At Least 120 Dead in Paris Attacks

[Phrossack]

I can imagine a situation in which a decent person might be driven to think that 'the enemy' deserve to have their heads sawn off and be made into slaves. I've heard posters on here say that it's acceptable to shell civilians in Iraq or Syria if it saves the lives of our troops and helps to kill the enemy: is it really all that far from there to beheading them in order to help our cause and damage the enemy? Personally, I don't think so. I saw that process develop in Ireland, incidentally, where people start thinking of 'enemy' civilians, then 'oh well, just another Mick', which soon becomes 'they're all terrorists anyway, I'm not taking any chances'. I never saw that last stage, but it happened all too often. It has also happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, these aren't the thoughts of psychopaths - they're decent people, who want to do the best for their comrades and their country.

That's not answering my question or addressing my points--I have my doubts you signed up for the thrill of killing Irish civilian men and enslaving their families. Moreover, there's a world of difference between being violent towards a potentially hostile populace (which is bad) and committing genocide and slavery against a minority that never actually harmed you in any way (which, I hope you agree, is extremely evil). If you think that Bloody Sunday and the fate of the Yazidis in ISIS territory are morally equivalent, or that a British soldier who signs up for his own country to defend it and see the world and an ISIS member who signed up and crossed half the world to join a group that openly revels in slavery and televised decapitations of defenseless aid workers, then I don't know if it's possible to convince you of anything.

 

[Flying Pig]

That's not answering my question or addressing my points--I have my doubts you signed up for the thrill of killing Irish civilian men and enslaving their families.

Correct. However, I also doubt that most of IS signed up 'for the thrill of it'. I think most of them signed up because they see what IS is doing as the right thing to do.

Put another way - are you telling me that there is nothing that an enemy country could do to convince you into joining a group that kidnaps and beheads their civilians?

 

[Takhisis]

Some of us do have those moral standards, yes.

The other factor behind ISIL's recruitment is that they pay twice as much as their rivals in the area -come, get paid, get to rape, drink get high, eat, etc. etc.!

 

[Phrossack]

Correct. However, I also doubt that most of IS signed up 'for the thrill of it'. I think most of them signed up because they see what IS is doing as the right thing to do.

Put another way - are you telling me that there is nothing that an enemy country could do to convince you into joining a group that kidnaps and beheads their civilians?

First, there are, in fact, more than a few recruits drawn by, and proud of, the atrocities. Just look at this horrific example. There is nothing anyone can do to convince me to join a group that's enthusiastically and openly practicing slavery, genocide, and kidnapping and gleefully beheading aid workers--and if someone joins a group like that because they think "it's the right thing," there is something fundamentally wrong with their sense of morality. I've refused to associate with groups for far, far, far less.

Moreover, let's not pretend that the Syrian and Iraqi civil wars are wars between ISIS and an aggressor country. ISIS (at the time, just ISI) expanded into Syria not out of retaliation for Syrian aggression, but because Syria was weak and divided, leaving it vulnerable to attack. The Kurds had done nothing to invite ISIS aggression. The Yazidis and Assyrians had been lying low and minding their own business, as religious minorities in that region must, and there is nothing that they possibly could have committed to have deserved what ISIS is doing to them. Nobody deserves genocide and enslavement. ISIS isn't committing those atrocities out of vengeance against a state that's attacked them--it's unprovoked and completely impossible to justify outside of certain interpretations of the Koran and Hadiths. You could make the argument, however callous and wrong, that the attacks on Paris and the Russian airliner or the executions of journalists and aid workers from countries at war with ISIS are merely the actions of a group that cannot fight back in any other way without a comprehensive air defense network--but you'll never convince me that executing Japanese aid workers or committing genocide against the Yazidis can possibly be justified or overlooked by those looking to join ISIS--or by anyone, for that matter.

 

[Flying Pig]

Some of us do have those moral standards, yes.

I think we all have moral standards, but I think it's easy for us to say, in a comfortable position, that they're stronger than they are. It's also easy for us to say that anyone who doesn't have them must be almost a different species, so that we don't have to confront the idea of being pushed to that extreme.

 

[Takhisis]

Moreover, let's not pretend that the Syrian and Iraqi civil wars are wars between ISIS and an aggressor country. ISIS (at the time, just ISI) expanded into Syria not out of retaliation for Syrian aggression, but because Syria was weak and divided, leaving it vulnerable to attack. The Kurds had done nothing to invite ISIS aggression. The Yazidis and Assyrians had been lying low and minding their own business, as religious minorities in that region must, and there is nothing that they possibly could have committed to have deserved what ISIS is doing to them. Nobody deserves genocide and enslavement. ISIS isn't committing those atrocities out of vengeance against a state that's attacked them--it's unprovoked and completely impossible to justify outside of certain interpretations of the Koran and Hadiths. You could make the argument, however callous and wrong, that the attacks on Paris and the Russian airliner or the executions of journalists and aid workers from countries at war with ISIS are merely the actions of a group that cannot fight back in any other way without a comprehensive air defense network--but you'll never convince me that executing Japanese aid workers or committing genocide against the Yazidis can possibly be justified or overlooked by those looking to join ISIS--or by anyone, for that matter.

ISI(S/L) moved into Syria to try to wrest power away from pro-Iran Assad's regime, they've always been covertly backed and financed by Sunni rulers in the Arabian peninsula, those who have decided it's better to smash Houthis than help stop the madness to their north.

I think we all have moral standards, but I think it's easy for us to say, in a comfortable position, that they're stronger than they are. It's also easy for us to say that anyone who doesn't have them must be almost a different species, so that we don't have to confront the idea of being pushed to that extreme.

Most of these people who join from abroad also have more or less comfortable positions. If they were so motivated to stop oppression they'd join the fight in their own countries instead of going to join the rapists-beheaders-suicide-bombers club.

 

[Flying Pig]

Most of these people who join from abroad also have more or less comfortable positions. If they were so motivated to stop oppression they'd join the fight in their own countries instead of going to join the rapists-beheaders-suicide-bombers club.

True. They don't just pop off one day and sign up, though - they undergo a whole process of indoctrination and radicalisation, over months and years, and are often targeted precisely because they are isolated and vulnerable at home. ISIS and their sympathisers have an awful lot of people who are very good at convincing people of their cause. I hesitate to underestimate the power of very good propaganda.

 

[brennan]

Plus the enemies of Jihadism do kill quite a lot of innocent people around the globe. Support dictators with trade deals and weapons. Disappear people and torture them. Support terrorists when convenient...

 

[Flying Pig]

Plus the enemies of Jihadism do kill quite a lot of innocent people around the globe. Support dictators with trade deals and weapons. Disappear people and torture them. Support terrorists when convenient...

Yes. It's a small-step process, I think. Once you've convinced someone that it's worth fighting the armies of the people who do all that, convince them that those who support and enable those armies are also fair game, convince them that terrorising them is the only way to make them stop what they do, convince them that every act of terrorism saves the lives of 'our' people... I mean, so far we're only as far as many people got by the end of a particularly tough tour of Vietnam.

 

[red_elk]

convince them that every act of terrorism saves the lives of 'our' people...

It's not difficult at all. Hiroshima bombing comes to mind - it had little to no military sense, except killing lots of people in a single blast and breaking the will of the country to fight. It is being justified by many people on exactly those grounds mentioned by you, that the bombing saved lives of American soldiers.

 

[innonimatu]

There are some limitations to treating it as a police issue.

If French authorities are able to trace the mastermind of the attack or those that provided material support to conduct the attacks, and those masterminds or supporters were in Raqqa, should the French authorities submit a request for extradition of those people to the Syrian government in Damascus? What exactly would that accomplish?

That is a problem, and the reason why I made a distinction between domestic and international reactions.

 

[innonimatu]

It's not difficult at all. Hiroshima bombing comes to mind - it had little to no military sense, except killing lots of people in a single blast and breaking the will of the country to fight. It is being justified by many people on exactly those grounds mentioned by you, that the bombing saved lives of American soldiers.

That's the end purpose of war: to force other people into submission (if not to exterminate them). War is terrorism.
Of course there are methods and methods, there have been many theories of "just war", and many "laws of war" made. They've all been an effort to limit the "terrorist" aspect of war, but ultimately if you want to win you have to terrorize the enemy into submitting. That's the purpose of bombings such as the Hiroshima bomb.

Consider: if you want some kind of "unconditional surrender", because you want to change the way your enemy conducts some actions (their system of government, their willingness to attack others in the future, trade concessions, territorial concessions, etc) does it suffice to destroy their military potential and then cease all operations? No. All those goals require a change in the civilian structure of the enemy state. To achieve that its civilians must be forced to comply with your demand. And if you do it through war, then hold no illusion: you achieve it by threatening, terrorizing them.

For an example: the US did not change Iraq's government by being nice and talking to the Iraqis about it. It achieved that by arresting or outright killing all those who actively resisted the change, and making like miserable to those who passively resisted, so miserable that surely many of them also died (and this is not getting into the death toll of the embargo prior to the war). Wars are bloody, and no side is made up of saints. If people kept themselves aware of this perhaps they would not be so quick to support starting new wars. I believe that is the point Flying Pig has been trying to make.

 

[red_elk]

That's the end purpose of war: to force other people into submission (if not to exterminate them). War is terrorism.
Of course there are methods and methods, there have been many theories of "just war", and many "laws of war" made. They've all been an effort to limit the "terrorist" aspect of war, but ultimately if you want to win you have to terrorize the enemy into submitting. That's the purpose of bombings such as the Hiroshima bomb.

Consider: if you want some kind of "unconditional surrender", because you want to change the way your enemy conducts some actions (their system of government, their willingness to attack others in the future, trade concessions, territorial concessions, etc) does it suffice to destroy their military potential and then cease all operations? No. All those goals require a change in the civilian structure of the enemy state. To achieve that its civilians must be forced to comply with your demand. And if you do it through war, then hold no illusion: you achieve it by threatening, terrorizing them.

For an example: the US did not change Iraq's government by being nice and talking to the Iraqis about it. It achieved that by arresting or outright killing all those who actively resisted the change, and making like miserable to those who passively resisted, so miserable that surely many of them also died (and this is not getting into the death toll of the embargo prior to the war). Wars are bloody, and no side is made up of saints. If people kept themselves aware of this perhaps they would not be so quick to support starting new wars. I believe that is the point Flying Pig has been trying to make.

You made it sound like if all sides participating in a war were equivalent. Yes, war almost inevitably leads all sides to terrorizing their enemy to some extent. But there are also actions which are considered war crimes (deliberate targeting of civilian population, usage of WMDs, etc.) and actions which are considered legitimate in wartime. In the end, depending on circumstances, one side can declare 'total war' and start murdering enemy population by hundreds of thousands, another may restrict itself to just attacking enemy's military targets. The difference in methods may be quantitative, but still huge. Which makes it de-facto qualitative.

 

[innonimatu]

You made it sound like if all sides participating in a war were equivalent. Yes, war almost inevitably leads all sides to terrorizing their enemy to some extent. But there are also actions which are considered war crimes (deliberate targeting of civilian population, usage of WMDs, etc.) and actions which are considered legitimate in wartime. In the end, depending on circumstances, one side can declare 'total war' and start murdering enemy population by hundreds of thousands, another may restrict itself to just attacking enemy's military targets. The difference in methods may be quantitative, but still huge. Which makes it de-facto qualitative.

I don't dismiss that difference. All the effort put into making war "civilized" did provide, does provide, relief to civilians. But I'm very much concerned with the narrative so commonly used currently to report on wars that depicts things as a fight between good and evil, civilization and barbarity. War always involves barbarity. The civilized sides make an effort to use the least amount necessary to achieve their goals, or may even forgo some of the goals to avoid worse damage. And that is a good thing! But there is still "collateral damage" done, intentionally done and necessary to "win" the war. Knowing that we can not be really "good" while fighting a war at least allows us to always keep in mind the necessity of reducing that damage to a minimum, or avoiding war altogether if another working solution can be found. I'm not saying that we should go "damn it, we'll be as nasty as we need". We should strive to be "good". But don't expect the impossible from the military when you ask them to win a war - think before you set the goals.

 

[r16]

Some of us do have those moral standards, yes.

The other factor behind ISIL's recruitment is that they pay twice as much as their rivals in the area -come, get paid, get to rape, drink get high, eat, etc. etc.!

getting high supposedly beats getting drunk anyhow . We don't exactly hear much that the meth business is on a roll down there .

edit : reading the thread backwards ı see a drug is mentioned . It's a favourite of the Middle East , Saudi Arabia regularly beheads people smuggling it , something ı can like approve of like once .

 

[Bugfatty300]

It's not difficult at all. Hiroshima bombing comes to mind - it had little to no military sense, except killing lots of people in a single blast and breaking the will of the country to fight.

Hiroshima was the headquarters of the southern Japanese army garrison and hosted tens of thousands of troops were stationed there. Nagasaki was major military industry center and possessed a large naval and shipping base.

The atomic bombs were intended to reduce Japan's ability to supply and defend Kyushu from the planned allied invasion (as well as "shock and awe" Japanese leadership).

 

[red_elk]

Hiroshima was the headquarters of the southern Japanese army garrison and hosted tens of thousands of troops were stationed there. Nagasaki was major military industry center and possessed a large naval and shipping base.

I'm aware of that. It doesn't change the fact that it was deliberate mass murder of civilian population.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I'm aware of that.

You are? But you just said that the targeting of Hiroshima made "little to no military sense"

 

[Flying Pig]

It's controversial as to how powerful the Japanese military was at the moment of the bombings (the modern consensus is somewhere between 'not very' and 'almost non-existent') but there is good evidence that Japan was actively trying to sue for peace and that there was no need to invade Japan at all in order to convince them to surrender. Personally, I'm inclined to see the atomic bombings as directed primarily at the USSR, as the first act of the Cold War as much as the last of the World War.

Whatever you think of their military utility, though, the fact remains that the Second World War was bad enough to convince most Americans that whole cities worth of civilians were acceptable collateral damage to save military lives. Perhaps times were different, but I don't believe that most of the population of the USA in 1945 were sociopaths.

 

[PhroX]

Hiroshima was the headquarters of the southern Japanese army garrison and hosted tens of thousands of troops were stationed there. Nagasaki was major military industry center and possessed a large naval and shipping base.

The atomic bombs were intended to reduce Japan's ability to supply and defend Kyushu from the planned allied invasion (as well as "shock and awe" Japanese leadership).

The problem with this argument is that the US made a huge number of bombing attacks on military targets in Japan over the 6-9 months prior to the atomic bombings. Yet Hiroshima was barely touched. If it was an important center of military operations, it would've been hit earlier, as pretty much every other such target was, as the US couldn't be certain they would have a working atom bomb. Instead, it was left until they did. It had some military value, sure, but it was a primarily civilian target, and the point of the bombing was first and foremost to terrorise the Japanese government into immediate surrender.

That doesn't necessarily mean the bombing was the wrong thing to do (obviously, in isolation, it was "wrong", but in the context of the war, it may have been the "least wrong" option) - I've read plenty of stuff on both sides of the argument and though I currently lean toward it being unnecessary to end the war without invasion, but that has changed several times before - but to suggest the military impact of the bombing was ever more than a nice little side effect of the main goal - to spread terror through the killing of civilians - is wrong.