Paris Attacks

[glunn]

 

Anyone?

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

 

 

 You are asking a question that demands a complex answer.  

[Shane Wahl]

http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/

 

 

[Shane Wahl]

I will always come back to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. I don't mean the details of the original "study" but just the general point about the "upbuilding" of oneself as requiring certain more basic needs always be met first (survival and security, then love and esteem, then intellectual, creative, and spiritual). I am not denying that there are outliers in significant numbers, and that poor people cannot be spiritually sound and politically aware. But it does seem true that if you are starving and living in day-to-day terror of civil war and whatnot, you might not get much of a chance to develop A: political thinking to build democratic movements, and B: a proper relationship with what one takes to be the Almighty.

Especially if you are either illiterate or your access to information is pretty controlled.
 

[PseudoSABR]

 

I will always come back to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. 

It's funny how we dismiss the former and the familiar.  Of course, I remember learning this, or rather, being taught this, as it felt so obviously true that it was hardly of note; and now, it's so obviously true, it's painful to say.

[TheLeviathan]

The radicalism to which they aspire may have quite a bit in common.  I also think there's also a shared meaninglessness at the root of both's radicalism.  There's certainly a similarity in the radical violence and the targeting of seemingly innocent people.

 

It's a BS point meant to equivocate America with ISIS. There are few places in the world where an organization such as this exists, in all corners of the world. Cheapening the Atlantic article by including random perpetrators of violence in America to some how...what? Makes us understand it? Show we are just as bad?

 

Please, we have plenty to take account for, Obama's reckless drone strikes included, but that's simply a false equivalency.

 

Look, anyone that carries out a heinous act against another person could be said to have employed "radical violence" and "targeted innocent people". Every rape and murder would seem to qualify by that flimsy measure. So every rapist and murderer in America or Brazil or Australia is somehow an equivalency to ISIS?

 

Methinks you've stretched that comparison too thin and lost the big picture. Which is what the original poster did with that preposterous claim.

[Craig Arko]

I think the best hope to change the situation lies with maybe our best allies in this situation; the Islamic community itself.

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/shamisivasubramanian/waleed-alys-powerful-speech-following-the-paris-attacks-is-a#.cty6wkLo8R

[twinsnorth49]

I think the best hope to change the situation lies with maybe our best allies in this situation; the Islamic community itself.

 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/shamisivasubramanian/waleed-alys-powerful-speech-following-the-paris-attacks-is-a#.cty6wkLo8R

Agreed, and for us to stop giving them what they want.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Anyone?

 

Innocent human beings are being slaughtered, raped, and imprisoned by the thousands. IF that isn't enough for you, they won't stop there, they'll keep expanding and attacking "us".

 

Why is it ok to let Syrians die, but if a few US people are killed we try to overthrow entire nations?

[Willihammer]

 

Innocent human beings are being slaughtered, raped, and imprisoned by the thousands. IF that isn't enough for you, they won't stop there, they'll keep expanding and attacking "us".

 

Why is it ok to let Syrians die, but if a few US people are killed we try to overthrow entire nations?

I'm going to ignore the 2nd part of that answer.

 

They are having a civil war, correct?

[PseudoSABR]

 

It's a BS point meant to equivocate America with ISIS. There are few places in the world where an organization such as this exists, in all corners of the world. Cheapening the Atlantic article by including random perpetrators of violence in America to some how...what? Makes us understand it? Show we are just as bad?

Whether it should be included in the article isn't really the point.  If you don't want to acknowledge the similarities between the two phenomena, that's your loss.  Again, I think ISIS has less to do with religion and more to do with radicalization.  The radical violence of individual Americans may be sourced in a common diaspora and meaninglessness, that perhaps when shared from generation to generation may lay the seeds of this sort of radical terrorism.  

[Badsmerf]

I'm going to ignore the 2nd part of that answer.

 

They are having a civil war, correct?

If you really believe isis doesn't pose a threat to the US, there really is no discussion is there? Or, if you believe countries should be allowed to persecute, kill, deny basic necessities of life, we have no discussion.

 

While the US has given is people an enormous amount of freedom and rights, maybe it's difficult to see what is happening in some parts of the world. I don't believe we should be in every civil war (like Rand Paul pointed out), but I do believe we should defend the defenseless. Unfortunately, the United nations hasn't stepped up to this challenge, and the US gets involved in conflicts that should be resolved with the un.

 

At some point hopefully, we can work toward that with our world leaders. When we have countries like China and Russia, who seem to have no desire to contribute to anything that doesn't help their interests directly, it makes it difficult to accomplish.

[twinsnorth49]

Innocent human beings are being slaughtered, raped, and imprisoned by the thousands. IF that isn't enough for you, they won't stop there, they'll keep expanding and attacking "us".

I'd love to believe this is the noble, selfless motive of the West, but places like Rwanda, Bosnia and many others tell me otherwise.

[Willihammer]

 

If you really believe isis doesn't pose a threat to the US, there really is no discussion is there? Or, if you believe countries should be allowed to persecute, kill, deny basic necessities of life, we have no discussion.

While the US has given is people an enormous amount of freedom and rights, maybe it's difficult to see what is happening in some parts of the world. I don't believe we should be in every civil war (like Rand Paul pointed out), but I do believe we should defend the defenseless. Unfortunately, the United nations hasn't stepped up to this challenge, and the US gets involved in conflicts that should be resolved with the un.

At some point hopefully, we can work toward that with our world leaders. When we have countries like China and Russia, who seem to have no desire to contribute to anything that doesn't help their interests directly, it makes it difficult to accomplish.

Is ISIS a threat to China?

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'd love to believe this is the noble, selfless motive of the West, but places like Rwanda, Bosnia and many others tell me otherwise.

 

I didn't say it was why we ARE interested, I said it is why we SHOULD be interested. Borders are fake lines drawn on pieces of paper (or computers). If life is so damn sacred, why are US lives sacred, and Syrian lives and African lives not? No way we can solve all the world's problems or police everything, but I was asked why we should care.....IMO, we should care because innocent people are being raped, enslaved, and slaughtered.

[Willihammer]

 

I didn't say it was why we ARE interested, I said it is why we SHOULD be interested. Borders are fake lines drawn on pieces of paper (or computers). If life is so damn sacred, why are US lives sacred, and Syrian lives and African lives not? No way we can solve all the world's problems or police everything, but I was asked why we should care.....IMO, we should care because innocent people are being raped, enslaved, and slaughtered.

That isn't what I asked. What I asked is, what are our interests in Syria or Iraq? What business do we have there?

[Mike Sixel]

 

That isn't what I asked. What I asked is, what are our interests in Syria or Iraq? What business do we have there?

 

I'm done. You aren't even listening. I have clearly stated our interest....you don't agree, fine. But you aren't even trying to further a conversation at all.

[USMCTwin]

 

I didn't say it was why we ARE interested, I said it is why we SHOULD be interested. Borders are fake lines drawn on pieces of paper (or computers). If life is so damn sacred, why are US lives sacred, and Syrian lives and African lives not? No way we can solve all the world's problems or police everything, but I was asked why we should care.....IMO, we should care because innocent people are being raped, enslaved, and slaughtered.

 

I agree and I feel ashamed by how little we are doing and how little people/the media seems to care until it impacts us directly. I have read stories of people going over to fight with Peshmerga and I can't help but feel compelled to leave my family and kids as a former Marine to help in any way I can. I know I probably won't do it and it would be really tough for my family, but it's something I am battling daily now. It's just heartbreaking what these people are going through on a daily basis and how little we are doing to help.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Whether it should be included in the article isn't really the point.  If you don't want to acknowledge the similarities between the two phenomena, that's your loss.  Again, I think ISIS has less to do with religion and more to do with radicalization.  The radical violence of individual Americans may be sourced in a common diaspora and meaninglessness, that perhaps when shared from generation to generation may lay the seeds of this sort of radical terrorism.  

 

By the same vague connections about murder I could probably get Lizzy Borden involved in the conversation too, but that doesn't do a damn bit of good.

 

No, this thread of inane thought started with someone trying to compare fundamentalist Christians in America (annoying, don't agree with them but not even close to the same friggin thing) to ISIS.  Then it compared lone gunman murderers to an army of religious zealots.  

 

This stems from some need by those in our country to falsely equivocate what we know as "bad" with what is happening there.  It is not even close to the same thing.  ISIS is an army of religious zealots bent on forcing they apocalypse and they are raping, slaughtering, torturing, enslaving, and terrifying their way to it.

 

So no, not analogous in any meaningful way and sure as hell not as a critique of a thorough piece in the Atlantic.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'd love to believe this is the noble, selfless motive of the West, but places like Rwanda, Bosnia and many others tell me otherwise.

 

And therein lies one of the other horrible problems.  We might leave with noble intentions, but how do we keep those?  Not only in how we conduct ourselves during the conflict, but in the aftermath as well.

 

I want to say that these bastards are just too evil to live, but I don't trust Western governments to leave it much better off in the wake of getting rid of them either.

[Willihammer]

 

I'm done. You aren't even listening. I have clearly stated our interest....you don't agree, fine. But you aren't even trying to further a conversation at all.

That's a pretty naive take then.

 

I think this answers my question:

 

http://www.mintpressnews.com/migrant-crisis-syria-war-fueled-by-competing-gas-pipelines/209294/

[Willihammer]

If true, then our interests in the internal affairs of Syria and Iraq has nothing to do with stopping  violence, nothing to do with anti-terrorism, and nothing to do with Islam. Our interest appears to be in securing energy for our European allies via a pipeline through Syria.

[twinsnorth49]

 

And therein lies one of the other horrible problems.  We might leave with noble intentions, but how do we keep those?  Not only in how we conduct ourselves during the conflict, but in the aftermath as well.

 

I want to say that these bastards are just too evil to live, but I don't trust Western governments to leave it much better off in the wake of getting rid of them either.

Exactly what Bin Laden wanted when he brought the West to Afghanistan and Iraq. Regardless of how far back the seeds of radicalism were sown and what the causes are, this certainly played a major part in where we are today. Instability was the goal, mission accomplished.

[twinsnorth49]

 

If true, then our interests in the internal affairs of Syria and Iraq has nothing to do with stopping  violence, nothing to do with anti-terrorism, and nothing to do with Islam. Our interest appears to be in securing energy for our European allies via a pipeline through Syria.

This is news? Wth do you think Russia gives a flying ****?

[Craig Arko]

 

Exactly what Bin Laden wanted when he brought the West to Afghanistan and Iraq. Regardless of how far back the seeds of radicalism were sown and what the causes are, this certainly played a major part in where we are today. Instability was the goal, mission accomplished.

I can't bring myself to like this so I'll simply nod my head in agreement.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Exactly what Bin Laden wanted when he brought the West to Afghanistan and Iraq. Regardless of how far back the seeds of radicalism were sown and what the causes are, this certainly played a major part in where we are today. Instability was the goal, mission accomplished.

 

Well said.

 

And yet....these bastards.  I just don't know.  Glad I'm not one making any decisions on the matter, they all seem like morally and strategically poor choices.

[Willihammer]

 

This is news? Wth do you think Russia gives a flying ****?

Heh?

[twinsnorth49]

 

Heh?

Our interest appears to be in securing energy for our European allies via a pipeline through Syria.

 

Seriously dude? You said this, connect the dots. I'm not doing it for you.

[Willihammer]

 

Seriously dude? You said this, connect the dots. I'm not doing it for you.

After 5 pages of debate about Islam and terrorism, I asked (again) what our interests in the Iraqi-Syrian situation was, and was given an answer "to stop civilian atrocities." I countered with the link above suggesting that the US-led coaltion covertly destabilized Syria for the purposes of securing an oil pipeline to Europe. I am sorry if this was widely understood already, however if you search the thread for "pipeline," you wont find a return until my post on page 6.

 

I admit I have my biases but am trying to make sense of a confusing situation and it seems clear that the Paris attacks have little or nothing to do with the Islamic extremism discussed so far.

 

When you consider the attacks in that context, doesn't it lend a different light to them?

[twinsnorth49]

 

After 5 pages of debate about Islam and terrorism, I asked (again) what our interests in the Iraqi-Syrian situation was, and was given an answer "to stop civilian atrocities." I countered with the link above suggesting that the US-led coaltion covertly destabilized Syria for the purposes of securing an oil pipeline to Europe. I am sorry if this was widely understood already, however if you search the thread for "pipeline," you wont find a return until my post on page 6.

 

I admit I have my biases but am trying to make sense of a confusing situation and it seems clear that the Paris attacks have little or nothing to do with the Islamic extremism discussed so far.

 

When you consider the attacks in that context, doesn't it lend a different light to them?

Huh? I don't think the real US  interest in Syria and the Paris attacks are linked, ISIS has no stake in the energy power play going on in the country between Western Europe and Russia, in which the US is playing a significant role. They do have a stake and great interest in the instability of Syria though.

 

 

[Willihammer]

 

Huh? I don't think the real US  interest in Syria and the Paris attacks are linked, ISIS has no stake in the energy power play going on in the country between Western Europe and Russia, in which the US is playing a significant role. They do have a stake and great interest in the instability of Syria though.

You think maybe its possible that a subset of Syrian refugees would buy into the theory that Europe caused, and stands to gain by, the sectarian violence in their homeland, and be angered to the point of attacking like this?