Paris Attacks

[TheLeviathan]

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.

 

In this case it isn't on the table as an option. I tend to be an advocate less intervention as a general rule and would love to see us scale back on military spending.

 

None of that changes the question I posed however, because there are some really negative consequences to walking away completely.

[glunn]

 

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.

 

I see your point about barbarism, but more than 10,000 children die every day of starvation.  Why not focus on feeding them?  These children are unarmed and are not capable of terrorist activity.  Feeding starving children does not cause our people to suffer PSTD.  From this perspective I see no close call.  Feeding starving children would relieve a lot more suffering at a much lower cost.

 

I still think that we should give ISIS their own country then enforce the borders.  A prerequisite would be an embargo on weapons and ammunition.  They could live within their borders in the 7th century and all radical Muslims around the world should be given free airfare to join them.  They should have water, building materials and other 7th century technology and we should live with the fact that they choose to be barbaric to their own people.  I don't see us invading Africa to stop genital mutilation, so why are we so focused on the middle east?

 

I am seriously committed to cut the number of children who die from starvation, and it seems to me that a trillion dollars spent on this is would yield better results than another war.

[DaveW]

IMO

 

The hard reality is that Isis isn't going to "settle" for that Solution. It may work for a few years but then they will want more and more.

 

World hunger: I agree with you 100%, however we have so much freaking waste in this country but we can't figure out how to stop starvation from stopping here. I am just wary of the idea we can fix that problem globally until we fix it domestically.

[Shane Wahl]

 

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.

YES YES YES

[Shane Wahl]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/03/us-led-air-strikes-on-isis-targets-killed-more-than-450-civilians-report

[glunn]

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/03/us-led-air-strikes-on-isis-targets-killed-more-than-450-civilians-report

 

If the shoe was on the other foot, I would be glad for the fact that I am well armed and a very good shot.  Why can't people understand why they want to kill us?

[TheLeviathan]

Starvation vs Terrorism is a false dilemma argument. We could do both.

 

And if you think all they want is just their own country, you may want to look into this more.

[ashbury]

I still think that we should give ISIS their own country then enforce the borders.

This proposal sounds to me a lot like the appeasement of Germany in the 1930s. "Lebensraum," was all they wanted, at first. Later on they decided they would like some additional living space or elbow room or whatever, please.

 

Or if more successful in terms of containment, the proposal smacks somewhat of the reservations that were set up for Native Americans - with the emphasis on letting a group live within their traditional practices. That solution hasn't worked out to the satisfaction of all, to say the least.

 

The other analogy that comes to mind is the formation of Israel out of land owned at that time by others. That solution has endured for over half a century but at significant ongoing costs.

 

ISIS will almost surely want Mecca to be within the caliphate, while other Muslims will want nothing of the sort. Strife will be perpetual, and both sides will blame whoever set up the "unjust" boundary lines.

[Hrbowski]

Anybody who wants ISIS to have their own country isn't thinking right. ISIS shouldn't even be allowed to live.

[TheLeviathan]

 

ISIS will almost surely want Mecca to be within the caliphate, while other Muslims will want nothing of the sort. Strife will be perpetual, and both sides will blame whoever set up the "unjust" boundary lines.

 

In support of this post, ISIS has pretty much stated as such:  "The legality of all emirates, groups, states and organisations becomes null by the expansion of the khilafah's [caliphate's] authority and arrival of its troops to their areas."

 

One other thing that is also different about ISIS compared to other jihadist movements is the amount of apocryphal references in their teachings.  They truly believe that this is the war to end all wars.  This Atlantic article is pretty interesting as well.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Anybody who wants ISIS to have their own country isn't thinking right. ISIS shouldn't even be allowed to live.

While we're at it, we should probably wipe out any one who has the potential to become a member of ISIS too.   Genocide is really the only way to get the job done.  Even if every member of ISIS were eliminated, some other group would emerge to fill that niche.

 

The question should be is how do we eliminate the niche...

[Squirrel]

Here is a lengthy read ... but edifying.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/?utm_content=bufferb2c32&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[ashbury]

While we're at it, we should probably wipe out any one who has the potential to become a member of ISIS too.   Genocide is really the only way to get the job done.  Even if every member of ISIS were eliminated, some other group would emerge to fill that niche.

 

The question should be is how do we eliminate the niche...

I would tease you for an incomplete attempt at Swiftian-caliber satire.

 

Except... that the Republicans' breathless and frantic demand of presidential candidates of both parties to jump through the hoop of uttering the phrase "radical Islam" and similar constructions, gives inspiration to people who would like to take steps perhaps less horrendous sounding than genocide but not too much better spirited. Imagine if a Paris-style attack or worse were unleashed in the US under a Lindsey Graham administration, and the horrors he would unleash in response. It's an age where it's almost impossible to write satire that goes beyond what people are already thinking.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

Here is a lengthy read ... but edifying.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/?utm_content=bufferb2c32&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Already beat you to this!

 

Trying to steal my thunder.....

[TheLeviathan]

While we're at it, we should probably wipe out any one who has the potential to become a member of ISIS too.   Genocide is really the only way to get the job done.  Even if every member of ISIS were eliminated, some other group would emerge to fill that niche.

 

The question should be is how do we eliminate the niche...

Would it be fair to say the "niche" is a cancerous interpretation of Islam? There are socio political factors and economics ones, but at the end of the day what makes this different is the passionate, violent understanding of Islam.

 

The Atlantic article tended to say the same.

[DaveW]

Off topic a bit. My GF and I are actually scheduled to fly out to Paris this upcoming Saturday for 8 days (has been planned for several months)

 

I'm not worried about safety or anything (NYC basically desensitizes you to such things) and things will be on high alert in Paris.

 

What I am concerned about is it appropriate to go and "vacation" in a place that just had such a terrible event happen at it?

 

I'm not a big fan of the "don't let the terrorists effect our plans, then they win!" Idea, I'm just curious on how the parisans and the city are going to be in the next couple weeks.

 

We are 50/50 at this point (I am pushing for us to keep the trip as is) so any thoughts are encouraged.

[Hrbowski]

 

While we're at it, we should probably wipe out any one who has the potential to become a member of ISIS too.   Genocide is really the only way to get the job done.  Even if every member of ISIS were eliminated, some other group would emerge to fill that niche.

 

The question should be is how do we eliminate the niche...

Well, there is a huge difference from a potential ISIS terrorist and a confirmed ISIS terrorist, just in case you didn't know.

[Badsmerf]

I would go if you can't reschedule. Life will not cease, it just might be a little more somber and tense.

 

I believe western civilisation is too strong and resilient to allow terrorists to change everything.

[formerly33]

 

Off topic a bit. My GF and I are actually scheduled to fly out to Paris this upcoming Saturday for 8 days (has been planned for several months)

I'm not worried about safety or anything (NYC basically desensitizes you to such things) and things will be on high alert in Paris.

What I am concerned about is it appropriate to go and "vacation" in a place that just had such a terrible event happen at it?

I'm not a big fan of the "don't let the terrorists effect our plans, then they win!" Idea, I'm just curious on how the parisans and the city are going to be in the next couple weeks.

We are 50/50 at this point (I am pushing for us to keep the trip as is) so any thoughts are encouraged.

Hm, you have a point. As a heartless person I maybe shouldn't be offering advice, but my take on it is that a sudden halt in tourism can be pretty hurtful on certain economies. Again, taken from my profoundly deep observations on life, Parisians can be a pretty snooty bunch (I know, mass stereotyping...I'm a horrible person, right), so if they disapprove of tourists during this time, believe me, you'll know it. And that could ruin a vacation...who enjoys feeling awkward? But then, I've noticed that you lay little store on other people's opinions of you (haters to the left, right?). I'd say go by all means. Life must begin afresh at one point or another, even in Paris.

 

But like I said, I haven't any heart...you might not want to listen to that.

 

But, knowing who I am, you probably won't want to anyway.

[glunn]

 

This proposal sounds to me a lot like the appeasement of Germany in the 1930s. "Lebensraum," was all they wanted, at first. Later on they decided they would like some additional living space or elbow room or whatever, please.

 

Or if more successful in terms of containment, the proposal smacks somewhat of the reservations that were set up for Native Americans - with the emphasis on letting a group live within their traditional practices. That solution hasn't worked out to the satisfaction of all, to say the least.

 

The other analogy that comes to mind is the formation of Israel out of land owned at that time by others. That solution has endured for over half a century but at significant ongoing costs.

 

ISIS will almost surely want Mecca to be within the caliphate, while other Muslims will want nothing of the sort. Strife will be perpetual, and both sides will blame whoever set up the "unjust" boundary lines.

 

I see a few important differences from appeasing Hitler.  

 

First, Iraq was controlled by the Sunnis until we took out Saddam, then they had to endure brutal repression and humiliation at the hands of their most hated enemies, the Shiites.  Unlike Germany, the Sunnis actually had their backs against a wall.  

 

Second, I see little reason to worry about ISIS scientists developing modern weapons and ISIS factories churning out much more than swords.  ISIS believes in science less than the Republicans, whereas Hitler was developing atomic bombs.  

 

Third, ISIS believes that there will be a climactic battle in the plains of northern Syria.  If we can get them out in the open, this is a battle that we will certainly win.  The only way that we could lose that battle will be if Allah intervenes, as ISIS believes.  I am more than willing to take my chances on that.

 

I understand the problems that arose from putting Native Americans on reservations and from the State of Israel, but it seems to me that there have also been benefits from giving people a homeland.  It also seems to me that after the fall of Saddam we should have done what a lot of smart people suggested -- divide Iraq in to three countries, one for the Sunnis, one for the Shiites and one for the Kurds.  These groups are mortal enemies and in hindsight it seems foolish that our experts expected that they could overcome the level of hatred that exist.

 

I am also not worried about ISIS taking Mecca.  I blame the Saudis for a lot of this and if Mecca gets taken or is destroyed, then only Muslims will be to blame, and I am sick of our troops getting killed and getting PTSD from Muslim civil wars.

 

I acknowledge that there are holes in my proposal. The biggest hole is that ISIS will probably be unwilling to negotiate a deal that involves fixed borders.  In that event, I would still like to provide one way air fare to anyone who wants to move to the caliphate.  I would rather have them there than here, and ideally we can have as many of them as possible on the plains of northern Syria on a day where the world will learn whether Allah is really going to help them defeat a modern army in open battle.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Would it be fair to say the "niche" is a cancerous interpretation of Islam? There are socio political factors and economics ones, but at the end of the day what makes this different is the passionate, violent understanding of Islam.

The Atlantic article tended to say the same.

I'd say that the cancerous interpretation of Islam is the vehicle used to occupy the available niche.  The niche, I think, has been created and sustained by global, esp. Western, political and economic policy regarding land and resources in the Middle East since WWII.    It hardly matters what religion such people are beholden, rather that there is some means to reify such people's need for radicalism. It could easily be nationalism or some other ideology (like communism) that provides the basis of uniting radically-motivated people.  

 

My point is that we can't eliminate the phenomenon of terrorism until we really accept what conditions allow for radicalism to breed.   And we might find that those conditions have been created as result of policies that benefit the West at the expense of local people.  

 

All that said, I'm not sure what we can really do it about in the short term.  In the long term, allowing local people to better benefit from local resources would go a long way to closing that niche for radicalism.   

(I'll take a look at the Atlantic article when/if I get a chance.)

[DaveW]

 

Hm, you have a point. As a heartless person I maybe shouldn't be offering advice, but my take on it is that a sudden halt in tourism can be pretty hurtful on certain economies. Again, taken from my profoundly deep observations on life, Parisians can be a pretty snooty bunch (I know, mass stereotyping...I'm a horrible person, right), so if they disapprove of tourists during this time, believe me, you'll know it. And that could ruin a vacation...who enjoys feeling awkward? But then, I've noticed that you lay little store on other people's opinions of you (haters to the left, right?). I'd say go by all means. Life must begin afresh at one point or another, even in Paris.

 

But like I said, I haven't any heart...you might not want to listen to that.

 

But, knowing who I am, you probably won't want to anyway.

In my experiences, Parisians are just like New Yorkers, they are perfectly nice etc as long as you respect them and their customs. It's when an overweight family from Wisconsin (stereotyping!) goes to a restaurant or bar and bitches about the cooking/no ketchup/no bud light.

 

I think its basically going to come down to if the museums etc are going to be open or not when we arrive. I emailed the lady who owns the apartment that we are going to rent and she suggested we still come (though there are about 1600 reasons why she might say that regardless)

 

Seriously though you have some good advice, I appreciate it. And I do care how people view me (though I don't really care about random people on a Twins message board  who may think I am some douche because I have some hot sports opinions about our beloved team, live and let live etc)

[DaveW]

 

 

Well, there is a huge difference from a potential ISIS terrorist and a confirmed ISIS terrorist, just in case you didn't know.

I think he was being facetious

[glunn]

 

Here is a lengthy read ... but edifying.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/?utm_content=bufferb2c32&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

We subscribe to the Atlantic and for the most part I believe that this article is instructive.  

 

On the other hand, it seems to me that the article fails to adequately address the consequences of boots on the ground in a war against a religious caliphate.  Even if we win the war, there will be some religious nutcases who will then have nothing to live for except maybe terrorist suicide.  Better to get them all in one place, preferably on the plains of northern Syria.  Then we can all find out if Allah is going to help them defeat a modern army.

[glunn]

 

I would tease you for an incomplete attempt at Swiftian-caliber satire.

 

Except... that the Republicans' breathless and frantic demand of presidential candidates of both parties to jump through the hoop of uttering the phrase "radical Islam" and similar constructions, gives inspiration to people who would like to take steps perhaps less horrendous sounding than genocide but not too much better spirited. Imagine if a Paris-style attack or worse were unleashed in the US under a Lindsey Graham administration, and the horrors he would unleash in response. It's an age where it's almost impossible to write satire that goes beyond what people are already thinking.

 

I suspect that Graham would deploy some neutron bombs if he could get them.

[DaveW]

 

One other thing that is also different about ISIS compared to other jihadist movements is the amount of apocryphal references in their teachings.  They truly believe that this is the war to end all wars. 

Yup, this is a very big part of what makes them a difficult "enemy"

[TheLeviathan]

I'd say that the cancerous interpretation of Islam is the vehicle used to occupy the available niche. The niche, I think, has been created and sustained by global, esp. Western, political and economic policy regarding land and resources in the Middle East since WWII.

I understand this portrayal and, to be honest, it may be as right as the counter-theory I'm suggesting because these issues run deep in the region.

 

This doesn't strike me as downtrodden citizens finding a cult of Islam to devote themselves too. Rather, the Wahabism these guys openly promote found influence in precisely the resources you cited. The Saudi oil boom allowed them to buy almost complete control of the legal and educational systems and promote their medieval interpretations and hyper violent approach across the Muslim world.

 

No, I think this has more to do with a powerful religious message that is actively attracting people to do horrible things not because of frustration with their plight in life, but out of total devotion to what they think their god commands of them.

 

We have seen how dangerous that is many times in the past from many religions.

[TheLeviathan]

We subscribe to the Atlantic and for the most part I believe that this article is instructive.  

 

On the other hand, it seems to me that the article fails to adequately address the consequences of boots on the ground in a war against a religious caliphate.  Even if we win the war, there will be some religious nutcases who will then have nothing to live for except maybe terrorist suicide.  Better to get them all in one place, preferably on the plains of northern Syria.  Then we can all find out if Allah is going to help them defeat a modern army.

So rather than going through all the BS to rewrite borders....why don't we just pass them a note during math that it's on for realsies in Syria as soon as the bell rings?

 

I'm joking, but while all the extra crap if you want boots on the ground too? They won't give back territory, if you want to force their apocryphal battle....why not just show up in mass force at their doorstep? It seems to be basically the same idea, unless I'm missing something.

[Squirrel]

 

Off topic a bit. My GF and I are actually scheduled to fly out to Paris this upcoming Saturday for 8 days (has been planned for several months)

I'm not worried about safety or anything (NYC basically desensitizes you to such things) and things will be on high alert in Paris.

What I am concerned about is it appropriate to go and "vacation" in a place that just had such a terrible event happen at it?

I'm not a big fan of the "don't let the terrorists effect our plans, then they win!" Idea, I'm just curious on how the parisans and the city are going to be in the next couple weeks.

We are 50/50 at this point (I am pushing for us to keep the trip as is) so any thoughts are encouraged.

I read an article yesterday or earlier today ... skimmed it actually ... by Rick Steves about going to Paris right now. Google search hasn't come up with anything, but I'll see if I can still find it.

[Squirrel]

 

 

Hm, you have a point. As a heartless person I maybe shouldn't be offering advice, but my take on it is that a sudden halt in tourism can be pretty hurtful on certain economies. Again, taken from my profoundly deep observations on life, Parisians can be a pretty snooty bunch (I know, mass stereotyping...I'm a horrible person, right), so if they disapprove of tourists during this time, believe me, you'll know it. And that could ruin a vacation...who enjoys feeling awkward? But then, I've noticed that you lay little store on other people's opinions of you (haters to the left, right?). I'd say go by all means. Life must begin afresh at one point or another, even in Paris.

 

But like I said, I haven't any heart...you might not want to listen to that.

 

But, knowing who I am, you probably won't want to anyway.

From one having been to Paris numerous times, I find this stereotype very overblown. I have had nothing but tremendous hospitality, even when I attempt to fumble with my very rudimentary French.