Paris Attacks

[DaveW]

Very, very sad stuff

[Hrbowski]

Anybody who does this has a sick mind.

[ashbury]

Je suis encore Charlie.

[Badsmerf]

I feel for the people in Paris. What a tragedy. I don't know what it will take to erase this world of things like this. I hope, at some point, we can all live in peace. Settle our disputes with words instead of bullets. Unfortunately, there has to be justice.

[Squirrel]

So sad. Hope killing.

[biggentleben]

I'm at my night job, so I cannot get on Twitter to get the picture, but someone in another forum just posted a picture from Twitter of the streets of Paris with a huge crowd holding up lit signs saying "Not Afraid" on them.

 

As a frequent concert-goer and someone who does security for a music festival each summer, I'm probably most upset at that venue being the focus of the attack, but this was about attempting to strike fear in times of enjoyment and leisure - dining out, sporting events, a concert. These are times when we as people allow ourselves to be our most vulnerable. Our entertainment is when we allow our hearts to be taken into the hands of someone else. There is little more intimate than live music of what you enjoy on the musical spectrum. To violate someone when they are at their most vulnerable is akin to the pedophile to me, taking advantage of the vulnerable for your own gains.

 

I don't have the words adequate for condolence. I found out on Facebook that a friend of mine was leading a group of pastors and church leaders on a tour of Paris. That personalized this way more than I was prepared for, and I don't know how I would have responded to losing a friend to such senseless violence.

[Squirrel]

As a frequent concert-goer and someone who does security for a music festival each summer, I'm probably most upset at that venue being the focus of the attack

As someone who has been to Paris many times, mostly for work giving concerts, hearing that a concert hall was the scene of the largest body count was especially emotional for me.

[twinsnorth49]

Why?

[Squirrel]

Why?

There is never a good answer to that question. I know you know that, but just saying.

[twinsnorth49]

This just reaffirms why for the most part I hate humanity. We're ****ing useless.

[glunn]

 

Why?

 

I think that any solution must come from the answer to that question.

 

It seems to me that terrorism is hard wired into our DNA.  Please ask yourself whether you would ever join a terror group that is planning to kill millions of people.  Then please consider what you would do in the following scenario.

 

Radical Muslims develop a virus that kills 99% of all Americans.  Your loved ones all die and you are one of a few million survivors.  The Radical Muslims then take control of the United States and enslave almost all of the survivors, raping the women and castrating the men.  You manage to hook up with a resistance cell, and they have a plan to release a virus that will cause most of the Muslims to die horrible deaths.  You can help in this effort, knowing that you will be killed during the mission.  Would you participate?  When I think about this scenario my sense is that I have an innate impulse to get revenge and my heartbeat increases and I feel good about dead Muslims.

 

I see two ways to go here.  We can ask France to join us and twenty or thirty other countries in sending 5,000 troops apiece to wipe ISIS from the map.  Countries that come immediately to mind include England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Iran, Pakistan, India, and Turkey.  With enough allies, this should be a piece of cake, and ideally this would promote good feelings among countries who have bad relationships, such as Russia and the Ukraine.  History shows that nothing brings countries together as quickly as a common enemy.

 

One very bad thing about this plan is lots of people would die, including innocent women and children.  Another bad thing is that it would likely result in more terrorism.  These killers in Paris were not cowards -- they knew that they would die.  If we wipe out ISIS, it seems inevitable that their brethren will seek revenge.

 

That leads to the other way to go, which is the path of peace.  I think that such path requires dropping any pretense that the Western powers are innocent in all of this.  Let's face it.  The record of the Western powers in the middle east has been abysmal.  To name a few of many examples, we put the Shah in power, we sold chemical weapons to Saddam that he used to kill a lot of people, and we are the main prop for the disgusting Saudi regime.  More recently, the war to remove Saddam cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.  It seems obvious why are we hated.  It's human nature for people to want revenge when their countries are invaded and occupied and their loved ones are wounded/killed and they see pictures of their countrymen being tortured in a prison like Abu Grabe?  

 

Summing this up, if I were an Iraqi and my family was wiped out by a stray American drone, my first thought would be how can I kill as many Americans as possible.  And it would take a lot to restrain that primal impulse.  However, it seems indisputable that violence begets violence.  Consider Rome versus Carthage, England versus France and the Crusades -- humans are capable of carrying on wars for decades and sometimes centuries.  Each group sees itself as the good people and their enemies as the bad people.  

 

How do we break this cycle?  Peace is hard.  It requires admitting past mistakes.  It also requires compromise and accommodation.  My experience in making peace is that it is critical to address the core interests of each side.  In this case, ISIS wants its own country -- a caliphate that would be a theocracy.  I think that we should put this on the bargaining table.  Frankly, I like the idea of having as many of these radical Muslims in one place as possible and I can live with the fact that they will oppress their own people (who choose not to get out while the getting is good).  Thus, I would let them have their caliphate, subject to an agreement of all civilized countries not to sell them any weapons or technology.  Let them live in the 7th century and leave them alone as much as possible.

 

 

[biggentleben]

 

I'm at my night job, so I cannot get on Twitter to get the picture, but someone in another forum just posted a picture from Twitter of the streets of Paris with a huge crowd holding up lit signs saying "Not Afraid" on them.

 

So, apparently that picture is recycled from the Charlie Hebdo attack. The point still stands. Terrorists want fear, confusion, and chaos. We have to stand up to that.

[TheLeviathan]

This is the problem, we can say what we want about minding our own business and staying out of it and being responsible about our role....but at the end of the day some of these bastards just have to die too. And that balancing act is tough as hell.

[Badsmerf]

Glunn, I like the idea of grouping them in one place as well. Easier to exterminate. I don't think these people want a country. They wouldn't be attacking innocent people in place like France. No, these people want death.

 

I don't know the answer. At some point, the rest of the world is going to get fed up with their antics and make some drastic moves. I'm not sure if this is hair or not, but it will come. If something like this happened in the US... We would already have troops on the ground.

[formerly33]

 

These killers in Paris were not cowards -- they knew that they would die.

Hm, I'd have to disagree. Any coward knows there will be consequences in one way or another, but does it stop them? No. And Muslims aren't afraid of death, anyway. They have 72 virgins with a reset button to look forward to in afterlife.

 

I hope those 72 virgins are heavily armed or, at the very least, are karate black belts.

[twinsnorth49]

 A few things, and by no means do I pretend to have an answer.

 

Yes they are cowards

 

I don't think they necessarily want a country but they do want every bit of Western influence expunged from all of their holy lands and to rule them by their definition of Islam.

 

As hard as it is to disagree with putting more troops on the ground to deal with this, how's that worked for us so far?

 

Capitulation isn't the answer but I just don't know what the compromise is, right now the ideologies don't really allow for any realistic ones. 

 

 

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

Let them live in the 7th century and leave them alone as much as possible.

Let's hope the West tries this, soon. 

[DaveW]

I hate sending in troops but the US has a responsibility to do so at this point, if we didn't bungle everything up by invading and destabilizing the region when we went on W's revenge mission against Saddam, it's highly likely that ISIS would be nowhere near the threat they are currently, I don't know how you "wipe" them out though, their end goal is world annihilation and nothing else, that is a hard enemy to fight.

[Craig Arko]

A heinous, unforgivable crime.

 

There is more to consider, however. Viz,

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

Let's hope the West tries this, soon.

 

This sounds good but has consequences too. We seem to forget that while terrorist attacks are horrible, there are innocent men, women, and children subjected to this and worse daily just because of their country, creed, or beliefs. Slavery, murder, forced refugees, chemical attacks, rape, and I could go on.

 

At what point does turning the blind eye to barbarism not say something about us too?

[drjim]

I don't have much to add, but I am pretty sure that the #1 thing ISIS wants is Western military boots on the ground. I would think long and hard before I do the thing my enemy most wants me to do.

 

I say that while also acknowledging that I don't have many other great ideas about what else to do. Saying no to refugees and arming everyone so they can stop attacks (the two things I most saw referenced in response aside from bombs, bombs and more bombs) don't strike me as all that desirable or effective either.

 

Maybe boots on the ground, a "flypaper" strategy, is the best of many terrible options.

[Craig Arko]

[DaveW]

I don't have much to add, but I am pretty sure that the #1 thing ISIS wants is Western military boots on the ground. I would think long and hard before I do the thing my enemy most wants me to do.

 

I say that while also acknowledging that I don't have many other great ideas about what else to do. Saying no to refugees and arming everyone so they can stop attacks (the two things I most saw referenced in response aside from bombs, bombs and more bombs) don't strike me as all that desirable or effective either.

 

Maybe boots on the ground, a "flypaper" strategy, is the best of many terrible options.

true no easy solution!

[twinsnorth49]

 

I hate sending in troops but the US has a responsibility to do so at this point, if we didn't bungle everything up by invading and destabilizing the region when we went on W's revenge mission against Saddam, it's highly likely that ISIS would be nowhere near the threat they are currently, I don't know how you "wipe" them out though, their end goal is world annihilation and nothing else, that is a hard enemy to fight.

I agree the West bears some responsibility for the rise of Isis, the destabilisation  in the region makes it low hanging fruit for sure and they have exploited the opportunity. It isn't entirely to blame though and inaction was only going to be acceptable for so long.

 

I don't think world annihilation is their goal really, that doesn't jive with their desire to establish a far reaching Islamic state encompassing all Muslims.

[Brock Beauchamp]

This sounds good but has consequences too. We seem to forget that while terrorist attacks are horrible, there are innocent men, women, and children subjected to this and worse daily just because of their country, creed, or beliefs. Slavery, murder, forced refugees, chemical attacks, rape, and I could go on.

 

At what point does turning the blind eye to barbarism not say something about us too?

Yeah, that's the dilemma. If we "leave them alone", these terrible people don't stop doing terrible things.

 

They simply stop doing terrible things to us.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

At what point does turning the blind eye to barbarism not say something about us too?

What you are advocating is what got us into this mess in the first place. 

 

 

[Willihammer]

What exactly are our interests in Syria or Iraq at this point?

[TheLeviathan]

What you are advocating is what got us into this mess in the first place.

 

I never "advocated" it and.....newsflash....the Middle East is f'd up for a whole host of reasons that aren't our fault.

 

I asked the question,at what point when we sit back and say " well as long as they aren't raping American women and children its fine" that it says something bad about us. Because it seems to me that one of the chief reasons people advocate non-intervention it's because they hold other lives elsewhere at a lower value.

 

Now when barbaric horrors cross the line into demanding action by those that can protect those at the mercy of the butchers......that's a very hard call.

[formerly33]

http://stateofmind13.com/2015/11/14/from-beirut-this-is-paris-in-a-world-that-doesnt-care-about-arab-lives/

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

I never "advocated" it and.....newsflash....the Middle East is f'd up for a whole host of reasons that aren't our fault.

I asked the question,at what point when we sit back and say " well as long as they aren't raping American women and children its fine" that it says something bad about us. Because it seems to me that one of the chief reasons people advocate non-intervention it's because they hold other lives elsewhere at a lower value.

Now when barbaric horrors cross the line into demanding action by those that can protect those at the mercy of the butchers......that's a very hard call.

People advocate non-intervention (or call it diplomacy) because it's less horrible than the alternative. Granted, diplomacy can also fail too, for whatever reasons.