What would be a good response to the Paris attacks?

[chijohnaok]

I'm not sure whether this is outside the scope of this thread, but here is news of what France IS doing to respond to the attack:

Reports: France launches 'massive' airstrikes against ISIS in Syria

 

[Cheetah]

Oh, sure. There is a problem with religious freedom. But could one at least bar foreigners from preaching or something? That could stop crazy Saudi clerics from flying in to spread hate.

And France was bombing before this as well. I don't know how much difference this makes.

 

[Arwon]

That wouldn't work to stop the spread of ideas because the Internet and also the evening news exists.

Plus that sort of state action helps fuel the polarised, west vs Islam, incompatability and conflict narrative, which likely helps recruitment of westerners.

 

[JohnRM]

Under your plan, how long are you personally willing to be stationed in an occupied country?

Given that I have tried repeatedly to get into the military and have been turned down on at least three separate occasions; extremely willing. I would join the French foreign legion today if they'd take me. Unfortunately, at this point in my life, my body is spent and no longer serviceable. In lieu of that, however, I would gladly support and pay, even on a voluntary basis, a tax or purchase bonds set aside specifically for this purpose. I would give almost anything to be young and able to volunteer for service.

 

[JohnRM]

"Give them a job" is probably a more effective technique than mere hugging. This could, of course, mean patronizing establishments that are likely to hire them.

I have stated support for doing as much on more than one occasion thus far. I have stated that you have to focus on assisting those already in Europe. I am not at all of the opinion that they should be deported. It is too late for that. For those no yet here, camps should be set up closer to where they are from rather than bringing them in. Assistance can then be rendered in those locations as opposed to risking further infiltration.

 

[JohnRM]

Why Obama? It was Bush who signed the agreement to pull out U.S. ground forces. It was the Iraqi government who was insisting that these troops leave. To suggest that Obama tear up the in-place agreement and ignore the demands of the elected government of Iraq is...somewhat myopic.

You also must remember, it was al-Maliki's systematic exclusion of Sunni Arabs and Kurds from power that alienated non-Shia ethnic groups, and so when ISIS invaded, the Sunnis and the Kurds refused to fight them.

While Bush was also partly at fault, when you sit in the Oval Office, the buck stops here, as they say. It was President Barack Obama and his administration that oversaw the withdrawal of the last of U.S. Forces from Iraq and failed to negotiate a new status of forces agreement to allow troops to remain in country. He takes a heavy part of the responsibility for it.

 

[chijohnaok]

Oh, sure. There is a problem with religious freedom. But could one at least bar foreigners from preaching or something? That could stop crazy Saudi clerics from flying in to spread hate.

Specific to the United States, the answer would be essentially "No".

Any person can "Preach". They don't need to be a minister. They don't even need a church.

I went to the University of Illinois. There used to be a man (referred to as "Max) who would stand in front of the Student Union building on the quad (photo HERE) and preach to students. [His preachings were of the "repent or you will be damned to eternal abomination" sort]. Most students would ignore him. Some stood and listened to him (and often taunted him). But he would preach and the University didn't (or couldn't) do anything to stop him. He was generally considered harmless.

An effort to "bar foreigners from preaching" would probably require banning the entry of foreigners.
Visitors to the US from Saudi Arabia need to obtain a visa for entry, but if the US were to have a blanket policy to deny visas to Saudi Arabian imans there would likely be blowback in the media and there would probably be legal objections filed by various Muslim religious and/or civil rights groups. [That is not to say that they could not / would not deny entry visas to specific Saudi imans who have a history of preaching hate or violence].

And Arwon's point about the internet is a valid one. If I am not mistaken a number of the "lone wolf" attackers in US and Canadian terrorist atttacks earlier this year were thought to have been radicalized by social media and the internet.

 

[Cheetah]

That wouldn't work to stop the spread of ideas because the Internet and also the evening news exists.

Plus that sort of state action helps fuel the polarised, west vs Islam, incompatability and conflict narrative, which likely helps recruitment of westerners.

But it would leave speaking-room to local and (hopefully) less radical clerics.

And while the conflict narrative might be helped by trying to ban foreign clerics, there is surely some benefit/cost calculation here. I've seen it argued favorably by people like Nawaz, and seeing how he used to be one of the alienated, radicalized, angry young men, I think he is somewhat qualified to weigh in on the benefit/cost of such a move.

 

[brennan]

While Bush was also partly at fault, when you sit in the Oval Office, the buck stops here, as they say. It was President Barack Obama and his administration that oversaw the withdrawal of the last of U.S. Forces from Iraq and failed to negotiate a new status of forces agreement to allow troops to remain in country. He takes a heavy part of the responsibility for it.

Oh sure, Bush's Status of Forces Agreement is 'Obama's fault'... right. And it was probably Obama's recession too...?

 

[Arwon]

But it would leave speaking-room to local and (hopefully) less radical clerics.

And while the conflict narrative might be helped by trying to ban foreign clerics, there is surely some benefit/cost calculation here. I've seen it argued favorably by people like Nawaz, and seeing how he used to be one of the alienated, radicalized, angry young men, I think he is somewhat qualified to weigh in on the benefit/cost of such a move.

Generally these kids aren't starting out particularly pious (in terms of regular mosque attendance, praying, studying religious texts, etc). It's not religious preaching that's getting them, it is politics.

 

[chijohnaok]

Not sure if this is more appropriate to this thread or the Paris bombing thread:

From Sep 10, 2015:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...ler-THOUSANDS-Extremists-into-Europe-Refugees

'Just wait…' Islamic State reveals it has smuggled THOUSANDS of extremists into Europe

AN OPERATIVE working for Islamic State has revealed the terror group has successfully smuggled thousands of covert jihadists into Europe

The Syrian operative claimed more than 4,000 covert ISIS gunmen had been smuggled into western nations – hidden amongst innocent refugees.

The ISIS smuggler, who is in his thirties and is described as having a trimmed jet-black beard, revealed the ongoing clandestine operation is a complete success.

"Just wait," he smiled.

Continued at above link

and

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/iraq-says-shared-intel-france-u-iran-were-102216264.html

Iraq says it shared information that France, U.S., Iran were targets
ReutersReuters – 9 hours ago

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari has said his country's intelligence services shared information they had which indicated that France, the United States and Iran were among countries being targeted for attack.

He did not elaborate, but the comments came after 129 people were killed in Paris on Friday by gunmen and suicide bombers in attacks claimed by Islamic State.

"Information has been obtained from Iraqi intelligence sources that the countries to be targeted soon, before it occurred, are Europe in general, specifically France, as well as America and Iran," Jaafari said from the sidelines of talks in Vienna on ending the war in Syria on Saturday.

He said the countries had been informed. A video of his comments was posted on his website.

Though he did not specify the threat was from Islamic State militants, who control large areas of Iraq and Syria, Jaafari said recent attacks in Egypt, Lebanon and France required a global response to the jihadist group.

Continued at above link

Whether the warning from Iraq were specific or how useful they were, I don't know.

Also, I head a CNN report that the attackers were part of a group of about 24 people. They also commented that these attacks (and obviously the coordination to pull these attacks) off were fairly sophisticated, and that the group that pulled this off possiblt trained and practiced for this attack in ISIS territory in Syria/Iraq.

So were there red flags that were there before this happened and might have been missed?
Quite possibly. People (experts and internet forum amateurs alike) will no doubt be Monday morning quarterback this over the coming days/weeks/months.

Taking this into account, does this impact the question " What would be a good response to the Paris attacks?"

 

[Arwon]

Of course they'd say that. They haaaate that Muslims are fleeing them to the West. It's embarrassing to them as the self proclaimed sanctuary for Muslims.

Claiming this also has the effect of promoting fear and divisions between refugees and the West and fueling the Islam vs West black and white conflict that they desire as a strategic environment. You've gotta remember that ISIS will claim just about anything as part of the propaganda war. Good on red-tops like the Express for continuing to be ISIS's useful idiots.

There's honestly probably a few sympathisers among the nearly a milliom people, but actual militants/terrorists are probably more likely to do stuff like fake or buy Syrian passports in Europe in order to *pretend* to have come directly from Syria, rather than to attempt the dangerous literal journey with the uncertainty and risk that brings.

 

[Paul in Saudi]

We must wage a war for a generation or two. The military effort will be necessary and have some effect, but the more important work will be done by others. We must raise the level or education and economic activity in the countries that produce terrorists. Happy, educated well-off people rarely decide to throw it all away to hurt other people.

(I said rarely, get out of here BinLaden.)

The model will be Korea. We must take Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other places and build them into modern rich, industrialized nations. Perhaps you think I am being a peacenik. I am not. We must destroy the traditional power centers in these nations. We must make them old-fashioned and irrelevant. We must destroy their cultures.

Radical Muslims must be reduced to silly old men in the old part of town, ignored and laughed at by the population. Young people need to be educated in their countries and abroad to reject the old and traditional.

It will take fifty or sixty years, but I see no other way to win.

 

[Tee Kay]

The model will be Korea. We must take Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other places and build them into modern rich, industrialized nations. Perhaps you think I am being a peacenik. I am not. We must destroy the traditional power centers in these nations. We must make them old-fashioned and irrelevant. We must destroy their cultures.

Radical Muslims must be reduced to silly old men in the old part of town, ignored and laughed at by the population. Young people need to be educated in their countries and abroad to reject the old and traditional.

It will take fifty or sixty years, but I see no other way to win.

It wouldn't take fifty years.

If there's political will to do it, and do it properly (unlike the Iraq thing), it could be done in ten years.

After 1945 we got Germany and Japan back on their feet and liberalised in about a decade. We could do it with Syria.

If there's no political will, or if it's just going to be just another neo-colonialist project, if the West continues to insist that it knows what's best instead of helping the local entrepreneurs and reformists rebuild from within their communities, then it won't be done at all.

Military effort will be necessary as you said but it must be with the aim to bring about the end of the war as quickly as possible. Bombing isn't enough; all it does is cause civilian casualties to little military advantage which fuels further radicalisation. Air power is worse than useless unless backed by a strong and concerted ground offensive, and you need a political solution for what happens after the immediate threats are defeated.

Sure, even if we dealt with the poverty and the marginalisation there'll still be rich crazy holes who'll do a Bin Laden, but they can't do much without the foot soldiers willing to fight and die for them.

 

[JohnRM]

Oh sure, Bush's Status of Forces Agreement is 'Obama's fault'... right. And it was probably Obama's recession too...?

I am not naive enough to still think that recessions are any one person's fault. Recessions are a feature of a free market. They can be made worse through poor policy, but it takes quite a number of years for policy to have an effct. President Obama had almost nothing to do with what caused the recession and President Bush only marginally so. However, both Presidents had a tremendous role in the response that has thus far been less than adequate in promoting recovery. Of course, none of that should deflect the blame that rests with Congress, which bears and equal or greater share of responsibility.

As far as Iraq is concerned, it was abundantly clear that American forces needed to remain in the country in order to safeguard the progress that had been made there. I will give the President credit, he did make somewhat of an effort to make that happen, but that effort was less than laudable. The brunt of the blame that he takes for having withdrawn from Iraq results from the fact that he campaigned on it. At that point, at least, he thought it was the right thing to do. Of course, most people aren't honest enough to give him credit for changing his mind and making the effort, like I do. Whatever the case, it was something that needed to be done and he failed to make that happen.

 

[Berzerker]

I would also very much disagree that invading Iraq has gotten us to where we are right now. To start, the invasion of Iraq has very little to do with the rise of ISIS in Syria. Second, ISIS would be significantly weaker had American forces remained in the country. But, you will have to ask Barack Obama about that.

George Bush negotiated our withdrawal from Iraq and ISIS is the Sunni resistance to Shia rule, they've expanded their territory into Syria thanks in part to our efforts destabilizing the country - that was Obama's doing

 

[JohnRM]

George Bush negotiated our withdrawal from Iraq and ISIS is the Sunni resistance to Shia rule, they've expanded their territory into Syria thanks in part to our efforts destabilizing the country - that was Obama's doing

I have already responded to the question of the withdrawal.

If U.S. forces had remained in the country, ISIS would never have risen up in Iraq. It is the direct result of U.S. forces no longer being in the country, not that of the invasion itself. Ascribing it as such would be akin to assigning blame for the Trail of Tears to British settlement of North America. One did NOT have to follow the other and would not have barring specific sets of events that occurred in between.

We agree that Obama's dithering in Syria has made things worse.

 

[red_elk]

U.S. didn't have to enter there in the first place. IS appeared there only as an ugly result of American occupation of the country - whether USA could use military to partially fix it, or not, is a separate question.

 

[Berzerker]

I am not naive enough to still think that recessions are any one person's fault. Recessions are a feature of a free market.

I dont know if I'd say we have a free market, the housing bubble was driven by quasi-government entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and banks gambling with our tax dollars.

The brunt of the blame that he takes for having withdrawn from Iraq results from the fact that he campaigned on it. At that point, at least, he thought it was the right thing to do.

What was he supposed to do, declare Bush's deal null and void when he enters office and risk angering the Iraqis even more? Of course he vocally supported the deal, he's not a backstabbing Republican

If U.S. forces had remained in the country, ISIS would never have risen up in Iraq.

ISIS was always there waiting for us to leave, the Sunnis wont allow Shia rule over them. Simple. Aint got nothing to do with us. If we stayed and tried to help the Shia "govern" we'd still be taking losses in a smoldering civil war.

 

[Phrossack]

It wouldn't take fifty years.

If there's political will to do it, and do it properly (unlike the Iraq thing), it could be done in ten years.

After 1945 we got Germany and Japan back on their feet and liberalised in about a decade. We could do it with Syria.

If there's no political will, or if it's just going to be just another neo-colonialist project, if the West continues to insist that it knows what's best instead of helping the local entrepreneurs and reformists rebuild from within their communities, then it won't be done at all.

Military effort will be necessary as you said but it must be with the aim to bring about the end of the war as quickly as possible. Bombing isn't enough; all it does is cause civilian casualties to little military advantage which fuels further radicalisation. Air power is worse than useless unless backed by a strong and concerted ground offensive, and you need a political solution for what happens after the immediate threats are defeated.

Sure, even if we dealt with the poverty and the marginalisation there'll still be rich crazy holes who'll do a Bin Laden, but they can't do much without the foot soldiers willing to fight and die for them.

Interesting proposal, but what's the difference between "the West knows best" and "helping local entrepreneurs and reformers"? They sound similar, at least from the perspective of the occupied people.