Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"The French muslim population sympathizes with ISIS in droves. They sign up to fight at a higher rate then any other Western nation. The base for ISIS support in the west is in France. The Washington Post has numbers. I'm sure you've seen" No, I didn't, but I am sure you will provide a link. And of course from where your statistic come from... I sure ISIL publish interesting ones...
Dear, the "Muslim" population were fighting for France and were giving their blood long before the USA even recognised blacks as human being.
Still head in the sand, I see...

Ask and ye shall receive, knock and the door shall be opened: http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-radical-islam

[Montmorency]

Well, let's also highlight that Islamists have their own ideological divisions.

IS are of course the most extreme, the "aggressive AI" version of Islamism. Al Qaeda is another such, but they are notably different in the details and timescales of their operations.

Others believe in "defensive jihad", which most modestly means that you stay out unless there's a casus belli like 'boots on the ground' or less modestly 'Israeli oppression of Palestinians. This is arguably where Hamas and Hezbollah fall, which is why they are currently struggling against (so far relatively small-scale) IS recruitment efforts in the Levant.

The weak-Islamist types are the most prevalent in Europe; they are the ones who don't really stomach direct violence or terrorist campaigns, but do want to displace or overshadow Western cultures (at the very least in the Muslim world) through what we would call "soft power".

[Papewaio]

http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-ci...l-finds-266795

Also, those muslims who were "fighting for France" were conscripted. I doubt the Indians in the British army would feel they were defending the queen.

Learn your history the Muslims in India were not anti British. Learn about Football (soccer) and Cricket and you might understand a crucial cultural tie between UK and the rest of the world.

"In 1939 the Indian Army numbered 205,000 men. It took in volunteers and by 1945 was the largest all-volunteer force in history, rising to over 2.5 million men.[11] These forces included tank, artillery and airborne forces. Indian soldiers earned 30 Victoria Crosses during the World War II"

[Montmorency]

Learn your history the Muslims in India were not anti British. Learn about Football (soccer) and Cricket and you might understand a crucial cultural tie between UK and the rest of the world.

"In 1939 the Indian Army numbered 205,000 men. It took in volunteers and by 1945 was the largest all-volunteer force in history, rising to over 2.5 million men.[11] These forces included tank, artillery and airborne forces. Indian soldiers earned 30 Victoria Crosses during the World War II"

On the other hand, Queen Victoria did not reign over the Empire during the world wars.

[Strike For The South]

Learn your history the Muslims in India were not anti British. Learn about Football (soccer) and Cricket and you might understand a crucial cultural tie between UK and the rest of the world.

"In 1939 the Indian Army numbered 205,000 men. It took in volunteers and by 1945 was the largest all-volunteer force in history, rising to over 2.5 million men.[11] These forces included tank, artillery and airborne forces. Indian soldiers earned 30 Victoria Crosses during the World War II"

Are we now defending empire? Im also aware that most Indians today begrudge their colonial past. Our resident Frenchman was making it seem like Frances imperial muslims were rushing to save the republic, they were not.

[Papewaio]

On the other hand, Queen Victoria did not reign over the Empire during the world wars.

What are you talking about?

[Strike For The South]

What are you talking about?

The idea that Frances imperial subjects were fighting for the republic in the world wars is absurd. Brenus was trying to conflate the integration of Today's muslims with French muslims fighting in the world wars. He even took a shot at the USA, but the fact of the matter is, one has nothing to do with the other.

Millions of people trying to integrate into your society is not the same as soldiers from the empire or a few upper class minorities you can trot out and claim how well the republic is doing.

[Montmorency]

What are you talking about?

A little pedantic, but Strike said that he doubted "the Indians in the British Army felt they were defending the queen".

Regardless, there surely were differences in attitude - for all ethnicities represented in the military- between 1840 and 1940.

[Strike For The South]

A little pedantic, but Strike said that he doubted "the Indians in the British Army felt they were defending the queen".

Regardless, there surely were differences in attitude - for all ethnicities represented in the military- between 1840 and 1940.

Bruh. Let me have my figure of speech.

In any event I find it hilarious empire is now being trotted out as a net positive for cultural relations. Brown people were fighting for France because brutally decided they were in charge of their lands

I'm sure that left a good taste in their mouths.

[Papewaio]

Are we now defending empire? Im also aware that most Indians today begrudge their colonial past. Our resident Frenchman was making it seem like Frances imperial muslims were rushing to save the republic, they were not.

They volunteered it was their choice. It wasn't Empire demanding for them to join up, nor after independence joining the Commonwealth.

It is a rebuttal that Muslims and Indians in general did not chose to fight alongside the British. If they were anti British you will have to explain the largest volunteer fighting force the world has ever seen being on the British side.

[Montmorency]

The idea that Frances imperial subjects were fighting for the republic in the world wars is absurd.

By the way, Strike, have you ever heard of the classicist Victor Davis Hanson?

He once wrote a book in which he presented the cases that:

1. The Thebans were true democrats motivated in fighting Sparta by the moral imperative of freeing the helots.

2. The Unionists were true democrats motivated in fighting the Confederacy by the moral imperative of freeing the Negro slaves.

3. The Americans were true democrats motivated in fighting the Nazis and Japanese by the moral imperative of freeing the world from fascist tyranny.

You would get a real kick out of it...

[Montmorency]

They volunteered it was their choice. It wasn't Empire demanding for them to join up, nor after independence joining the Commonwealth.

It is a rebuttal that Muslims and Indians in general did not chose to fight alongside the British. If they were anti British you will have to explain the largest volunteer fighting force the world has ever seen being on the British side.

There were enough Indians for many millions to be both violently for and violently against the Commonwealth, as well as many more who were apathetic or some more nuanced position.

[Papewaio]

Bruh. Let me have my figure of speech.

In any event I find it hilarious empire is now being trotted out as a net positive for cultural relations. Brown people were fighting for France because brutally decided they were in charge of their lands

I'm sure that left a good taste in their mouths.

Have you read anything by Dumas?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They volunteered it was their choice. It wasn't Empire demanding for them to join up, nor after independence joining the Commonwealth.

It is a rebuttal that Muslims and Indians in general did not chose to fight alongside the British. If they were anti British you will have to explain the largest volunteer fighting force the world has ever seen being on the British side.

A large number of the Indians defected to the Japanese side and then fought handily against the Allies after the fall of Singapore.

You should not disregard economic factors and the belief we were simply going to win - as opposed to support for the Commonwealth.

[Strike For The South]

By the way, Strike, have you ever heard of the classicist Victor Davis Hanson?

He once wrote a book in which he presented the cases that:

1. The Thebans were true democrats motivated in fighting Sparta by the moral imperative of freeing the helots.

2. The Unionists were true democrats motivated in fighting the Confederacy by the moral imperative of freeing the Negro slaves.

3. The Americans were true democrats motivated in fighting the Nazis and Japanese by the moral imperative of freeing the world from fascist tyranny.

You would get a real kick out of it...

I've read his work and he overstates his case. I can understand how you draw similarities between my and his ideas though.

Have you read anything by Dumas?

I have not. I took a date once to the movie version of "the count of monte cristo"

[Papewaio]

A large number of the Indians defected to the Japanese side and then fought handily against the Allies after the fall of Singapore.

You should not disregard economic factors and the belief we were simply going to win - as opposed to support for the Commonwealth.

40,000 mainly POWs so not exactly volunteer and the same for the civilians living in Burma and Malaysia

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

40,000 mainly POWs so not exactly volunteer and the same for the civilians living in Burma and Malaysia

They fought well though, didn't they?

[Papewaio]

They fought well though, didn't they?

They died well.

[AE Bravo]

From Strike's perspective, from where he lives and where he grew up the UAE is very soft living. As you said, everybody is rich.

LOL yeah I’m sure people have it rough in Texas. Their school textbooks are wonderful, I’m sure they get time in prison for speaking out too.

It’s funny because some of them actually think they have it rough. How cute.

what I was arguing was that we should have picked a side years ago - we have actually picked a side in Syria though - the side(s) against Assad and IS.

So basically you would’ve preferred to have this mess sooner rather than later.

The only Powers able to help a Liberal or just moderate revolt in an Arab country are Western Powers

Apparently not. Picking a side will always lead to Islamist hydra. De-Baathification of the Iraqi army was the icing on the cake, you should’ve kept the high-morale secular armies while they were here instead of running them off to terrorist orgs and replacing them with head-drilling Shia militias who have had the time of their lives collecting the heads of your soldiers/American marines.

playing into the hands of the people who just want to build a concrete wall around the Middle East and let the whole thing go to Hell - or even further into Hell.

You either help like a responsible world power as China is doing in Africa or Russia is currently doing in collaboration with a legitimate incumbent - or you leave.

I blame certain countries for allowing US, British, and French military bases instead of Russian ones. GTFO for god's sake and quit crying about immigration, we lose thousands over here your speaking one breath.

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Montmorency]

We need to retool our military to fight borderless wars. Invest in more special forces that move throughout hostile areas and exterminate local/regional ISIS leadership at the same time we bomb strongholds where leaders reside.

And what would that achieve?

Create a propaganda division to stem the tide of radicalization through the promotion of moderate Islamic ideas.

All evidence points against this working, both in the specific case of Islam and for "moderate" propaganda more generally.

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[a completely inoffensive name]

...

[Montmorency]

Think of it as trimming the hedges with the added benefit of no one knowing who did it.

Well, it will be obvious who did it - the same operators as usual, no? The value isn't really in "trimming the hedges", but in comforting the electorates and in martial posturing between world powers. Better than throwing around nukes, I suppose, but still pretty wasteful.

As for propoganda, the West has simply been doing it wrong. I'm still reading on the matter but again, the goal imo is not about destroying Islamists but preventing the idea from spreading. We must push a successful propoganda message or we are fighting an endless stream of young Muslims.

As it comes to "my fantasy", I maintain that encouragement from the West will not have much impact on Islamism either way; it must deflate itself through fraternal bloodshed.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Of course it's obvious to ISIS but with special forces exposure to the public is minimized, risk of civilian death is lower than drone strikes. My impression is that the US is associated with drones in the air raining bombs and soldiers storming into urban areas, that's what the Islamic community expects to see from the West (as that has been our policy for 15 years).

[Strike For The South]

LOL yeah I’m sure people have it rough in Texas. Their school textbooks are wonderful, I’m sure they get time in prison for speaking out too.

It’s funny because some of them actually think they have it rough. How cute.

You mad bro?

[Papewaio]

I have not. I took a date once to the movie version of "the count of monte cristo"

As cool as the characters are in Dumas books are, his father was way more interesting.

[Strike For The South]

As cool as the characters are in Dumas books are, his father was way more interesting.

Oh that changes everything.

We found the Steve Jobs of revolutionary France.

Does that really change your mind? 1 man? 1 man who is not tangentially related to the issue at hand.

"At one point a half black man in France was well regarded".

That would be like me pointing to Crispus Attucks and saying the American revolution was spearheaded by black Americans.

[Papewaio]

It is one example of many that shows that Africans have been better treated in France then the US. If you read about Dumas then you would learn about his mentor:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chev...e_Saint-George

It was in 1793 Dumas made General in Chief, it took until 1975 for an African American to reach the equivalent rank in the U.S.

Toussaint Louverture was the second African-Frenchman to be a four star equivalent for France in 1797.

You are very wrong about France's integration. U.S. isn't the leader in this, yes better then Australia but that is because we are borderline apartheid until the sixties.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It is one example of many that shows that Africans have been better treated in France then the US. If you read about Dumas then you would learn about his mentor:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chev...e_Saint-George

It was in 1793 Dumas made General in Chief, it took until 1975 for an African American to reach the equivalent rank in the U.S.

Toussaint Louverture was the second African-Frenchman to be a four star equivalent for France in 1797.

You are very wrong about France's integration. U.S. isn't the leader in this, yes better then Australia but that is because we are borderline apartheid until the sixties.

French sure didn't treat them well outside of their borders. Also, when was the last time France elected a black prime minister?