Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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".

[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.

[Brenus]

"token muslim in the French cabinet " Really? Why do you assume that an Muslim woman is a token? It shows more about you than her, as you probably have no idea of her success or failure.
But of course, because she is a woman, a Muslim, she can be only a token. She was just in charge of the Justice department in France (post that you have not reach in your country yet), a very unimportant post in all states, as we all know.

"even assuming that Hollande is the type of socialist" You should first assume that Holland is socialist...

[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.