a problem that needs to be solved, and even if some of their beliefs have Koranic support, it really doesn't help to lump them in with billions of mainstream Muslims, if we ever hope to achieve some kind of productive relationship with the billions of Muslims on this planet.

On the other hand, if we're interested in a purely academic answer to the question, it's difficult to say because a text like the Koran can produce a wide range of interpretations. But the reality is that nothing as extreme as ISIS has ever existed in the Muslim world before the 20th/21st century, meaning that for almost a millennium and a half, Islam has existed and thrived, without producing loads of radical, death-cult Jihadist suicide bombers. So what changed? Again, what changed is that the Muslim equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church suddenly struck oil and started generating hundreds of billions in annual revenues. Imagine if the WBC suddenly became overnight billionaires. I mean, the radicalizing affect this would have on Christianity would be pretty powerful.

[K. A. Pital]

But the reality is that nothing as extreme as ISIS has ever existed in the Muslim world before the 20th/21st century, meaning that for almost a millennium and a half, Islam has existed and thrived, without producing loads of radical, death-cult Jihadist suicide bombers. So what changed? Again, what changed is that the Muslim equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church suddenly struck oil and started generating hundreds of billions in annual revenues. Imagine if the WBC suddenly became overnight billionaires. I mean, the radicalizing affect this would have on Christianity would be pretty powerful.

Well said. Or if one of the less-known hardcore cults inside a bigger Church (say, the Catholic one) suddenly got incredibly wealthy, got its own state (that would also conveniently house the greatest relics of the entire religion) and got a say in world politics. And weapons. Tons of guns, loads of the most modern weapons sold to them from all over the world. It's like the Order of Saint John in their pirate days, except ten times more hardcore, and also controlling the Vatican instead of some rocks in the Mediterrantean.

[Thanas]

Well, at least the argument can be made that the Order of St. John was by its very situation largely defensive and curbed the piracy coming out of Tunis. No such argument can be made for SA however.

[Flagg]

The funny part is that a good portion of the people I see on FB and other places with French flags and offering unequivocal solidarity with the French people were some of the same "Boycott France" "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys" "Freedom Fries" douchebags all butthurt because the French were too intelligent to join the US in it's moronic crusade against secular, anti-Wahhabism, and potential partner regimes in putting down Al Qaeda in the years after 9/11. If the irony weren't so pathetic it would be funny.

Could you elaborate? Because I'm not seeing anything funny or ironic about it. It's pretty much how French people reacted to 9/11, after all

You don't see irony in war whores insulting a nation for not joining them in a downright stupid war of aggression against a potential partner in the war against radical Islam suddenly "standing in solidarity" with the French now that a bunch of innocent French citizens were mass murdered and France is now apparently taking the lead (or at least contributing much more) in fighting a group that wouldn't have existed to attack their citizens if the good old USA hadn't taken a maul to what stability was in the region circa March 15, 2003?

[Ziggy Stardust]

You don't see irony in war whores insulting a nation for not joining them in a downright stupid war of aggression against a potential partner in the war against radical Islam suddenly "standing in solidarity" with the French now that a bunch of innocent French citizens were mass murdered and France is now apparently taking the lead (or at least contributing much more) in fighting a group that wouldn't have existed to attack their citizens if the good old USA hadn't taken a maul to what stability was in the region circa March 15, 2003?

That's ... almost the exact opposite of irony? Irony would be if the war whores were glorifying the attacks on Paris and saying that they had it coming, despite having previously criticized the French for not reacting as irrationally as they did to 9/11. Because that WOULD be hypocritical.

The whole reason that stupid war of aggression happened was due to anger and a desire for revenge for 9/11, and the war whores took it personally that the French didn't have the same reaction and want to join in (I agree with you, of course, that the war whores are morons and the war shouldn't have happened). So it isn't at all inconsistent for them to express support for the French now that they are the victims and we are the sympathetic allies. If anything, it's literally the exact way you would expect those people to react given how we know they reacted to previous terrorist attacks.

Now, that said, I hate the people you are criticizing as much as anybody, and am perfectly willing to call them morons, assholes, lunatics, hypocrites, etc. But a misuse of the word "irony"? That is something up with which I will not put.

[ray245]

The funny part is that a good portion of the people I see on FB and other places with French flags and offering unequivocal solidarity with the French people were some of the same "Boycott France" "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys" "Freedom Fries" douchebags all butthurt because the French were too intelligent to join the US in it's moronic crusade against secular, anti-Wahhabism, and potential partner regimes in putting down Al Qaeda in the years after 9/11. If the irony weren't so pathetic it would be funny.

Could you elaborate? Because I'm not seeing anything funny or ironic about it. It's pretty much how French people reacted to 9/11, after all

You don't see irony in war whores insulting a nation for not joining them in a downright stupid war of aggression against a potential partner in the war against radical Islam suddenly "standing in solidarity" with the French now that a bunch of innocent French citizens were mass murdered and France is now apparently taking the lead (or at least contributing much more) in fighting a group that wouldn't have existed to attack their citizens if the good old USA hadn't taken a maul to what stability was in the region circa March 15, 2003?

Just because someone is a dick or a war whore does not mean they can express some form of shared grief. It's not as if those people are really laughing at the French because "they had it coming" or something.

[Ralin]

Yeah, pretty much what they said.

Honestly it's a few notches better than what I would expect from that demographic, namely ray's "Haha, serves you right you stupid surrender monkeys" example

[Flagg]

Could you elaborate? Because I'm not seeing anything funny or ironic about it. It's pretty much how French people reacted to 9/11, after all

You don't see irony in war whores insulting a nation for not joining them in a downright stupid war of aggression against a potential partner in the war against radical Islam suddenly "standing in solidarity" with the French now that a bunch of innocent French citizens were mass murdered and France is now apparently taking the lead (or at least contributing much more) in fighting a group that wouldn't have existed to attack their citizens if the good old USA hadn't taken a maul to what stability was in the region circa March 15, 2003?

Just because someone is a dick or a war whore does not mean they can express some form of shared grief. It's not as if those people are really laughing at the French because "they had it coming" or something.

I never said that was the case. I said that the same people who mocked the French for not joining America's dumb crusade in 2003 (that in the long run created ISIS) are some of the same ones with French flags on FB and are "standing in solidarity" with the French, which is ironic since it was their war whoring that pretty much led to this attack in the first place. Unless you think ISIS would exist in an Iraq controlled by Saddam Hussein, who ran a largely secular government who despised everything Al Qaeda, The Taliban, and ISIS stand for, which would make you a drooling moron.

And I never said they were celebrating or "I told you so-ing". But rather than pretending they weren't making fun of the French for not joining the dumbest war (so far) of the 21st century, with their "freedom fries" and the NYPost having "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys" as their headline, they are just pretending none of that happened and shouting "Viva Le France!", at least until they decide to not join another stupid American war, when the old "French rifle for sale, never fired, dropped once" "jokes" will start right back up. Still, the idiots who paid a bundle on fine French wine, all to dump it down the sewer in public stupidity spectacles as if the seller gives a shit what the buyer does with their product once they have the morons money (they don't).

[Ralin]

I'm not in America right now, but I don't think expressing sympathy and solidarity for France requires pretending they weren't taking cheap shots at the French for their supposed cowardice a decade ago, no.

Still, the idiots who paid a bundle on fine French wine, all to dump it down the sewer in public stupidity spectacles as if the seller gives a shit what the buyer does with their product once they have the morons money (they don't).

You sure about that? The idea was to mock France, not the wine seller in particular. I'm sure plenty of Americans would have been offended by a public ceremonial defecation on, I dunno. Pictures of Chuck Norris.

I mean, all those people burning American flags at rallies had to be buying them somewhere...

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/peace-plan ... picks=true

Something is definitely stirring at the Vienna talks aimed at ending Syria's vicious civil war and it looks suspiciously like hope — however hard it is to credit any positive news these days.

The haggard diplomatic faces have been replaced by moderately happy ones, one sign that the meetings are going better than were expected a few months back.

No doubt the atrocity in Paris just over a week ago has had something to do with this.

Whatever the case, forward movement here is significant because there's arguably nothing the world needs more at this time than to terminate the bloody war that for almost five years has spewed add-on conflicts and insurgencies like volcanic ash over the entire Middle East and, now, much of Europe.

You can forget crushing ISIS, or slowing down the surge of refugees flowing out of the region until the world's powers act to clamp down on this historic eruption of violence and misery.

Hollande to meet Obama, Putin this week, seeks global coalition against ISIS
Syria ceasefire could be just weeks away: Kerry
It's difficult, of course, to speak of hope because nothing has a shorter lifespan when it comes to Middle East peace efforts.

"The Middle East is like a Rubik's cube that doesn't have a solution no matter how much you move the pieces around," as political writer Lawrence Wright famously put it some years back.

That said, some past wars in the region have been ended, often after war weariness saps the will to fight on, but also when major powers exert real pressure to end the fighting because it's in their particular interests.

Key concessions

Those signs, including war weariness, are now starting to emerge.

Key players on opposite sides of the conflict — such as Russia and the U.S. — seem to realize that this war is now feeding jihadist violence that is threatening all nations.

So they've started making concessions to arrive at a common roadmap for the differing Syrian factions to follow.

Simplified greatly, the object is to get a ceasefire and some sort of collaboration between the Assad regime and the so-called moderate rebels by as early as January no less.

Then, using this transitional truce and lots of UN help, seek a new Syrian constitution to arrive at national elections and a new government within 18 months.

MIDEAST-CRISIS/SYRIA-TALKS
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and UN Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura joke during a press conference following Syrian peace talks in Vienna earlier this month. Lightheartedness has been rare on this front. (Leonhard Foeger/Reuters)

It's an optimistic deadline. But if a ceasefire can be arranged that should also accelerate efforts to eliminate ISIS and other jihadist militias on the ground, while, at the same time, establish safe havens where Syrians and northern Iraqis can start rebuilding their countries.

Lest this all seem like a pipedream, remember that these Vienna talks have succeeded in getting 17 parties of some considerable clout to the table.

Among others, the list includes the five permanent members of the UN Security Council as well as all the important regional powerhouses such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and the Gulf States.

Maybe most notable is that Iran and Saudi Arabia, two of the most diehard foes you can find, and who both helped fuel the war, appeared in the same conference room for the first time, to the astonishment of the world's media.

Both wouldn't be there if they weren't convinced something big is in play.

Assad's time is up

To get the process this far, concessions have been required. Western partners have dropped the "Assad must go" demand as the two main backers of his regime, Russia and Iran, were unwavering in their insistence that Bashar al-Assad must at least be part of the initial transitional administration.

At the same time, it seems clear that both Moscow and Tehran have told Assad that his time in power is limited.

He's being pushed to prepare for power-sharing with rebels, and will likely exit as any new constitution and elections loom.

The tricky bit here involves getting Russia and Iran to deliver the Assad government to the process, and for Obama and the West to do the same with the non-jihadists who have been fighting him, an always fractured alliance.

Many rebels will scream betrayal if Assad remains even temporarily, but the U.S. and Europeans, and possibly even Saudis, are making it clear the world wants this war ended.

MIDEAST-CRISIS/SYRIA-KURDS
Kurdish women, helping the newly formed Democratic Forces of Syria, cheer near the Syrian town of al Houl in Hasaka province, after the U.S.-backed group took control of the area from ISIS in mid-November. (Rodi Said/Reuters)

Many U.S. Republicans are also upset that these emerging deals would appear to leave Russia and Iran with some permanent stakes in Syria.

But what is not in anyone's interest is to see Syrian government infrastructure destroyed the way it was in Iraq, leaving anarchy behind.

So the peace process calls for essential government structures — bureaucracy, army, economic infrastructure, schools and such — to remain intact.

One key detail: The future constitution will insist on a non-sectarian government with firm guarantees for all religions and ethnic groups, including Kurds, Sunnis, Alawites and Orthodox Christians (a population strongly backed by Russia).

In other nations wracked by long civil wars, such as Lebanon, years of outside financial aid was needed, not just to rebuild bombed-out buildings and spur economic revival, but to persuade refugees it was safe enough to return home.

Such is the desire to solve the Syria problem that diplomats are already speculating on the massive Marshall plan-type program to come, to be financed largely by Western powers and Gulf States.

After all these years when you wouldn't dare link the words Syria and peace in the same sentence, well, it may actually happen.

Some good news. Although I fear that Turkey's dumbassery in shooting down a Russian fighter will sink it.

I often try to defend America against its harsher and more simplistic critics, but I'll acknowledge this much right now- America has fucking horrible taste in allies.

[cmdrjones]

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?

Good question! It's not the call for rationality i objected too... also the train is fine.

[cmdrjones]

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?

Wanting rationality from someone who equates apathy towards attacks any person with a brain knew would hit the west somewhere at some point with cowardice is like wanting rotting shit to smell like fresh cinnamon buns.

The funny part is that a good portion of the people I see on FB and other places with French flags and offering unequivocal solidarity with the French people were some of the same "Boycott France" "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys" "Freedom Fries" douchebags all butthurt because the French were too intelligent to join the US in it's moronic crusade against secular, anti-Wahhabism, and potential partner regimes in putting down Al Qaeda in the years after 9/11. If the irony weren't so pathetic it would be funny.

sadly we agree for once...
if this is at all accurate... well. let's hope NATO breaks up and the various contingent nations can adopt sane policies from now on:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-2 ... s-evidence

[Wild Zontargs]

Apologies for the necro, but there's some new information coming to light. French lawmakers told Bataclan terrorists tortured, disemboweled victims (Yes, I know, Fox News, but the source document in the first link looks legit.)

A French government committee has heard testimony, suppressed by the French government at the time and not released to the media, that the killers in the Bataclan tortured their victims on the second floor of the club, Heat Street reported exclusively.

Police witnesses in Parliament said they vomited when they saw the disfigured bodies.

Wahhabist killers apparently gouged out eyes, castatrated victims, and shoved their testicles in their mouths. They may also have disembowelled some poor souls. Women were stabbed in the genitals – and all the torture was, victims told police, filmed by Daesh or Islamic state for propaganda. As such, medics did not release the bodies of torture victims to the families, investigators said. Prosecutors claimed this was “a rumour” on the grounds that sharp knives were not found at the scene. They also claimed maybe shrapnel had caused the injuries.

Q. For the information of the Commission of Inquiry….can you tell us how you learned that there had been acts of barbarism within the Bataclan: beheadings, evisceration, eyes gouged out …?

Investigator: After the assault, we were with colleagues at the passage Saint-Pierre Amelot when I saw weeping from one of our colleagues who came outside to vomit. He told us what he had seen.

Q. Acts of torture happened on the second floor?

Further on the investigator described how this was kept from relatives:

A. Bodies have not been presented to families because there were beheaded people there, the murdered people, people who have been disembowelled . There are women who had their genitals stabbed.

Q. All this would have been videotaped for Daesh !

A. I believe so. Survivors have said so.

Elsewhere the investigator says women were sexually tortured, stabbed in the genitals, and eyes plucked out. People were decapitated.

The committee chief pressed the investigator if victims were decapitated or mutilated. He stated that the authorities had given out conflicting information, that victims were merely shot or blown up. The President of the Committee replied with this damning statement about one victim’s father discovering the gruesome truth in the morgue:

Mr. President Georges Fenech Indeed, the Committee is troubled by this information which hasappeard nowhere [in the media]. Thus, the father of one of the victims sent me a copy of a letter he sent to the investigating judge, which I quote in summary: “On the causes of the death of my son A., at the forensic institute in Paris, I was told, and what a shock it was for me at that moment, they had cut off his testicles, had put them in his mouth, and he was disembowelled. When I saw him behind glass, lying on a table, a white shroud covering it up to the neck, a psychologist was with me. He said: “The only presentable part of your son’s left profile.” I found that he had no right eye. I made the remark; I was informed that they had punctured his eye and sliced down the right side of his face, where very large hematoma that we could all see. ”

This particular witness could corroborate the statements that we heard from one of the BAC officials, that one of his investigators vomited immediately on leaving the Bataclan after finding a decapitation and evisceration. Are you aware of such facts?

The prosecutor replied lamely that no sharp knife had been found at the scene that could have been used these tortures.

[Dominus Atheos]

Nope, didn't happen:

http://www.snopes.com/france-covered-up ... n-victims/

FALSE

...

The portion in question originated via an inquiry published (not suppressed) by the French government, based on 21 March 2016 testimony in which investigators were asked about rumors of torture or propaganda creation at the Bataclan. A translated version of the inquiry's minutes revealed that investigators soundly debunked the claims on record:

Mr President Fenech For the information of the inquiry, Mr. PT, can you tell us how you learned that there had been acts of barbarism within the Bataclan: beheadings, evisceration, enucleations?

MTP After the assault, we were with colleagues at the passage Saint-Pierre Amelot when I saw tears streaming out of the eyes of an investigator who went to vomit. He told us what he had seen. I did not know this colleague, but he was so shocked that it went to see it myself, naturally.

Alain Marsaud. Acts of torture happened on the second floor?

MTP I think, as I entered at the ground floor I saw there no such thing had occurred, only people hit by bullets.

Minutes from the inquiry session of 30 March 2016 again addressed what were clearly marked as rumors, and the government inquisition again heard no forensic evidence that supported such claims:

Mr. President. Following the November attacks, he was referred to the commission of barbaric acts.

François Molins. It's a rumor. Forensic doctors were categorical: there was no act of barbarism, no use, including knives. According to a witness, the testicles of a victim were cut off, but no findings have corroborated it.

[Wild Zontargs]

Ah, I see. The quotes in the Fox article are in the report, but there's been some fuckery with the context, and the quotes have been reported out of order.

M. le président Georges Fenech. Je crois que certaines choses n’ont jamais été dites. Je pense que l’on pourrait peut-être, à ce stade, éclaircir les choses.

M. T. P. Des corps n’ont pas été présentés aux familles parce qu’il y a eu des gens décapités, des gens égorgés, des gens qui ont été éviscérés. Il y a des femmes qui ont pris des coups de couteau au niveau des appareils génitaux.

M. le président Georges Fenech. Tout cela aurait été filmé en vidéo pour DAECH !

M. T. P. Il me semble. Les victimes en ont parlé.

M. le rapporteur. Ces actes ont été commis par les deux survivants. Savez-vous si vous avez blessé celui sur lequel vous avez tiré dans le passage Saint-Pierre-Amelot ?

M. T. P. Je pense, mais je n’ai aucune certitude. Comme ils se sont fait sauter, on ne peut pas savoir s’il était blessé au tronc. Je pense l’avoir touché car les tirs ont cessé, et la porte s’est refermée. Le fait que la kalachnikov s’affaisse et que les portes se referment me semble significatif. Plus tard, nous avons parlé avec le civil qui nous faisait des signes dans le passage Saint-Pierre-Amelot : il nous a dit que nous avions touché le tireur et que c’est pour cela qu’il avait cessé de tirer.

Après ce moment, les tirs que nous avons entendus à l’intérieur n’étaient que très sporadiques. Il n’y a plus eu de rafales. Selon toute vraisemblance, un des terroristes ou plusieurs achevaient les gens. Ensuite, j’avoue que je n’ai fait que quinze mètres à l’intérieur du Bataclan derrière la BRI. Ma présence n’était pas nécessaire, je suis donc ressorti. Ce que j’avais vu m’avait suffi.

M. Pierre Lellouche. Les exactions sur les gens se sont déroulées à quel endroit ?

M. T. P. À l’étage.

M. Pierre Lellouche. Cela se passe après que l’individu que vous avez blessé est remonté ?

M. T. P. Je pense même que ça s’est produit avant, mais ce n’est que mon avis personnel. Pendant que nous fixions un terroriste à la porte de secours, un autre faisait toutes ces choses ignobles à l’étage.

M. Pierre Lellouche. La vidéo est partie ?

M. le président Georges Fenech. Je crois savoir que des vidéos sont parties.

M. Pierre Lellouche. On peut le savoir si l’on a récupéré les portables des victimes. On les a ?

M. T. P. Ils se sont fait exploser. Il y a eu des personnes décapitées, égorgées, éviscérées. Il y a eu des mimiques d’actes sexuels sur des femmes et des coups de couteau au niveau des appareils génitaux. Si je ne me trompe pas, les yeux de certaines personnes ont été arrachés.

----------

Google translate:

Mr. President Georges Fenech. I think some things were never said. I think maybe we could, at this stage, clear things up.

Mr. T. P. Bodies have not been presented to families because it had beheaded people there, the murdered people, people who have been eviscerated. There are women who have taken stabs at the genitals.

Mr. President Georges Fenech. All this would have been videotaped for DAECH!

Mr. T. P. I think. Victims have spoken.

The Rapporteur. These acts were committed by the two survivors. Do you know if you hurt the one you have drawn in St. Pierre Amelot pass?

Mr. T. P. I think, but I have no certainty. As they blew themselves up, we can not know if he was hurt trunk. I think I have touched since the shooting stopped, and the door closed. The fact that the Kalashnikov collapses and the doors close seems to me significant. Later, we talked with the civilian who made us signs in the passage Saint-Pierre Amelot: he told us we had touched the shooter and that's why it had stopped firing.

After this time, the shots we heard inside were only very sporadic. There has been no gusts. In all likelihood, a terrorist or more people were finishing. Then I confess that I have only fifteen meters inside the Bataclan behind the BIS. My presence was not necessary, so I stood. What I had seen was enough for me.

Pierre Lellouche. Abuses of people were held where?

Mr. T. P. Upstairs.

Pierre Lellouche. This happens after the person you hurt is raised?

Mr. T. P. I even think that it happened before, but this is only my personal opinion. While we fixed a terrorist to the emergency door, another was doing all these things ignoble upstairs.

Pierre Lellouche. The video is part?

Mr. President Georges Fenech. I understand that videos are parties.

Pierre Lellouche. We can know if the portable victims were recovered. Was the?

Mr. T. P. They blew themselves up. There was decapitated people slaughtered, gutted. There were expressions of sexual acts on women and stabbing at the genitals. If I'm not mistaken, the eyes of some people have been uprooted.

Then later:

M. le président Georges Fenech. En effet, la commission est troublée par ces informations, qui n’ont filtré nulle part. Ainsi, le père de l’une des victimes m’a adressé la copie d’une lettre qu’il a transmise au juge d’instruction, que je cite en résumant : « Sur les causes de la mort de mon fils A., à l’institut médico-légal de Paris, on m’a dit, et ce avec des réserves compte tenu du choc que cela représentait pour moi à cet instant-là, qu’on lui avait coupé les testicules, qu’on les lui avait mis dans la bouche, et qu’il avait été éventré. Lorsque je l’ai vu derrière une vitre, allongé sur une table, un linceul blanc le recouvrant jusqu’au cou, une psychologue m’accompagnait. Cette dernière m’a dit : ‟La seule partie montrable de votre fils est son profil gauche.” J’ai constaté qu’il n’avait plus d’œil droit. J’en ai fait la remarque ; il m’a été répondu qu’ils lui avaient crevé l’œil et enfoncé la face droite de son visage, d’où des hématomes très importants que nous avons pu tous constater lors de sa mise en bière. »

Ce témoignage précis pourrait corroborer les propos que nous a tenus l’un des fonctionnaires de la BAC, selon lequel l’un des enquêteurs a vomi immédiatement en sortant du Bataclan après avoir constaté une décapitation et des éviscérations. Avez-vous connaissance de tels faits ?

M. Michel Cadot. Je n’ai eu aucune connaissance de ces faits, ni par l’Institut médico-légal ni par les fonctionnaires en question. Il appartient de toute évidence à l’enquête judiciaire d’en apprécier la véracité. J’ai néanmoins compris qu’il n’a été retrouvé sur le site de l’attaque aucun couteau ni aucun autre engin tranchant qui aurait permis ce type de mutilations. Il sera aisé de le vérifier dans le cadre de l’enquête. En ce qui me concerne, encore une fois, je n'ai reçu aucun message de la sorte provenant de l’Institut médico-légal ou de la direction de tutelle de la BAC concernée.

M. Christian Sainte. Je ne peux guère m’avancer sur ce point, compte tenu de l’état de l’enquête, mais rien, en l’état actuel de mes connaissances, ne me permet de penser que ce qui vient d’être lu est juste. Je précise, pour que les choses soient claires, que certains des corps retrouvés au Bataclan étaient extrêmement mutilés par les explosions et par les armes, à tel point qu’il fut parfois difficile de reconstituer les corps démembrés. Autrement dit, les blessures que décrit ce père peuvent aussi avoir été causées par des armes automatiques, par les explosions ou par les projections de clous et de boulons qui en ont résulté.

M. le président Georges Fenech. On lui aurait mis ses testicules dans la bouche…

M. Christian Sainte. Je ne dispose pas de cette information et, si ces faits avaient été établis, je pense qu’une telle information ne m’aurait pas échappé.

------

Google Translate:

Mr. President Georges Fenech. Indeed, the Committee is troubled by this information which have filtered nowhere. Thus, the father of one of the victims sent me a copy of a letter he sent to the investigating judge, which I quote in summary: "On the causes of the death of my son A., the forensic institute in Paris, I was told, and with reserves given the shock it was for me at that moment, they had cut off his testicles, it's him had put in his mouth, and he was disembowelled. When I saw it behind glass, lying on a table, a white shroud covering it up to the neck, a psychologist with me. The latter said: "The only presentable part of your son's left profile." I found that it had no right eye. I made the remark; I was informed that they had punctured his eye and down the right side of his face, where very large hematoma that we could all see when it is in beer. "

This particular witness could corroborate the statements that kept us one of the BAC officials that one of the investigators vomited immediately on leaving the Bataclan after finding a decapitation and evisceration. Are you aware of such facts?

Michel Cadot. I had no knowledge of these facts, nor by the Forensic Institute or by the officials in question. It is obvious to the court to assess the veracity investigation. Nevertheless, I realized that was found at the site of the attack no no knife or other sharp device that would allow this type of mutilation. It will be easy to check as part of the investigation. In my case, once again, I have not received any message of the sort from the Forensic Institute or the direction of guardianship of the relevant BAC.

Christian Scripture. I can hardly move forward on this point, given the state of the investigation, but nothing in the present state of my knowledge allows me to think that what has just been read is correct. I specify, for the sake of clarity, some of the bodies found at the Bataclan were extremely mutilated by the explosions and weapons, to the point that it was sometimes difficult to reconstruct the dismembered bodies. In other words, injuries described this father may also have been caused by automatic weapons by explosions or projections of nails and bolts that have resulted.

Mr. President Georges Fenech. It would have put him his balls in your mouth ...

Christian Scripture. I do not have that information and if these facts had been established, I think such information would not have escaped.

Towards the end:

M. le président Georges Fenech. Pour l’information de la commission d’enquête, monsieur P. T., pouvez-vous nous dire comment vous avez appris qu’il y avait eu des actes de barbarie à l’intérieur du Bataclan : décapitations, éviscérations, énucléations… ?

M. T. P. Après l’assaut, nous étions avec des collègues au niveau du passage Saint-Pierre-Amelot lorsque j’ai vu sortir un enquêteur en pleurs qui est allé vomir. Il nous a dit ce qu’il avait vu. Je ne connaissais pas ce collègue, mais il avait été tellement choqué que c’est sorti naturellement.

M. Alain Marsaud. Les actes de tortures se sont passés au deuxième étage ?

M. T. P. Je pense, car je suis entré au niveau du rez-de-chaussée où il n’y avait rien de tel, seulement des personnes touchées par des balles.

----------

Mr. President Georges Fenech. For the information of the Commission of Inquiry, Mr P. T., can you tell us how you learned that there had been acts of barbarism within the Bataclan: beheadings, evisceration, enucleation ...?

Mr. T. P. After the assault, we were with colleagues at the passage Saint-Pierre Amelot when I saw tears out an investigator who went to vomit. He told us what he had seen. I did not know this colleague, but he was so shocked that it came out naturally.

Alain Marsaud. Acts of torture happened on the second floor?

Mr. T. P. I think, as I entered at the ground floor where there was no such thing, only people hit by bullets.

Nice selective quoting, assholes. That'll teach me to trust you for anything.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Protip: If Fox claims the sky is blue it's best to go out and double-check to make sure nothing weird is going on. They're only slightly more reliable than the National Enquirer or the late Weekly World News.

[Wild Zontargs]

Protip: If Fox claims the sky is blue it's best to go out and double-check to make sure nothing weird is going on. They're only slightly more reliable than the National Enquirer or the late Weekly World News.

Well, the sky was blue... in the one small patch of an otherwise overcast sky that I saw when I first looked out the window. (I did do a basic keyword-search of the source document before posting here, and the quotes did exist there, they just butchered the context.)

[Channel72]

This is stupid. As if these terrorists would even actually have the time to meticulously and gruesomely torture victims, when their number one goal is maximum casualties as quickly as possible. They don't have time to individually torture people, they just want the highest body count possible before they have to detonate themselves or get shot by police.

[Broomstick]

Remember Starship Troopers? The book, not the movie, when they had propaganda films of the Bugs raping human women to get the men all pissed off and primally angry so they'd join the military and fight? That what this sort of story is - propaganda to kick you in the monkey brain so you'll go apeshit over The Enemy. You have to ask yourself - who profits from this? Certainly not the unquestioning folks who take the bait.