What would be a good response to the Paris attacks?

[Borachio]

Sometimes the best response is to do nothing.

But that can often be the hardest thing to do. Especially when Voices are clamouring that "something must be done".

 

[Evie]

The best response is not doing nothing. The best response is doing the opposite of what our instincts are screaming.

Radicalization feed on barriers, on differences, and on isolatin. It's by embracing and giving a safe haven to be themselves to the refugees and to the descendants of immigrants that we can combat it. Not with more barriers. Acceptance (NOT tolerance) is what we need.

 

[Arwon]

Great, I can sleep easier in the knowledge that it may be 5, 10 or 15 years before they become radicalized and either launch terror attacks here or support terrorism elsewhere. Many of the terrorists who have committed attacks in Europe have been 1st or 2nd generation nationals in those countries. Should Europeans be pleased that its not the refugees themselves that are committing these attacks but the refugees' children or grandchildren?

If someone turns into a violent radical 15 years after migrating to a country as a child, after growing up within that country and society, then that transformation is really on the country.

It's not on the fact that the child was a migrant or refugee nearly a generation ago. It is in no meaningful sense a product of their life before the age of seven and instead has everything to do with ages 7 to 22.

It's also actually pretty damn racist I'm sorry to say - not only is this idea collectively judging and punishing a group of hundreds of thousands of people because they share ethnic or national origin with a handful of bad people, but it is judging and punishing *children* for the bigoted assumption that they'll grow up into the same.

 

[El_Machinae]

seems relevant if we're taking in children

It is. Yes. The statistic that then pops into my head is wondering whether refugee children are more likely to become (or try to support) terrorists than average? 750,000 is a big number. At least 0.01% (1/10,000) of any group of people is going to be homicidally insane. It's the wrong number (specifically) to look at, but it just shows us that when dealing with large numbers you'll find outliers.

You're doing Daesh's work for them.

I'm really ambivalent on Daesh. I mean, I recognize that it's better than ISIS in English in that it doesn't translate into an English acknowledgement of their state. But to me it's like giving them the name B.A.D.A.S.S. (standing for Brothers Advancing to Destroy All Sniveling Simpletons).

In otherwords, it's a contraction of the name they want AND it's a kinda badass name in the meantime. It seems to be too easy to make into a badge of honor rather than derision.

It's notably NOT like the Conservative and Reform Alliance Party of Canada. We need something like that.

 

[Arwon]

I'm really ambivalent on Daesh. I mean, I recognize that it's better than ISIS in English in that it doesn't translate into an English acknowledgement of their state. But to me it's like giving them the name B.A.D.A.S.S. (standing for Brothers Advancing to Destroy All Sniveling Simpletons).

In otherwords, it's a contraction of the name they want AND it's a kinda badass name in the meantime. It seems to be too easy to make into a badge of honor rather than derision.

It's notably NOT like the Conservative and Reform Alliance Party of Canada. We need something like that.

https://www.freewordcentre.com/blog/2015/02/daesh-isis-media-alice-guthrie/

You can rest easy on that front. In Arabic the name sounds demeaning and a bit ridiculous.

This is partly because acronyms are far less common in Arabic so it makes then sound the opposite of the pompous traditional and classical tone they go for in claiming universality - instead daesh is a neologism that is a bit funny.

It's also partly because of the particular phonetics of the word sounding similar to certain other words and concepts.

the use of this word is part of a multi-pronged, diverse range of efforts by Arabs and Muslims to reject the terrorists’ linguistic posturing, their pseudo-classical use of Arabic, their claims to Quranic authority and an absolute foundation in sacred scripture, as reflected in their pompous name. This ridiculous claim has of course been masterfully and witheringly deconstructed at the Islamic level, but at the secular level, satire is a crucial weapon in the fight against these maniacs: there is a fertile tradition of Syrian and satire as not only defiance but coping strategy, and which has been quite under-reported. In satirical Arabic media (and conversation) various diminutives of the word have also gone viral – elegantly diminishing their subject, belittling them, patronising and relegating them to a zone beyond any formal naming in a single sweep.

Whether the word Daesh is insulting to its subject because it sounds ridiculous, or because it actually sounds sinister, depends slightly on who you ask. Some Syrians I’ve talked to rate the satirical value of the word very highly; for others, such as al-Haj Salih himself, however, the main weight of the word is not around humour, but around two very serious points he and others make. First of these is that both the shape of the word and the combination of letters in it are redolent of words from al-jahaliyya, the pre-Islamic dark ages or ‘age of ignorance’ that – as well as being a time rich in poetry and narrative heritage – has huge connotations of hideous barbarity in the popular imagination, being the realm of jinns and monsters and evil spirits and marauding freaks. This has also been overlooked in anglophone coverage, or been confused with an idea of the word having a previous set meaning in and of itself: as we know, it doesn’t. But given the connotations of this type of word, it sounds (to many an arabophone ear) very clearly like it must denote some crazed, bloodthirsty avatar belching back out from the guts of history. As al-Haj Salih very gently and firmly expresses to me by phone when I interview him for this piece, 'If an organisation wants to call itself ‘the light’, but in fact they are ‘the darkness’, would you comply and call them ‘the light’?' The second, and equally important, point that al-Haj Salih stresses to me is another take on why a neologism is insulting: it’s an obviously fictitious name, for an obviously fictional concept. Once again, the movement’s claim to legitimacy as a state and to rule is being rejected as nonsense, reflected in a fabricated nonsense name for them.

So the insult picked up on by Daesh is not just that the name makes them sound little, silly, and powerless, but that it implies they are monsters, and that they are made-up.

I highly recommend the full article. Great to get an actual translator explaining it.

 

[Borachio]

The best response is not doing nothing. The best response is doing the opposite of what our instincts are screaming.

Radicalization feed on barriers, on differences, and on isolatin. It's by embracing and giving a safe haven to be themselves to the refugees and to the descendants of immigrants that we can combat it. Not with more barriers. Acceptance (NOT tolerance) is what we need.

Well, good luck with that then.

I mean, I can understand your drift. But it's really not going to happen.

What's going to happen is more air-strikes. And the further polarization of communities.

 

[El_Machinae]

Allow me to still be a bit worried. It might be the equivalent of Boogieman. I can accept that it will shake out that way. But I'll still be worried it doesn't turn into G.H.O.S.T.S.

 

[Evie]

Well, good luck with that then.

I mean, I can understand your drift. But it's really not going to happen.

What's going to happen is more air-strikes. And the further polarization of communities.

He asked what the solution was. I gave it.

Air strikes may weaken Daesh, but they can't defeat radical islam. If Daesh goes down, it will be a new group in their place, like Daesh taking over as the Big Bad of radical Islam from Al Qaeda.

 

[Arwon]

Allow me to still be a bit worried. It might be the equivalent of Boogieman. I can accept that it will shake out that way. But I'll still be worried it doesn't turn into G.H.O.S.T.S.

Really think you should take arabophones' word for this one. It matters a lot less what we call them English but in Arabic it's pretty clearly an effectively annoying name to them.

 

[El_Machinae]

I mean I'll honor the prediction. We'll just watch to make sure.

 

[chijohnaok]

The best response is not doing nothing. The best response is doing the opposite of what our instincts are screaming.

Radicalization feed on barriers, on differences, and on isolatin. It's by embracing and giving a safe haven to be themselves to the refugees and to the descendants of immigrants that we can combat it. Not with more barriers. Acceptance (NOT tolerance) is what we need.

---The Toronto 18 arrested as part of the 2006 Ontario terrorism plot.


I could also insert the instances of refugees in the US who committed terrorist acts.

What barriers, differences, and isolation did Canada have in place that led them to become radicalized?
Did Canada fail to provide these people a safe haven?
What barriers were enacted by Candada that inhibited them and led them to becoming radicalized?

How did Canada fail them?

 

[Evie]

First off: if you think discrimination doesn't exist in Canada, you're delusional. Niqabs. Burned mosques. Maher Arar. Canada's slate is far from clean.

Second off : They radicalized and began plotting after Harper took power, with his anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, pro-Israel program.

Third off: It doesn't have to be in the individual country. Radicalized Islam claims Western culture as a whole is at war against Islam. Even if an individual country is fine (or not so bad), if the trend within the west in general is one of increasing barriers, increasing suspicions and increasing hostility (as it was in the years following 9-11), it's going to lead to radicalization.

So yeah. Things Canada could have done better, without going into the last point:
-Not collaborate into sending an innocent Canadian-Syrian citizen away to be tortured.
-Not have close to or more than half of its population respond to polls by saying they have an unfavorable view of Islam.
-Not have them act on it by burning mosque, or other similar moves by radicalized idiots.
-Not vote in a known Islamophobic, Israelophile, anti-immigrant twit as prime minister.

 

[CavLancer]

It's easy to say that in retrospect, but less easy to work out who deserves the massive surveillance before bad things actually happen. I remember hearing a friend in what used to be Special Branch describe the job as like looking for a needle in a stack of needles. After the attack, every Tom, Dick and Harry can construct a chain of events that make it look obvious that this person was about to do something. Beforehand, there are dozens, hundreds and thousands of people who look exactly the same, and nowhere near the resources to put all of them under total surveillance. Judgements are inevitably made, and the terrorists only have to be lucky once.

Valid point. Particularly since there are a lot of needles in France.

 

[Perfection]

Resist the temptation to abandon our noblest principles in effort to uphold them.

 

[chijohnaok]

First off: if you think discrimination doesn't exist in Canada, you're delusional. Niqabs. Burned mosques. Maher Arar. Canada's slate is far from clean.

Second off : They radicalized and began plotting after Harper took power, with his anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, pro-Israel program.

Third off: It doesn't have to be in the individual country. Radicalized Islam claims Western culture as a whole is at war against Islam. Even if an individual country is fine (or not so bad), if the trend within the west in general is one of increasing barriers, increasing suspicions and increasing hostility (as it was in the years following 9-11), it's going to lead to radicalization.

So yeah. Things Canada could have done better, without going into the last point:
-Not collaborate into sending an innocent Canadian-Syrian citizen away to be tortured.
-Not have close to or more than half of its population respond to polls by saying they have an unfavorable view of Islam.
-Not have them act on it by burning mosque, or other similar moves by radicalized idiots.
-Not vote in a known Islamophobic, Israelophile, anti-immigrant twit as prime minister.

Regarding your 2nd point.
The election was held January 23, 2006.
Harper was sworn into office February 6, 2006.
The Toronto 18 began plottning moths before the election.
Were the plotting in anticipation of Harper's election?

 

[Evie]

No, you're correct, I misremembered the date due to constant talk about Harper having been in power for a decade during the last election, and thought the election was in 2005. My apology.

First and third point stand, and are far more important in any event.

 

[Ryika]

So yeah. Things Canada could have done better, without going into the last point:
[...]
-Not have close to or more than half of its population respond to polls by saying they have an unfavorable view of Islam.

So Canada should be indoctrinated into accepting that Islam is a religion of peace?

Or did you mean that they should not have an unfavorable view of people who follow the whitewashed version that is being followed in many western countries?

 

[innonimatu]

In the meanwhile, Israel is having trouble hiding its assistance to the rebels ("terrorists", most would call them) in Syria.

The Druze living in Israel finally were fed up with it, seeing their fellows across the border being murdered by the fanatics, and lynched one of the terrorists being transported by the israelis. Israel's government is trying to spin the incident another way:

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Monday that Israel has been providing aid to Syrian rebels, thus keeping the Druze in Syria out of immediate danger. Israeli officials have previously balked at confirming on the record that the country has been helping forces that are fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad.
...
The Druze on Israel’s side of the Golan, Ya’alon charged, acted “irresponsibly” last week by attacking an Israeli ambulance carrying wounded Syrian rebel fighters. One person was killed and another wounded during what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu termed a “lynching.” The person in the Israeli ambulance was not affiliated with the al-Nusra Front, and his death would provoke calls for revenge, Ya’alon asserted.

Israel has treated over 1,000 wounded Syrians in its hospitals since the onset of the civil war in 2011.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-syrian-rebels-keeping-druze-safe-in-exchange-for-israeli-aid/

This is getting too pathetic to continue being carried on. Everybody knows that the Turks are making about $100 million a month smuggling oil for ISIS, and paying them another $100 million, which they mostly receive back again by selling them supplies. Everybody knew about those convoys of oil trucks, during all these years the war has lasted, and no one bombed them. Now this, which is no surprise either. And even the US vice-president already complained publicly about the saudis and qayaris delivering hundreds ot millions in money and weapons to those groups. The alliance between governments allegedly "enemy" of the fanatics and those fanatics is too obvious to hide.

Damn, the turks went so far as to bomb the ones doing better in the fight against ISIS, the kurds, when they threatened to close that route between the ISIS-held territory and Turkey.

A good response, you ask? Stop aiding ISIS, which at least the US and I hope France by now finally did. And take a page from George W. Bush's stance of Afghanistan years ago and put it plainly to those who keep financing and arming ISIS: wither you are with us, or against us. Without supplies they would have been crushed years ago.

 

[Evie]

Or did you mean that they should not have an unfavorable view of people who follow the whitewashed version that is being followed in many western countries?

Translated: Whaaaaa whaaaaa how dare the evil people interpret their own religion their own way!

 

[Ryika]

Translated: Whaaaaa whaaaaa how dare the evil people interpret their own religion their own way!

No, quite the opposite. I'm fine with people interpreting their religion in a more positive way than other people do. I just don't understand what that has to do with the negative public opinion about Islam. That one obviously comes from the bad things that are done in the name of Islam (and that may or may not be inspired/supported by the text of Islam). No matter how peaceful local Muslims are, as long as global acts of terror are done by people who call themselves Muslims the public opinion about the brought term 'Islam' cannot be expected to be a positive one.