At Least 120 Dead in Paris Attacks

[bhavv]

I only just heard about this. I wont make any comments because my opinions wouldnt be politically correct.

 

[Synobun]

I only just heard about this. I wont make any comments because my opinions wouldnt be politically correct.

Why did you comment, then?

Edit:

Whatever it is that police do that leads to those news stories about foiled terrorist plots. They can be caught, you know. It's not impossible. I'll have to do some reading on anti-terrorism procedures. Because plots have been foiled here in Canada, and last time I checked, I'm not living in a police state.

I don't understand how this is an argument against me. Are you under the impression that EU nations don't foil terror plots and are just helpless police states at the mercy of ISIS and independent terror groups? There was a big news article just last night about how Germany and France stopped a car full of explosives and weaponry from reaching Paris. Citing Canada's protectiveness in comparison to Europe's (and especially France's) is a little dishonest since geography alone is on our side when it comes to stuff like this. There's no incentive for violent terror plots on Canadian soil yet. Loads of incentive in France.

 

[brennan]

Its long been shown that the drone wars haven't actually had a significant influence on radicalization, not even in Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Yemen. The feeling of "oppression" and the concept of a "clash between civilizations" have always been the primary factors in radicalization

I'd need to see a citation that clearly differentiates the drone war from feelings of oppression and the concept of a clash of civilisation to take this comment seriously.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

A thing to keep in mind is that when we say we "bomb IS" we are actually saying we "try to bomb IS but ultimately in the end we will bomb whoever is living within the IS territory". IS now does have an actual civilian population of millions. It is a state we are talking about here. A country. Even if a pretty weird and unique one. And perhaps a temporary one.

As for drones and recruitment - how about wars? a study involving several US universities came to the conclusion that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost half a million civilian lives. We decry that IS burns people alive. American bombs have done the same. If you wage war, you will kill a lot of civilians. And you will make a lot of civilians miserable. That is just a fact of nature.
To wage wars for Western values is hence often rather absurd. Which is the reason why wars usually are not waged for Western values. And the Muslim populations in the middle east etcetera are rather aware of this, I think. And rightfully feel played and messed with, IMO. Even if they also seem prone to believe in more flimsy conspiracy theories (as seen in Egypt).

 

[Commodore]

We decry that IS burns people alive. American bombs have done the same. If you wage war, you will kill a lot of civilians. And you will make a lot of civilians miserable. That is just a fact of nature.

The type of civilian killing IS engages in is fundamentally different from the type the US engages in. IS has deliberately targeted civilians for extermination, whereas the vast majority of civilian casualties caused by the US are unintentional. Now, does that make a whole lot of difference to those being killed? Probably not. But it most certainly makes a difference in any discussion involving a comparison between the actions of IS and the actions of the US. To imply that we cannot criticize IS for essentially engaging in genocide and ethnic cleansing just because we have caused unintentional collateral damage in our past military operations is just...wrong.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I did not mean to imply so.

But how unintentional is it if you know for a fact that your strategy will cause x? Knowing it, aren't you also fully responsible for x?

I think the difference is more nuanced than you seem to imply. IS celebrates the killing, the burning alive of people. The US engages in it so to reduce costs, protect its soldiers and reach its goals.

To coldly do what is necessary to achieve something is, I think, less deplorably than to celebrate such things. It still is pretty deplorable, in itself. And I think that there is an acute lack of awareness of that particularly in America. While I wanted to point out that in the Muslim pops concerned there probably is not.

We see the same lack of awareness regarding the IS.I think many see only or mostly the evil enemy that needs to be crushed, while ignoring or neglecting all the "innocents" which will also be crushed because they are in the way.
I am not trying to imply that we hence should not fight the IS. I am not trying to imply any further conclusion, rather I am concerned with simple awareness. Draw the conclusions you want to. But accept the reality of it.

 

[Takhisis]

We can always argue that the US does bad things and ISIL do the same, but we shouldn't egnage in Soviet-style what-aboutism.

 

[Arwon]

The UK government's anti radicalisation initiative (PREVENT) is an abject failure. I believe the fundamental flaw is the underpinning belief that there is no rational basis for budding jihadists to feel their religion is effectively at war with hypocritical murderers (Western governments). It is thought that merely telling young potential recruits that "these people are insane bad guys m'kay?" can override what they know about the callous disregard our governments show for foreign casualties and the global drone war. Plus continued support for e.g. Saudi Arabia; plus Afghanistan, Iraq etc. To the contrary I think jihadists hold an easily comprehendable worldview, one that OBL explained to the world a very long time ago.

There's also the whole thing where telling already-disaffected contrarian teenagers that they're actually part of a huge scary threat to the established order seems like a pretty great way to encourage some of them to embrace it more. As evidence I submit the last half-century of Western youth culture.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

We can always argue that the US does bad things and ISIL do the same, but we shouldn't egnage in Soviet-style what-aboutism.

I agree. More broadly, we should not seek a dichotomy of good and bad guys. Among other things, I sought to attack such a dichotomy, since it is usually BS and makes people forget the crucial ways it is BS, rather than play it.

 

[Arwon]

We can always argue that the US does bad things and ISIL do the same, but we shouldn't egnage in Soviet-style what-aboutism.

The point in its correct form has precious little to do with the morality or goodness of the goals of any particular combatant force and everything to do with perceptions. Maimed widows and dead babies make a powerful, subrational argument no matter how righteous the button-pressers feel. Western powers are really at a massive, hilarious disadvantage in the kind of war we're trying to fight.

 

[innonimatu]

As long as the Islamic State is allowed to exist, it will massacre civilians everywhere in the Middle East and the West. The only way to defeat it is to invade and occupy it, but nobody is practically capable of the latter. It's up to Iraq and Syria to retake their territory from them. The Syrian solution will also needlessly end up murdering the surviving moderates, because that's what the Assads do and have always done, and Iraq? Their military is practically at Sierra Leone-levels of extreme incompetence and unwillingness to fight.

What will it take to convince you that there are no "moderates" in Syria? As there were none in Libya? That whomever takes up arms in rebellion is by definition not a "moderate"? That is not to say that you are not free to support rebels. But be aware that in Syria all weapons allegedly sent to "moderates" ended up in the hands of religious fanatics. So you know who you are actually supporting.

Iraq now is what you get after "regime change" and occupation, keep also that in mind when seeking "solutions" to the present problems. Libya is in even worse state now, but seems to have been forgotten by all brave advocates of "liberating" foreigners. They'll probably remember it exists when it starts exporting terrorists also.

 

[Akka]

Well...

My bet is just some more bomber runs, to keep the strong man appearance without too much cost.

=> French jets bomb Syria.

Do I get a cookie for divining the obvious ?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Too obvious
It would be fun to actually see the strategic background. What decision to bomb which would have went negative went positive now?
That may look really mundane or even stupid, if actually looked at.

But nothing replaces the sound of a fist bumping a strong male masculine chest while roaring aggressively and show-casing your sharp healthy teeth. Oh this may kill civilians you say? No, you don't. And I couldn't hear you anyway.

Back to chest-pumping and raving about our superior Western values.

 

[Birdjaguar]

And your solution is...?

 

[Synobun]

Too obvious
It would be fun to actually see the strategic background. What decision to bomb which would have went negative went positive now?
That may look really mundane or even stupid, if actually looked at.

But nothing replaces the sound of a fist bumping a strong male masculine chest while roaring aggressively and show-casing your sharp healthy teeth. Oh this may kill civilians you say? No, you don't. And I couldn't hear you anyway.

Back to chest-pumping and raving about our superior Western values.

Or, hold onto your suspenders for this one, France is getting first dibs on preexisting missions and this isn't a blood lust rampage coming out of nowhere.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

And your solution is...?

There is no solution. Just choices. How do we value money, the lives of our soldiers, the lives of those living in the IS, future security from terrorist attacks, access to the Middle East and its strategic purposes, our values etcetera.
We make those choices all the time, of course, one way or the other. It just is rarely done so in a manner that the supposed deciders - the people - or even the authorities themselves, potentially being caught up in idealogical narratives or rather social prestige mechanisms rather than reality themselves - are even aware of the full extend of those choices.

Or, hold onto your suspenders for this one, France is getting first dibs on preexisting missions and this isn't a blood lust rampage coming out of nowhere.

Spare me your talking-down to like I was merely hysterical. For what? Merely hinting towards the mundane dimension of all the actual hysteria?
It is possible what you suggest, naturally. The point is not that I know but that we do not know and those responsible to know will not even dream of considering such questions and that those to be informed won't neither. But on stuff like this hinges weather various abject human cases of misery happen - or not. But whatever - right? Don't hinder the rush of slapping an enemy.

It is about primitive emotions ruling the course and nothing else. Weather they are transformed into wise choices is a different question. But most of all - a question.

 

[Quintillus]

Based on the NYT article I read on it tonight, I think Synsensa is not really off point in post 455 - it stated that American intelligence provided information on IS targets, which French planes then hit. They likely would have been hit, perhaps somewhat later, but France wanted to make a point so they made the strikes against Raqqa earlier than planned.

I do like Takhisis's article in post #421. Fundamentally, I agree with it. I don't blame France for increasing their participation in the air campaign - it is too obvious to provide cookies for. But putting boots on the ground would essentially be Iraq War 2.0, and Iraq War 1.0 certainly played a role in creating the situation that led to the Islamic State in the first place. France could invade, overthrow ISIS... and then what would they do with the territory? They're loathe to support Assad, or they wouldn't have focused their anti-ISIS efforts so heavily on Iraq previously. And the Iraqi central government has shown itself to be unable to effectively contain ISIS by itself. So overthrowing ISIS would only disrupt them for as long as boots were on the ground, and would likely cause more to support ISIS's ideology in the Middle East, even if ISIS itself were significantly weakened.

The preferable solution indeed is a coalition led by Muslim nations, with air support as requested by the west. Combined with the bombing in Lebanon and the jet being mshot down in Egypt, this may galvanize anti-ISIS sentiment elsewhere in the Middle East - ISIS could just as well attack targets in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or Iran, and Lebanon is already mostly Muslim.

The refugee question is not easy. For the refugees fleeing war, Germany's policies are undoubtedly much more appealing to them than ISIS's policies... yet there's bound to be more resistance to the refugees since ISIS has sent people to Europe under the guise of refugees. Really, the refugees lose on both accounts - ISIS has caused them to be forced to flee Syria and Iraq (with some help from other parties in Syria in particular), and now ISIS has made it less likely the refugees will find safety in Europe as well.

 

[Commodore]

But how unintentional is it if you know for a fact that your strategy will cause x? Knowing it, aren't you also fully responsible for x?

By 'unintentional' I mean we aren't going in with the deliberate goal of targeting and killing civilians. I do agree that doesn't lessen our responsibility for the deaths that occur as a result of our operations, and civilian deaths are always morally reprehensible. However, whether or not the civilians were targeted intentionally does help determine just how morally reprehensible the killings were.

 

[AdrienIer]

What will it take to convince you that there are no "moderates" in Syria? As there were none in Libya? That whomever takes up arms in rebellion is by definition not a "moderate"? That is not to say that you are not free to support rebels. But be aware that in Syria all weapons allegedly sent to "moderates" ended up in the hands of religious fanatics. So you know who you are actually supporting.

Iraq now is what you get after "regime change" and occupation, keep also that in mind when seeking "solutions" to the present problems. Libya is in even worse state now, but seems to have been forgotten by all brave advocates of "liberating" foreigners. They'll probably remember it exists when it starts exporting terrorists also.

They are moderates in the sense that their objectives are to get El-Assad out and install a democracy in Syria. They're the kind of people you can have diplomatic relations with. They've been El-Assad's main target for a long time because no one will come to his rescue if they gain power and they control the northwestern part of Syria currently

 

[REDY]

The preferable solution indeed is a coalition led by Muslim nations, with air support as requested by the west. Combined with the bombing in Lebanon and the jet being mshot down in Egypt, this may galvanize anti-ISIS sentiment elsewhere in the Middle East - ISIS could just as well attack targets in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or Iran, and Lebanon is already mostly Muslim.

But intervention of muslim countries is part of problem of this conflict, not its solution. They have own interests in Syria. Without SA and Turkey support would ISIS not exist. Without Iran and Hezzbollah support would Assad leave office very quickly. Creation of some hatred among normal population againist ISIS would probably have effect in democracies. At best there would be another wave of arab spring.