Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris

[Pannonian]

I think you're being emotional and resorting to absolutes.

You are seeing everything in terms of us and them. Neither of which are remotely simple and cohesive groups. The majority of "them" have no interest whatsoever in "us". They get on with their lives.

Warzones generate these groups. Mujahaddin were generated by the Russian afghan war. Taleban by the subsequent civil war. AQ from a mix of the two plus Saudi political oppression. Mahdi army and IS by the Iraq war. Now the Syrian war creates and proliferated more.

Guns, training, propaganda, grievance. Those are the soil and growing conditions for terror attacks. The simplest way to generate all is to create Warzones.

We've had multiple homegrown groups who've not been involved in any war, but who began radicalisation with extremist preachers here, before completing their extremist education in Pakistan and other radicalisation centres. Some of them gravitate to warzones. Others seek to create a warzone here. Their supposed grievances include things where we did something, and sometimes they include things where we didn't do anything. These grievances are merely the excuse for what they do. What they aim to do is create a headline. They get their desire to create a headline from their radicalisation. If we try to address one grievance, they merely point to the reverse as what we should have done instead, or point to something else as justification for what they do. They're just excuses. Radicalisation is the reason.

[Kagemusha]

The irony, and the core of the problem, is that the West does not have a monopoly on war.

Strike is correct to call Islamism a "contagion". At this point there is nothing we can do other than to let the violence run its course.

The point is that you can't impose peace. Peace is the will of the people. You have to ACCEPT peace.

Let the violence run its course? Isis are saying that they want to decapitate Obama at the white house, besides using pre puberty girls as sex slaves, burning people alive as witches, chopping off hands for use of cellphones and using ten year old child soldiers as executioners in the videos and you think that they are like ill behaving children whom be nice once again after they have had their fun?

[Husar]

So what's next? The "Endlösung of the Islamfrage"?
Why do we need a solution to this? Around 1k people get shot in the US every year and no one needs a solution.
Some people are crazy, nothing we can do...

[a completely inoffensive name]

We should have never allowed the secular tyrants to be overthrown. I understand the wisdom of it all now.

[Graphic]

So what's next? The "Endlösung of the Islamfrage"?
Why do we need a solution to this? Around 1k people get shot in the US every year and no one needs a solution.
Some people are crazy, nothing we can do...

Actually around 8 or 9k.

[Pannonian]

So what's next? The "Endlösung of the Islamfrage"?
Why do we need a solution to this? Around 1k people get shot in the US every year and no one needs a solution.
Some people are crazy, nothing we can do...

The US can do whatever it likes. This attack happened in the EU.

[Montmorency]

Let the violence run its course? Isis are saying that they want to decapitate Obama at the white house, besides using pre puberty girls as sex slaves, burning people alive as witches, chopping off hands for use of cellphones and using ten year old child soldiers as executioners in the videos and you think that they are like ill behaving children whom be nice once again after they have had their fun?

Don't take my words so lightly. The only way to stop killing is to give people their fill of death. After that, only then can we talk about structural or cultural reform.

I am speaking of a region-wide civil war in which millions would die.

Western countries would simply defend their own territories.

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[AE Bravo]

Not necessarily. Talibans, for example, are influenced by deobandism.

They are all students of Abdul Wahhab, especially after the Soviet invasion of Afghan and OBL. Prince Turki himself had funded the schools and Taliban elders.

This brings great shame to Muslims.

Cutting the funding won't step any of this. It's a contagion and it's already spread.

IS claims responsibility. We all know who made IS. So piss off.

[Husar]

The US can do whatever it likes. This attack happened in the EU.

In France to be exact, you can't just have your EU when you want to be annoyed and want to leave it otherwise.
The rest of what you posted is coherent though, but not exactly practical or enforceable unless you want to create some kind of DDR border to keep the poor out.
And that still doesn't explain why people from the US tell us to "wake up" or why no one used a Russian or Turkish flag profile picture on Facebook. Is it just because Hollande is more sympathetic than Putin and Erdogan or just because it is closer to home? If deaths far away are more acceptable why do the same people have strong opinions about violence in Israel and Palestine?

[Kagemusha]

Don't take my words so lightly. The only way to stop killing is to give people their fill of death. After that, only then can we talk about structural or cultural reform.

I am speaking of a region-wide civil war in which millions would die.

Western countries would simply defend their own territories.

Without the backing of the West and East. IS will run over the middle East,North Africa and Arabian peninsula. You want to fight them at that point? They would probably slaughter quite many people in the process, but not reform. It is not as if the Slaughtering millions reformed Nazi Germany either. No it was determined countries who defeated them and forced them into submission.

Same will apply with the extreme islamists. We simply should grant them their wish and deliver them from this world. They are not going to reform.

[Papewaio]

K

@Papewaio

I don’t guess you see the fallacy in you argument.

Oil is only a commodity. Your whole argument is off the mark.

The threat is an ideology. Financing source is immaterial.

The wealthy and powerful will always find others to do their bidding.

To destroy the funding source you eventually have to destroy the states which provide the power behind it.

As a rule of thumb the more oil in a country the more fundamentalist the region gets.

Compare Singapore vs Malaysia vs Indonesia. Singapore has no oil. It has had to create a smart work force to create wealth. It's neighbors on the other hand have used mineral and oil wealth. Malaysia is not where near as progressive as Singapore, despite Singapore once being part of Malaysia. Malaysia is far more dominated by religious sects as they give legitimacy to their government.

Compare Saudi Arabia vs Iraq vs Syria vs Turkey (North South line, more oil in the South more Fundies too). Turkey is a Muslim democracy, has the least oil. Syria has some but not a lot of oil and has a Secular dictator which by most ME levels wasn't that bad mind you that's comparing to Libya and Iraq. You get into Saudi Arabia and you have a kingdom that has two main things propping it up. The tribe in charge has massive oil reserves and the support of one of not the most fundamentalist sects in Islam.

[AE Bravo]

Compare Saudi Arabia vs Iraq vs Syria vs Turkey (North South line, more oil in the South more Fundies too)

It's also the foundations of the states. Turkish flag is the traditional crescent, while the Saudi flag is the sword below "No God But God" anachronism. Saudis have successfully characterized Islam as a violent struggle. The country was built by the events almost identical to what's going on in Europe and IS. Breaking shrines, executions, genocide, and conquest.

This is all a result of that revivalist movement that is now the Muslim identity.

[Pannonian]

In France to be exact, you can't just have your EU when you want to be annoyed and want to leave it otherwise.
The rest of what you posted is coherent though, but not exactly practical or enforceable unless you want to create some kind of DDR border to keep the poor out.
And that still doesn't explain why people from the US tell us to "wake up" or why no one used a Russian or Turkish flag profile picture on Facebook. Is it just because Hollande is more sympathetic than Putin and Erdogan or just because it is closer to home? If deaths far away are more acceptable why do the same people have strong opinions about violence in Israel and Palestine?

I'm a Europhile. Despite my banter, I see France as the next closest thing to Britain. The US may be kin, but France is closer in geography and in how we see the world.

[Graphic]

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/our_..._at_ourselves/

[Montmorency]

They would probably slaughter quite many people in the process, but not reform. It is not as if the Slaughtering millions reformed Nazi Germany either. No it was determined countries who defeated them and forced them into submission.

That's what I said, yes. You don't seem to understand the thrust of my statement, which is not that IS should get free reign but that the various competing factions of the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa should be allowed to fight it out until they get tired of the devastation.

Without the backing of the West and East. IS will run over the middle East,North Africa and Arabian peninsula. You want to fight them at that point?

You're confused over what IS actually is. IS is just one more faction in the Muslim civil war, and it serves as a center of gravity around which all the smaller factions can consolidate with or against.

But IS is not the extent of Sunni Islamism - that's much wider. IS is just one iteration of an Islamist anti-Western state-unit, and in the course of any fraternal conflict where an organization exists or what it calls itself is not as important as the fact that it instigates bloody fighting to further its ideology.

Here's an outline of what has happened so far:

A. Economic/ecological instability and cultural frictions reach high point.
B. Maximalist religious ideologies organize to gain control over peoples and territories.
C. Ethno-religious civil war ensues over an extended period of time.

However, what we have seen for the most part has been low-level fighting and endemic violence. Only decisive violence on a massive scale can bring about change-from-within. For example, look at the moderating effect the catastrophic Iran-Iraq war (the last real interstate war of our age) on the Iranian nation and government.

Going by my suggestion for minimal interference from the West, at some point this will go on until several primary antagonists coalesce, i.e. allied front of Salafism/Wahaabism vs. nation-states like Egypt, Tunisia, Israel, Iran, Turkey, Kazahkhstan, Azerbaijan vs. local tribal polities in much of Central Asia, Libya, Algeria, and the Arabian peninsula. The best possible scenario is that the unified Islamists in whatever form take control of an extensive, contiguous, land territory which they govern as a state. Bonus points if they take over Saudi Arabia and try to organize a combined-arms military. This is the best case because it causes maximal death and suffering for local populations - now bear with me - and because it is the stage in which the Islamists leave themselves most vulnerable for systematic and decisive destruction. By explicitly forming a sprawling state, or "caliphate", they neuter their grassroots advantages. Remember that it is straightforward for a state to destroy another state, while we have seen just how difficult it is for a state or states to combat amorphous transnational movements.

In this broad scenario, most peninsular states would be permitted to collapse, and a strong naval presence maintained in the Southern Mediterranean. Before the end-stages, Egypt and Turkey would likely have to deal with their own civil wars and purges, but ultimately can be relied on to maintain national integrity and cooperate to destroy a unified Islamist front. Iran can handle itself, and will look out for its interests in the Gulf and in the Caucasus. Israel can also handle itself, and will be useful as a staging ground and logistical hub. Russia, India, and China can be expected to deal with the situation in Pakistan and Central Asia. When expedient, NATO or the UN (representing the West) could deploy massive conventional military force to assist in the destruction of the Islamist regular force and state structure.

The only real mystery is what role Islam in the Pacific Rim will play in the larger confrontation.

All I am saying is that things need to come to a head, and they are not nearly at that point yet. Is it easier to fish water out of a flushing toilet or to smash a block of ice? The West should stay out until at least the end-stages because of the risk of the West itself falling into fascism and civil war otherwise. If your criticism is that it doesn't get rid of "the bad guys", then rest assured that getting rid of the bad guys is exactly what I am describing here. The only real criticism is from a human-rights interventionist perspective that it would be immoral not to "DO SOMETHING", or from a global corporatist perspective that refuses to give up access to commodities and markets no matter what.

[Montmorency]

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/our_..._at_ourselves/

Go sit in the corner.

[Graphic]

Go sit in the corner.

If you take issue with the accurate big picture presented in the article, it would seem you're already sitting in one yourself; or maybe hiding in one, to be more accurate.

[Brenus]

Marianne tears

I wonder when the BUTist will come.
You know, the ones who said about Charlie: BUT...

[Montmorency]

If you take issue with the accurate big picture presented in the article, it would seem you're already sitting in one yourself; or maybe hiding in one, to be more accurate.

What would you say was the "big picture" presented in the article?

The only accurate claim of substance I could find was the unremarkable claim that the West undervalues Muslim victims of Islamist violence relative to Christian victims.

[Papewaio]

That's assuming it becomes a stalemate, that ISIS don't capture nuclear material or weapons from Israel or Iran.

I wouldn't assume Iran can defend itself any better from a ISIS on a roll then Singapore could from WWII Japan.

That's the problem for every quagmire created by Western ideals on how to conquer a country there is a steam roller conquer who makes out like Genghis.

What do we do in 15 years if ISIS hold all of the ME? Do we let the next superpower paradigm be a China vs ISIS dominated world?

ISIS are more likely to fold up and fail once they lose momentum. Let Russia support their Syrian strongman and ISIS will be whittled away.

Yes it won't get rid of the root causes, but it isn't allowing an opportunity for something far worse to evolve.

[Kagemusha]

That's what I said, yes. You don't seem to understand the thrust of my statement, which is not that IS should get free reign but that the various competing factions of the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa should be allowed to fight it out until they get tired of the devastation.



You're confused over what IS actually is. IS is just one more faction in the Muslim civil war, and it serves as a center of gravity around which all the smaller factions can consolidate with or against.

But IS is not the extent of Sunni Islamism - that's much wider. IS is just one iteration of an Islamist anti-Western state-unit, and in the course of any fraternal conflict where an organization exists or what it calls itself is not as important as the fact that it instigates bloody fighting to further its ideology.

Here's an outline of what has happened so far:

A. Economic/ecological instability and cultural frictions reach high point.
B. Maximalist religious ideologies organize to gain control over peoples and territories.
C. Ethno-religious civil war ensues over an extended period of time.

However, what we have seen for the most part has been low-level fighting and endemic violence. Only decisive violence on a massive scale can bring about change-from-within. For example, look at the moderating effect the catastrophic Iran-Iraq war (the last real interstate war of our age) on the Iranian nation and government.

Going by my suggestion for minimal interference from the West, at some point this will go on until several primary antagonists coalesce, i.e. allied front of Salafism/Wahaabism vs. nation-states like Egypt, Tunisia, Israel, Iran, Turkey, Kazahkhstan, Azerbaijan vs. local tribal polities in much of Central Asia, Libya, Algeria, and the Arabian peninsula. The best possible scenario is that the unified Islamists in whatever form take control of an extensive, contiguous, land territory which they govern as a state. Bonus points if they take over Saudi Arabia and try to organize a combined-arms military. This is the best case because it causes maximal death and suffering for local populations - now bear with me - and because it is the stage in which the Islamists leave themselves most vulnerable for systematic and decisive destruction. By explicitly forming a sprawling state, or "caliphate", they neuter their grassroots advantages. Remember that it is straightforward for a state to destroy another state, while we have seen just how difficult it is for a state or states to combat amorphous transnational movements.

In this broad scenario, most peninsular states would be permitted to collapse, and a strong naval presence maintained in the Southern Mediterranean. Before the end-stages, Egypt and Turkey would likely have to deal with their own civil wars and purges, but ultimately can be relied on to maintain national integrity and cooperate to destroy a unified Islamist front. Iran can handle itself, and will look out for its interests in the Gulf and in the Caucasus. Israel can also handle itself, and will be useful as a staging ground and logistical hub. Russia, India, and China can be expected to deal with the situation in Pakistan and Central Asia. When expedient, NATO or the UN (representing the West) could deploy massive conventional military force to assist in the destruction of the Islamist regular force and state structure.

The only real mystery is what role Islam in the Pacific Rim will play in the larger confrontation.

All I am saying is that things need to come to a head, and they are not nearly at that point yet. Is it easier to fish water out of a flushing toilet or to smash a block of ice? The West should stay out until at least the end-stages because of the risk of the West itself falling into fascism and civil war otherwise. If your criticism is that it doesn't get rid of "the bad guys", then rest assured that getting rid of the bad guys is exactly what I am describing here. The only real criticism is from a human-rights interventionist perspective that it would be immoral not to "DO SOMETHING", or from a global corporatist perspective that refuses to give up access to commodities and markets no matter what.

I dont know which reality you dwell, but one does not kill the patient just to treat the symptoms. You seem to be dreaming of some sort of grand stand between Islamist and others. You know what? IS is dreaming of the similar event. You dont sacrifice 500 million people of Middle East in order to have a go with all the wahhabist at once. That is not strategy, but madness.

[Viking]

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/our_..._at_ourselves/

Complains about Muslims being blamed collectively for violence while blaming Westerners collectively for violence. Boring.

But until we look honestly at the violence we export, nothing will ever change

And not only are Muslims collectively blamed for such attacks; they, too, collectively bear the brunt of the backlash.

[Montmorency]

That's assuming it becomes a stalemate, that ISIS don't capture nuclear material or weapons from Israel or Iran.

And then what? Kill a thousand people with it? Nuclear material makes for piss-poor tactical weapons; I'd be much more worried about the circumstances in which anyone "Captures" anything from Israel and Iran.

I wouldn't assume Iran can defend itself any better from a ISIS on a roll then Singapore could from WWII Japan.

More like the other way around, or Singapore attacking Japan.

That's the problem for every quagmire created by Western ideals on how to conquer a country there is a steam roller conquer who makes out like Genghis.

What do we do in 15 years if ISIS hold all of the ME? Do we let the next superpower paradigm be a China vs ISIS dominated world?

Geography in this case prevents any such power from developing. No state or wannabe-state in the region has the capacity to take and hold so much territory, which is precisely why they should be encouraged to attempt to do so.

I dont know which reality you dwell, but one does not kill the patient just to treat the symptoms. You seem to be dreaming of some sort of grand stand between Islamist and others. You know what? IS is dreaming of the similar event.

Correct. The idea is to make sure they lose.

You dont sacrifice 500 million people of Middle East in order to have a go with all the wahhabist at once. That is not strategy, but madness.

It would probably be more like 5 million.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In France to be exact, you can't just have your EU when you want to be annoyed and want to leave it otherwise.

The majority of Britons quite like the eU - but we want to see a serious effort to root out the corruption in this pseudo-super-state where nobody will sign off on the accounts

The rest of what you posted is coherent though, but not exactly practical or enforceable unless you want to create some kind of DDR border to keep the poor out.

It's called a Limes and it was effective enough at keeping your people out so long as we kept it well manned.

It's also the foundations of the states. Turkish flag is the traditional crescent, while the Saudi flag is the sword below "No God But God" anachronism. Saudis have successfully characterized Islam as a violent struggle. The country was built by the events almost identical to what's going on in Europe and IS. Breaking shrines, executions, genocide, and conquest.


This is all a result of that revivalist movement that is now the Muslim identity.

All of this can be shown to have been carried out by early Muslims either within Muhammed's lifetime or immediately following it.

In the other thread you demonstrated a breathtakingly miss-informed understanding of Christianity alongside a disappointing knowledge of early Islamic Scholarship, trying to tell me Muhammed didn't have a nine-year old wife.

Now your contribution to this thread appears to tell us that these Muslims aren't proper Muslims, like you.

Strike is right - you bring nothing to this discussion, no insight or reflection.

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/our_terrorism_double_standard_after_paris_lets_stop_blaming_muslims_and_take_a_hard_look_at_ourselve s/

Notably, the article does not cite any of these other "EU" terror attacks, only the ones outside the EU which happened either in a war zone or on the edge of one.


Also notable is the attention given to the Far-Right Norwegian and Swedish terrorist attacks and the soul-searching after Norway in particular when everyone was forced to acknowledge that we all assumed it was a Muslim and not a poster-boy for Nazi Eugenics.

In other news Hollande called this an "Act of War" after IS claimed responsibility, assume we are headed for Afghan War 2.0.

So yay for military contractors and arms manufacturers and a hearty sob for everyone else.

[Montmorency]

In other news Hollande called this an "Act of War" after IS claimed responsibility, assume we are headed for Afghan War 2.0.

I doubt it, even assuming that Hollande is the type of socialist who gets excited at the thought of "V'stavai strana ogromnaya".

[Pannonian]

The majority of Britons quite like the eU - but we want to see a serious effort to root out the corruption in this pseudo-super-state where nobody will sign off on the accounts



It's called a Limes and it was effective enough at keeping your people out so long as we kept it well manned.

In ancient times we relied on the Limes to keep Europe civilised. In modern times we rely on the Limeys to keep Europe civilised.

[Strike For The South]

Reports are now the attackers spoke accent-less French and yet claimed solidarity in with their brothers in Syria.

But please show me the token muslim in the French cabinet again. That was totally mind blowing.

Back the iron fists, supply them weapons, and make sure the trade agreements are friendly. I don't see what else we can do. Backing the rebels only leads to fractious groups....the devil you know.

[AE Bravo]

Pfh - never said they werent proper muslims, nor did i say there was no nine year old wife. What i said about christianity is true because most forms of veneration and the god that jesus himself knew from the torah has been forgotten.

"Whoever kills an innocent person, it is as if he killed all of humanity"

Rip peace out. Montmorency is right.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I doubt it, even assuming that Hollande is the type of socialist who gets excited at the thought of "V'stavai strana ogromnaya".

The logic may be inescapable.

An attack on NATO by another state, legitimate or not, has to be answered - especially in the face of increasing Russian aggression.