Jump to content
NB96

Terrorist attack on paris

Recommended Posts

Laser Cat    5611

 

no, i understand your point very clearly and i still think it's very naive. you are giving this behavior an excuse - being poor, being in a 3rd world country, whatever. there's no room for violence, period. when a group of people wake up deciding they will behead everyone who doesn't think like them, it's not because they're poor. you dont negotiate with terrorists, you exterminate them (pretend i said it in dalek voice).


I respect where you're coming from, and I want to add to it, because where I'm from, "exterminate" means nothing more than "turn into glass via nuclear holocaust." There's a lot of jingoistic rhetoric near here: I live just east of a major US AFB, and people are really fucking... human in their impatience and self-righteousness about this sort of thing.

Terrorism is a matter of perspective regarding who you do and don't give a fuck about. Any wise foreign policy is going to recognize this first and foremost, and a rejection of the unilateral "we're the good guys" jingoistic narrative is essential to the formation of any wise foreign policy as a result. We have to abandon it. We may even need some counter-intuitive thinking.

For this reason, I find it naive when some people say "terrorists are the way they are because of X circumstance" while forgetting that some terrorists will remain such even if you fix X circumstance. Some will remain, others won't. This isn't reason to avoid fixing X circumstance, it's just reason to view fixing X circumstance as one slice of the problem.

I also find it naive when some people say "you don't negotiate with terrorists, you exterminate them" without noting that exterminating them is exactly what makes other people presently neutral to us lose that neutrality and become more people that we would consider terrorists. Some will become enemies of us upon elimination of terrorists, others will applaud us or fear us for it. This isn't reason to avoid extermination of people that're too far gone, it's just reason to view it as another slice of the problem.

I feel that as result of this, both the carrot approach and the stick approach are flawed, and that we have to merge the two to get anywhere meaningful (unless we want the 21st century to have chronic war as its main character). We must wage a campaign against all violent harm being visited upon humans without actual good, solid reason behind it - like it or not, this means that we're obligated to go after bad foreign policy of established nation-states after we're done ending the threat Daesh poses. We are not some independent entities who've been attacked by persons that had no connection to the circumstances that motivated the attackers. We are citizens of a cosmopolitan, globalized, world - and attackers aren't all born of blind rage. Like it or not, we are people who live in a certain sociopolitical and socioeconomic order perhaps best described as globalized capitalism, and there are those willing to fight on pain of death against that order. As individuals who live here, we hold civic responsibility of a sort regarding the choices bureaucrats and elected officials make on our behalf, as well as personal responsibility to ourselves and to any concept of "truly answering the question of why these events happen" by recognizing the influence non-elected persons (such as capitalists the world over) have on circumstances great and small as well.

Life as a concept, if it were a living and self-aware thing, would pity us for how we often oversimplify these matters. The best way to resolve these matters is to embrace the full complexity of them when concocting solutions. One form of this complexity stems from the notion of how we should best approach the persons who live in Daesh-controlled territories. My countrymen commonly advocate turning that corner of the globe into glass, and I won't lie, I hate them for it.

We'll only end the threat Daesh poses by properly distinguishing between those "too far gone" and those who still have the good fortune to live in circumstances where they'd see "not helping Daesh" as an attractive choice for their life. Those too far gone need to have their potential for harm neutralized, even if that means their lives must be neutralized in the process, though neutralization without termination is preferable so that martyrs are not created. Those who have the good fortune to still have "not helping Daesh" as an attractive choice must be nudged ideologically to embrace that choice.

The fusion of the carrot and the stick is "precision".

Mass bombing doesn't have precision. Rejecting refugees doesn't have precision. Giving people actual literal legitimate reason to dislike us doesn't have precision.

Imprecise actions make more enemies for us, and lead to more people dying. It's worse for everyone.


My country has had some horrible foreign policy over the last 50 plus years, and I distinctly feel that bad policy responsible for Daesh being what it is now. In a sense, victims' blood throughout the Levant and throughout France alike lie on my hands as well as the hands of every American voter. The only way for me to responsibly approach this is to realize that I can't wash my hands of that blood, but I can do a tiny bit to try to make less blood end up on my hands, by advocating for a careful, reasoned, skillful, and precise approach to ending the threat Daesh poses.

That's all I as one man can really do at present about this - I can try to urge this precision.



When we say "we don't negotiate with terrorists, we exterminate them", the people who live near my local AFB need to keep in mind that we can exterminate terrorists without exterminating humans, by killing the things that make helping Daesh look like a desirable choice.

"There's no room for violence" is an easier thing to say to a villain when the villain has no means of criticizing our established nation-states as violent - during the Cold War, the USSR challenged the moral legitimacy of the US by saying "meanwhile, you are still lynching Negroes". The US's elected officials at the time had to admit that those totalitarian Stalinist assholes had a point.



We must not just wage battle against Daesh because of the physical harms it has visited upon the world. We must also wage ideological, rhetorical, and logical battle against the things that lead the people of the Levant to join with Daesh. Shock and awe only go so far; part of this must be complemented by our actively deciding to become more critical of the past policy decisions that led to this situation in the first place. Part of this must be complemented by confronting some of the flawed and ugly attitudes my countrymen have about non-Americans.

Our own past stupidity in policy, our own idiocy in how we approach the world - they're villains here too, just a lot harder to punish than some asshole who beheads people on videotape. We can end the executioner with a weapon, but ending the things that birth executioners is much harder.

 

 

Best solution:  "entice" regional countries (Iran, Saudia Arabia, etc) to work together (lol) and send in ground troops while we, Europe, and Russia coordinate (lol) on air strikes.  That's not going to happen.

 

What's going to happen:  We're going to step up our air strikes, with less regard to civilian causalities.  We are going to pause taking in refugees, which won't offers us any additional protection, but will placate most people (both liberal and conservative).  We might eventually send troops in, although (luckily) few of the members of congress seem to want to push that issue after our last invasion so unless something dramatic happens in America that likely won't happen.  Oh, and Russia may get completely pulled into the Middle East conflict.  That's what everyone here is actually hoping for. 

 

Too many people are caught up on the "muslim extremist" aspect and blaming religion rather than realize that the ISIL has pretty much created a giant welfare state where joining them is the only way to live + make money if you're living in one of their controlled territories.  Their tactics are abhorrent but effective and, like you said,  bombing the fuck out of them isn't going to work.  That's what everyone (US, Russia, France, etc) is going to do though because actually putting troops on the ground is unpopular as fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus the Jew    986

why is quoting political satire like steven colbert acceptable in the first place in a thread about the dire nature of muslim extremism. it's like you guys only want your point of view to be represented.

 

You know your argument would have been taken half seriously if it was just Colbert giving his opinion. The video is him interviewing a Medal of Honor winning US Colonel who knows a thing or two about waging war against an intransigent ideological enemy like ISIS (seeing as he fought in Vietnam). So next time you go off on a dumb rant at least try to pretend like you looked stuff up.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus the Jew    986

And people always talk about wiping out terrorists like that is actually thing. You cannot wipe out an ideology by bombing it away. The bombing just entrenches them and even helps convert others who are victims of the bombing to their cause.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15769

We're going to step up our air strikes, with less regard to civilian causalities.  We are going to pause taking in refugees, which won't offers us any additional protection, but will placate most people (both liberal and conservative).  We might eventually send troops in, although (luckily) few of the members of congress seem to want to push that issue after our last invasion so unless something dramatic happens in America that likely won't happen.  Oh, and Russia may get completely pulled into the Middle East conflict.  That's what everyone here is actually hoping for. 
 
Too many people are caught up on the "muslim extremist" aspect and blaming religion rather than realize that the ISIL has pretty much created a giant welfare state where joining them is the only way to live + make money if you're living in one of their controlled territories.  Their tactics are abhorrent but effective and, like you said,  bombing the fuck out of them isn't going to work.  That's what everyone (US, Russia, France, etc) is going to do though because actually putting troops on the ground is unpopular as fuck.


I know of no liberals who want to use these attacks as a means of saying "let's stop taking in refugees", so I don't get why you say pausing that would placate liberals.

Granted, I also don't think liberals exist in any sense beyond "we're not the Christian equivalent of the Taliban" all that much anymore in the US, so I may just not be seeing the forest for the trees on that one.

Hoping for Russia to get pulled in, though, seems slightly out of left field to me. Maybe people want Russia to get pulled in so that Russia can have its turn with the "do something stupid and lose face on the world stage" gimmick that dominated our own foreign policy for the last 10+ years. Do you think that's part of it?


Regardless, at this point it feels like the people making foreign policy decisions don't really give a shit about innocent life - and I don't just mean that regarding the inevitable "acceptable losses" that come with using our drones and piloted bombers to deliver massive ordnance. I mean it in the sense that I don't think policy wonks really care about the folks who were killed in prior attacks conducted by Daesh, except as means of trying to get the policies they desire put into action.

There's a very real problem of politics in this, too. Democracies get the policies that they deserve, and if their citizens are silly, cowardly, vengeful, or stupid, then they'll get accordingly flawed policies. Demagogues abound.
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kahu    2419

Not that far out of left field if you think about it, Earl.

 

If Russia sends in ground troops then hey, we finally have the ground troops we need to actually do something without spending nearly as much money on war costs. Meanwhile, Russia and its already unstable infrastructure are going to take a hit as money is bled from the war and various international bridges are burned as a result of Russia's presence in the region. Said infrastructure hits also raise the possibility of Putin's influence within the country dropping to some extent, which would be a fair blow to Russian morale as a whole.

 

As an added bonus we get to see Russia's army in action, which means there's valuable intel to be had on how Russia wages its wars and what kind of tech they're actually deploying in the battlefield. Plus Russia getting rid of ISIS for the US basically means the US can just sit back and watch as two of their biggest headaches go to war, and their biggest headache likely gets eradicated. Not to mention that any hatred against "the enemy" is likely to get redirected towards Russia and its troops in the region if Russia's presence becomes #1.

 

Considering how many birds that'd take down with one stone, the US government has every reason to place their bets on Russia entering the fray.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Urthor    10228

Russia would never actually deploy its army, it literally doesn't trust its regular troops to do anything complex.  That's the ultimate truth, Russia really didn't want to go into Ukraine because if it did it couldn't control its men + they're not very well trained.

 

Russia remember Afghanistan.  And Chechnya, which gave more than enough of a demonstration of what Russian regulars are like.  

 

Only solution is Western boots and Western lives for a good cause, or ongoing anarchy.  Saudis/Turkey/Iran aren't strong or committed enuff to do the job themselves really.  So you're faced with the same choice people faced with the Syrian war, all over again.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Laser Cat    5611

Russia would never actually deploy its army, it literally doesn't trust its regular troops to do anything complex.  That's the ultimate truth, Russia really didn't want to go into Ukraine because if it did it couldn't control its men + they're not very well trained.

 

Russia remember Afghanistan.  And Chechnya, which gave more than enough of a demonstration of what Russian regulars are like.  

 

Only solution is Western boots and Western lives for a good cause, or ongoing anarchy.  Saudis/Turkey/Iran aren't strong or committed enuff to do the job themselves really.  So you're faced with the same choice people faced with the Syrian war, all over again.  

 

Let's be honest: the only reason Putin has stayed in power is because he portrays himself as a strongman.  ISIL just blew up an airplane full of Russians and has promised to attack them, if they carried through with that Putin would be more or less forced into combat (although you are right, they would probably save their army for last).  There's also the whole Assad thing and Russia's "sphere of influence" in the middle east, so Russia actually has quite a lot invested in what's going on. 

 

And concerning Western "boots on the ground" - it's the realistic solution but not the best.  Saudia Arabia/Turkey/Iran could absolutely do the job if there was more incentive for them to work together, but unfortunately they hate each other too much and have other priorities before ISIL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Laser Cat    5611

 

We're going to step up our air strikes, with less regard to civilian causalities.  We are going to pause taking in refugees, which won't offers us any additional protection, but will placate most people (both liberal and conservative).  We might eventually send troops in, although (luckily) few of the members of congress seem to want to push that issue after our last invasion so unless something dramatic happens in America that likely won't happen.  Oh, and Russia may get completely pulled into the Middle East conflict.  That's what everyone here is actually hoping for. 
 
Too many people are caught up on the "muslim extremist" aspect and blaming religion rather than realize that the ISIL has pretty much created a giant welfare state where joining them is the only way to live + make money if you're living in one of their controlled territories.  Their tactics are abhorrent but effective and, like you said,  bombing the fuck out of them isn't going to work.  That's what everyone (US, Russia, France, etc) is going to do though because actually putting troops on the ground is unpopular as fuck.


I know of no liberals who want to use these attacks as a means of saying "let's stop taking in refugees", so I don't get why you say pausing that would placate liberals.

Granted, I also don't think liberals exist in any sense beyond "we're not the Christian equivalent of the Taliban" all that much anymore in the US, so I may just not be seeing the forest for the trees on that one.

Hoping for Russia to get pulled in, though, seems slightly out of left field to me. Maybe people want Russia to get pulled in so that Russia can have its turn with the "do something stupid and lose face on the world stage" gimmick that dominated our own foreign policy for the last 10+ years. Do you think that's part of it?


Regardless, at this point it feels like the people making foreign policy decisions don't really give a shit about innocent life - and I don't just mean that regarding the inevitable "acceptable losses" that come with using our drones and piloted bombers to deliver massive ordnance. I mean it in the sense that I don't think policy wonks really care about the folks who were killed in prior attacks conducted by Daesh, except as means of trying to get the policies they desire put into action.

There's a very real problem of politics in this, too. Democracies get the policies that they deserve, and if their citizens are silly, cowardly, vengeful, or stupid, then they'll get accordingly flawed policies. Demagogues abound.

 

 

With political polarization these days, I'm grouping anything moderately left as "liberal" and anything moderately right as "conservative".  Not really correct, but when most of the population believes that's the case it's only a matter of time before those will be the new "accepted" definitions.

 

Russia being pulled into this is not crazy at all (see my previous reply and kahu's reply) considering they have more to lose than we do when it comes to ISIL. 

 

I think I get what you're saying although can you clarify if you're referring to the generals in the background (the ones who don't talk about this shit publicly) or politicians (who speak about this shit publicly). 

 

And your last line is just rhetoric.  It's not hard to manipulate and mislead people, especially during times of hardship, and it's also not hard to rig the system itself.  Complaining about the people isn't going to fix anything, you have to alter the rules of the game if you want real change.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Urthor    10228

Saudi Arabia and Iran are competing to be the geopolitical mini superpower and would gladly eat Syrian babies if they had an edge over one another

 

 

Turkey's #1 goal is to portray itself as a strongman, #2 goal is to fuck over the Kurds as hard as possible, #3 is to do something about the refugees which have hit Turkey pretty badly it must be said, which is why the Turkish have been advocating CONTINUOUSLY for a safe zone to absorb refugees in Syria for the past 4 years almost.  Turkey also flat out doesn't want to go it alone vs ISIL, just doesn't want to take the brunt of it and isn't up for sending a full on invasion force to do the job alone.  

 

Esp since if they did it would be Turks fighting in Iraqi Kurdish territory, which is a recipe for Armenia pt 2 if there ever was one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus the Jew    986

Saudi pretty much funded the early versions of ISIS. They didn't realize how batshit insane these guys were back then. Iran and Saudi have been funding militant groups on the side for decades as they fight each other for influence.

 

Iran is the closest thing to an ally in that region that would want to kill ISIS, mainly cause the primary Muslim targets for ISIS are Shi'ites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Noelle    5848

Them not going further into Ukraine after taking Crimea wasn't about military prowess, US secretary of state John Kerry had laid out a very clear red line and explained the Russians clearly that any further expansionism, and we would have a larger-scale conflict on our hands, including threats of inducing economic sanctions. Russians responded by threatening their own sanctions in this case which the world sort off laughed of because how many of the UN actually has important assets in Moscow that they actually matter if frozen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Urthor    10228

Saudi pretty much funded the early versions of ISIS. They didn't realize how batshit insane these guys were back then. Iran and Saudi have been funding militant groups on the side for decades as they fight each other for influence.
 
Iran is the closest thing to an ally in that region that would want to kill ISIS, mainly cause the primary Muslim targets for ISIS are Shi'ites.

 
Kurds would crawl over broken glass for America if the US decided to arm and back them.  That's the nuclear option, piss off Turkey to a degree that can't be understated, arm the Kurds Israeli style with heavy weaponry, tanks etc, and let them establish a breakaway state as the reward for defeating ISIS.  Peshmerga a posterboy reliable ally, far more so than Iran. 
 
 
US cannot ultimately back Iran because they view the relationship with the Saudis is too important.  It's just untenable in the bigger picture.  To the hardcore American foreign policy crowd, the Saudi relationship on a realpolitik level is worth umpteenth Syrian, Iraqi, Parisian lives, because Saudi has been a reliable ally on all fronts for far too long on all levels.  Only time in history they've acted contrary to American interests since 1980 was Bahrain and the micro level silliness with Osama.  
 
Problem is, Turkey is just way too important to piss off, even though the Kurds really fucking deserve their own state at this points.  How the Kurdish question is handled is probably going to be in Hilary's court barring Marco Rubio performing the greatest come from behind performance in political history, favourite wins almost all political races.  But the more time passes with Iraqi central government incompetence the more likely it comes that Iraqi Kurdistan becomes the Taiwan of the Middle East.  
 
 
So it's a three way choice, maintain current heading, commit Western troops and escalate up the wazoo, or see just how far Turkey is willing to go with the Kurdish question.  Of note is the fact Turkey has literally all of Europe by the nuts, because Turkey can at any time start actively encouraging the millions of refugees inside or near its borders to travel to Greece and declare asylum, creating political armageddon for Europe where they're stuck between the twin evils of racist bastardry and heavily compromising their standard of living to support these refugees.
 

Them not going further into Ukraine after taking Crimea wasn't about military prowess, US secretary of state John Kerry had laid out a very clear red line and explained the Russians clearly that any further expansionism, and we would have a larger-scale conflict on our hands, including threats of inducing economic sanctions. Russians responded by threatening their own sanctions in this case which the world sort off laughed of because how many of the UN actually has important assets in Moscow that they actually matter if frozen.

 
Yeah na.  That kind of leverage really didn't occur at all.  If the Americans had significant leverage over Russia they'd have used it to shield Ukraine if they could.  Realistically Russia is pushing the Ukraine very far using special forces, and could probably push it quite a lot further without significant Western reaction, because the West is basically not there in any serious foreign policy debate because most citizens hate the idea of having to have an actual foreign policy and spending money on non-domestic issues outside the USA, they've been accustomed to 1990s growth in living standards, and the political leadership is not leading the debate.

 

Putting the lack of Russian appetite for escalating the Ukraine down to just their regulars probably isn't fair, it's not the whole picture.  But I'd think it's fair to say that given Russia's record if they go into the Middle East it'd be war crimes left right and centre, because sexist racist ethnic rus etc.  Also of note, the Russian public's appetite for casualties is actually extremely limited, the Russian media is very very sensitive at the idea of troops lost in action.  It looks like losing and the Russians on some level see all this shit as something that's fairly pointless to lose lives over because it's happening to other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15769

We're going to step up our air strikes, with less regard to civilian causalities.  We are going to pause taking in refugees, which won't offers us any additional protection, but will placate most people (both liberal and conservative).  We might eventually send troops in, although (luckily) few of the members of congress seem to want to push that issue after our last invasion so unless something dramatic happens in America that likely won't happen.  Oh, and Russia may get completely pulled into the Middle East conflict.  That's what everyone here is actually hoping for. 
 
Too many people are caught up on the "muslim extremist" aspect and blaming religion rather than realize that the ISIL has pretty much created a giant welfare state where joining them is the only way to live + make money if you're living in one of their controlled territories.  Their tactics are abhorrent but effective and, like you said,  bombing the fuck out of them isn't going to work.  That's what everyone (US, Russia, France, etc) is going to do though because actually putting troops on the ground is unpopular as fuck.


I know of no liberals who want to use these attacks as a means of saying "let's stop taking in refugees", so I don't get why you say pausing that would placate liberals.

Granted, I also don't think liberals exist in any sense beyond "we're not the Christian equivalent of the Taliban" all that much anymore in the US, so I may just not be seeing the forest for the trees on that one.

Hoping for Russia to get pulled in, though, seems slightly out of left field to me. Maybe people want Russia to get pulled in so that Russia can have its turn with the "do something stupid and lose face on the world stage" gimmick that dominated our own foreign policy for the last 10+ years. Do you think that's part of it?


Regardless, at this point it feels like the people making foreign policy decisions don't really give a shit about innocent life - and I don't just mean that regarding the inevitable "acceptable losses" that come with using our drones and piloted bombers to deliver massive ordnance. I mean it in the sense that I don't think policy wonks really care about the folks who were killed in prior attacks conducted by Daesh, except as means of trying to get the policies they desire put into action.

There's a very real problem of politics in this, too. Democracies get the policies that they deserve, and if their citizens are silly, cowardly, vengeful, or stupid, then they'll get accordingly flawed policies. Demagogues abound.

 
With political polarization these days, I'm grouping anything moderately left as "liberal" and anything moderately right as "conservative".  Not really correct, but when most of the population believes that's the case it's only a matter of time before those will be the new "accepted" definitions.
 
Russia being pulled into this is not crazy at all (see my previous reply and kahu's reply) considering they have more to lose than we do when it comes to ISIL. 
 
I think I get what you're saying although can you clarify if you're referring to the generals in the background (the ones who don't talk about this shit publicly) or politicians (who speak about this shit publicly). 
 
And your last line is just rhetoric.  It's not hard to manipulate and mislead people, especially during times of hardship, and it's also not hard to rig the system itself.  Complaining about the people isn't going to fix anything, you have to alter the rules of the game if you want real change.


Yeah, it's rhetoric, but come on, you can't tell me that you aren't bothered by it like I am. Whether or not we view demagoguery as inevitable, it still has bad consequences that we'd be wise to mitigate.

I'm moreso speaking about politicians, especially chickenhawks in particular. Generals don't speak publicly about such things, but generals' jobs really strike me as more often tied to actual measurable metrics of performance and confidence than the demagoguery we described.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ggggg    3613

You're like two tiers of ironic humor below your contemporaries.

u sure about that?? or maybe post-modern art on a yugioh forum is my release : ^)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+scuzzlebutt    23495


xD colbert xD reddit xD memes xD

 
giel is just mad that his girl cheated on him with a pizza hut delivery guy.
maybe i got a shot in life after all

single + deliverin pizzas HMU LADIESSSSS

You're like two tiers of ironic humor below your contemporaries.

best compliment ive received on dgz since i was first compared to cody

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×