Poor Paris
- Thread starter DaveP
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Emotions are still raw. I have been following the de-radicalization re-education efforts by some nations (Saudis had one high profile program) and see very little success, certainly not capable of reversing current momentum in multiple parts of the world.
It should not be our job to remove that cancer from the body of Islam. In fact our efforts to that end are often counter-productive. I do not accuse them of playing chess or a long game. Often things are exactly what they look like (killing infidels). While they are effective at managing media, and useful fools (like suicide bombers).
I keep waiting for moderate islam to rise up and squash their internal problem...(still waiting).
Muslims are the fastest growing religious group soon to be 2B souls.
This is as much a public relations issue as ballistic warfare problem. Either one by itself will likely fail, while doing nothing is guaranteed to fail. .
JR
It should not be our job to remove that cancer from the body of Islam. In fact our efforts to that end are often counter-productive. I do not accuse them of playing chess or a long game. Often things are exactly what they look like (killing infidels). While they are effective at managing media, and useful fools (like suicide bombers).
I keep waiting for moderate islam to rise up and squash their internal problem...(still waiting).
Muslims are the fastest growing religious group soon to be 2B souls.
This is as much a public relations issue as ballistic warfare problem. Either one by itself will likely fail, while doing nothing is guaranteed to fail. .
JR
sahib
Well-known member
DaveP said:
My apologies Dave. I got it wrong. I know what you mean now.
bluebird
Well-known member
In my opinion, this kind of horrible act is the result of serious hatred. That hatred is born of fear, desperation, sickness, poverty etc. I can only imagine how a young man in this situation, watching his family suffer would feel. If you can't find work and have no resources, you are literally powerless and have no future or hope. Imagine that young man seeing an American Carls Jr. commercial where a half naked model takes a bite of a huge juicy hamburger with sound effects...How offensive.
I would be very very angry. And if my situation was dire enough, I might do something stupid if the right person came along holding a Koran and bunch of money.
It just seems like the world is completely out of balance. And like a discharging, capacitor there is a strong desire for a state of equilibrium. There is so much suffering there has to be consequences. The western world cannot build a big enough wall.
A mistake we made in Iraq was not following through with the rebuilding of infrastructure. Trying only to strengthen the military obviously didn't work. We needed to empower the people in tandem. Give them the infrastructure to build upon. Give them hope, something of their own to defend. There sure was a lot of TALK about empowering and freeing those people.
But hey, America was tired and broke and had problems of its own to take care of. If I'm being honest, I can't say I would sacrifice my quality of life for some strangers in the middle east, not my problem, until it is.
It really breaks my heart to see everything so f**ked up.
I would be very very angry. And if my situation was dire enough, I might do something stupid if the right person came along holding a Koran and bunch of money.
It just seems like the world is completely out of balance. And like a discharging, capacitor there is a strong desire for a state of equilibrium. There is so much suffering there has to be consequences. The western world cannot build a big enough wall.
A mistake we made in Iraq was not following through with the rebuilding of infrastructure. Trying only to strengthen the military obviously didn't work. We needed to empower the people in tandem. Give them the infrastructure to build upon. Give them hope, something of their own to defend. There sure was a lot of TALK about empowering and freeing those people.
But hey, America was tired and broke and had problems of its own to take care of. If I'm being honest, I can't say I would sacrifice my quality of life for some strangers in the middle east, not my problem, until it is.
It really breaks my heart to see everything so f**ked up.
Bluebird, you have made some good points there, but I think the hatred is born more out of religious hatred and intolerance in this case.
As western countries industrialised, they included a programme of social care in old age. This freed the children of the financial burden of looking after their parents when they were too old to work, so it was OK to use birth control to have much smaller families. In this way our populations came to an equilibrium. This happened in my grandfather's generation.
This has not happened in much of the rest of the world, so many children are required to support families and there comes a point when not all those children can find work, this is the situation you described in your heartfelt post. The fact that some rudimentary medical care is available, has increased the survival rate so there are even more young men out of work. Social care is expensive and it requires an efficient tax system to support it. Endemic corruption in government just feeds the resentment you describe in your post. We have provided a working social model in the west, but not all countries choose to copy it.
To get a sense of perspective, each V1 or V2 rocket in WW2 killed that many people in London every day, so our grandparents problems were on a different level altogether.
Best
DaveP
As western countries industrialised, they included a programme of social care in old age. This freed the children of the financial burden of looking after their parents when they were too old to work, so it was OK to use birth control to have much smaller families. In this way our populations came to an equilibrium. This happened in my grandfather's generation.
This has not happened in much of the rest of the world, so many children are required to support families and there comes a point when not all those children can find work, this is the situation you described in your heartfelt post. The fact that some rudimentary medical care is available, has increased the survival rate so there are even more young men out of work. Social care is expensive and it requires an efficient tax system to support it. Endemic corruption in government just feeds the resentment you describe in your post. We have provided a working social model in the west, but not all countries choose to copy it.
To get a sense of perspective, each V1 or V2 rocket in WW2 killed that many people in London every day, so our grandparents problems were on a different level altogether.
Best
DaveP
very sad story indeed
but i think we don't realize that WW3 has already started and been going for some years now
France bombed ISIS and now they get fire back. there is no surprises here.
I think that French people should be completely mad against their government. They went to war and then are not protecting their people enough. Just a few months ago of the Charlie Hebdo attack, which was clearly just the sparkle before the tempest, this time the terrorists almost made it to the stadium ! Are they doing enough to protect their citizens ? I don't think so
Many muslims in France, but there are so many social and cultural barriers, even discrimination on some things... The situation has just been boiling and boiling and now the food is being served...
Too many years the western world has been playing with the middle east and used it as a playground for their military experiments and conquering new land, selling weapons,....
ISIS is just a product of completely wrong politics that have been going on since after WW2, and the western world is not really doing much to fight it, they maybe more interested in selling weapons and getting dirty money from the refugees
but i think we don't realize that WW3 has already started and been going for some years now
France bombed ISIS and now they get fire back. there is no surprises here.
I think that French people should be completely mad against their government. They went to war and then are not protecting their people enough. Just a few months ago of the Charlie Hebdo attack, which was clearly just the sparkle before the tempest, this time the terrorists almost made it to the stadium ! Are they doing enough to protect their citizens ? I don't think so
Many muslims in France, but there are so many social and cultural barriers, even discrimination on some things... The situation has just been boiling and boiling and now the food is being served...
Too many years the western world has been playing with the middle east and used it as a playground for their military experiments and conquering new land, selling weapons,....
ISIS is just a product of completely wrong politics that have been going on since after WW2, and the western world is not really doing much to fight it, they maybe more interested in selling weapons and getting dirty money from the refugees
I agree with that, but that's just one side of the coin: recruiting. And there are exceptions: the Thalys killer was an IT graduate.bluebird said:
The other side is the guys who organize the networks, the logistics, the finance. They are generally rather brilliant, educated, in IT, finance, weaponry. they are not motivated by revenge, they are motivated by lust. They make much more money that way than working in a bank or a conglomerate.
Although I'm an atheist, I don't think that religion is more than a simple pretext and easy marketing tool for IS. The real motivation is power and control.
living sounds
Well-known member
https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-reports/saudi-arabias-curriculum-intolerance#.VWGehE-8PGc
Many people here say that the french government has done the right thing, but has been left out by the other allied countries. If US, UK, Germany, ... had gone to fight against IS, would have they been capable of doing these "repraisals" in all countries? Nethanyaou has suggested that a proper alliance would have swipe IS in three days. Why hasn't it happened? Is there any doubt that IS needs to be eradicated?beatnik said:
The fiasco in Irak is not a good reason enough to cease doing anything. It was right to eliminate Saddam; what wasn't was leaving the country rotting.
It is right to fight IS, but it is necessary to know what to do after.
BTW, since the Charlie Hebdo attack, there are more police and army in the streets than ever before (except maybe in '56-58, at the height of Algerian FLN attacks). But all the informed commentators insist that what is lacking is intel.
these are very big dynamics and only a few people is really understanding what is going on, but
what is clear to everyone is that France went bombing Libya and then Syria. they went into war. period.
everyone would agree that IS needs to be annihilated, but France went in all alone, well it's obvious that ISIS are going to target them and not, Norway for example. I don't think Norway likes IS either, but probably thought there are more important things to care for...
France wanted to participate in Lybian de-stabilisation against Gheddafi, where IS was also involved, now they are doing the same things in Syria
France is also the european country with the biggest muslim population, and there are very big social problems caused by bad integration of these people who often are discriminated for their own religion
I think they should have thought once or twice before going on war against ISIS without support from the other western countries. I don't know what's the urgency they had, if is good intentions or just money/power
I can only see that now it's innocent citizens that have died and not the president and his friends....
what is clear to everyone is that France went bombing Libya and then Syria. they went into war. period.
everyone would agree that IS needs to be annihilated, but France went in all alone, well it's obvious that ISIS are going to target them and not, Norway for example. I don't think Norway likes IS either, but probably thought there are more important things to care for...
France wanted to participate in Lybian de-stabilisation against Gheddafi, where IS was also involved, now they are doing the same things in Syria
France is also the european country with the biggest muslim population, and there are very big social problems caused by bad integration of these people who often are discriminated for their own religion
I think they should have thought once or twice before going on war against ISIS without support from the other western countries. I don't know what's the urgency they had, if is good intentions or just money/power
I can only see that now it's innocent citizens that have died and not the president and his friends....
Beatnik, there may be some truth in that, but France is hardly a major player like the US. I think the main reason that Paris was hit was because it is "the city of Light", the birth of the enlightenment and the birthplace of freedom/liberte'. There are also no meaningful borders either.
As such, it is the opposite of everything that IS believes in. They are a world domination organisation.
I have just come back from a remembrance event for the Paris victims at my village. On the war memorial there are over 60 names of people who died for the freedom of France in WW1. That's a lot for a small place. I think we have become soft today and are being exploited by people who are far from soft. Because we took casualties in Iraq, we have become paranoid about fighting another war. The casualties the UK took were about the same as about one day in WW1 or WW2 (after Normandy they ran at 2000/day).
It is a sad fact that freedom is something you have to fight for sometimes, it doesn't come on a plate. Hitler could have been stopped in the early 30's but no-one had the stomach for it back then, especially with the depression. We paid a price for inaction later, 450,000 Brits and 25,000,000 Russians and 415,000 Americans dead.
We are in a similar public mood now, no-one wants another war, but it's on its way whether we like it or not. If you send in the army, then it will take casualties, if you don't then you will take civilian casualties like Paris. It is hardly WW3, but it does need dealing with. The major powers could eliminate IS in a month if they could only agree to work together, but there is no end game in place yet so it won't happen, probably until hundreds of more civilian losses change the public's mind.
DaveP
Hi Dave, I definitely agree with you !! Only thing they choose Paris is they wanted to go for the president... almost......They definitely want to make symbolic and exemplary attacks, but as someone pointed before, it's not really an idealistic standpoint they are fighting for, those are just excuses, it's money and power what they want !
I agree with what you are saying. This war is nothing in size and deaths compared to previous conflicts. If the western world reunited, it would be a breeze to defeat those three or four IS assholes. They are puppies compared to Hitler. I don't know what the thing is, maybe european countries have not much money to invest in war, nor they are actually prepared for it because thinking thinking that peace will be forever... Normally what they do is wait for the US to come in and save the game, but them don't look too interested either, they already have done their part in those lands. So maybe Europe is ok with having 100-200 people killed every once in a while and squeeze space for some thousands refugees but not going over there and dirtying their hands and emptying their wallets...
I agree with what you are saying. This war is nothing in size and deaths compared to previous conflicts. If the western world reunited, it would be a breeze to defeat those three or four IS assholes. They are puppies compared to Hitler. I don't know what the thing is, maybe european countries have not much money to invest in war, nor they are actually prepared for it because thinking thinking that peace will be forever... Normally what they do is wait for the US to come in and save the game, but them don't look too interested either, they already have done their part in those lands. So maybe Europe is ok with having 100-200 people killed every once in a while and squeeze space for some thousands refugees but not going over there and dirtying their hands and emptying their wallets...
It is a bit early to understand all the moving parts but it is clear that ISIL is stirring the pot in France trying to inflame existing tension with muslim french citizens and recent immigrants.
The fact that one suicide bomber dropped his intact Syrian passport was no accident, it was to make a statement. This does not look like rational behavior (to me) since France is unlikely to withdraw or turn the other cheek, but to respond even more forcibly.
Perhaps ISIL is acting a little less rationally these days as Putin is fighting then in Syria (between bombing anti-Assad forces) and Peshmurga (Kurds) have successfully retaken Sinjar (Iraq) with US air support.
While ISIL is far from beaten they are definitely feeling pressure on several fronts in the ME. The recent aircraft bombing in Egypt, and now this terrorist attack in Paris are classic asymmetrical warfare tactics, specifically against soft targets of countries fighting them in the ME. Russia and France don't have easy soft targets there .
While ISIL could have been relatively easily snuffed out a few years ago, they are just the most recent, most successful, incarnation of radical islam. So this is going to be a very long conflict and not resolved by playing whack-a-mole, killing a few ten thousand fighters in the ME.
Likewise ignoring them is not a strategy either. I hope the rest of the western world stands shoulder to shoulder with France to take care of the immediate insurgency, but we also need to take a longer view and encourage a religious reformation, like occurred in other major religions to mature and reject that it is ever OK to kill non-believers.
JR
The fact that one suicide bomber dropped his intact Syrian passport was no accident, it was to make a statement. This does not look like rational behavior (to me) since France is unlikely to withdraw or turn the other cheek, but to respond even more forcibly.
Perhaps ISIL is acting a little less rationally these days as Putin is fighting then in Syria (between bombing anti-Assad forces) and Peshmurga (Kurds) have successfully retaken Sinjar (Iraq) with US air support.
While ISIL is far from beaten they are definitely feeling pressure on several fronts in the ME. The recent aircraft bombing in Egypt, and now this terrorist attack in Paris are classic asymmetrical warfare tactics, specifically against soft targets of countries fighting them in the ME. Russia and France don't have easy soft targets there .
While ISIL could have been relatively easily snuffed out a few years ago, they are just the most recent, most successful, incarnation of radical islam. So this is going to be a very long conflict and not resolved by playing whack-a-mole, killing a few ten thousand fighters in the ME.
Likewise ignoring them is not a strategy either. I hope the rest of the western world stands shoulder to shoulder with France to take care of the immediate insurgency, but we also need to take a longer view and encourage a religious reformation, like occurred in other major religions to mature and reject that it is ever OK to kill non-believers.
JR
My understanding is that IS or Daesh is an "end of days" organisation and as such conventional logic does not apply. Their literature is about them overcoming the world's forces in an Armageddon scenario. This is why they pursue outrageous provocative acts, in order to get boots on the ground against it. I also suspect that this is why the worlds powers just use air power against them, to deny them their aim.
They think this victorious battle will take place at Dabiq near the Turkish border, its an ancient Muslim prophecy.
DaveP
jasonallenh
Well-known member
All these comparisons to WWs, but this is an enemy with no borders, no capitol city to surround, no "leader" whose demise would spell victory in a traditional war sense. It's an impossible situation- we can fight all we want, with all the resources we have... but who do we fight? These people mix themselves in with civilians so they get killed too... it's what they want. They goad us into killing civilians to continue their narrative. I think this is the main reason why a coalition of countries hasn't put a fighting force together... they have no idea how to fight this 'war.'
On the lighter side, at the theatre I run, we had "I love you all the time" by Eagles of Death Metal playing in our pre-show music as a tribute to those lost.
On the lighter side, at the theatre I run, we had "I love you all the time" by Eagles of Death Metal playing in our pre-show music as a tribute to those lost.
That's what they "sell" to their new recruits, but the abous have a different agenda. They just want to create a state where they will enjoy the benefits of power. They don't want to die.DaveP said:
This semblance of a state (land and infrastructure in at least two countries with satellite operations in more) is what makes this particular incarnation vulnerable. That physical islamic state can be controlled/stabilized, but that is only a short term whack-a-mole solution since the larger culture conflict will still be going on and the independent radical groups around the world will just align with the next group getting headlines and claiming leadership.abbey road d enfer said:
While it is not the long term solution that mole does need to be whacked.
JR
M
mattiasNYC
Guest
Although "everything is connected" it's probably a reasonable approach to keep things somewhat separate when evaluating them.
"Backlashes" have already occurred in Sweden for example, where refugee housing has suffered arson now for weeks! Obviously that's the "extreme rights", a somewhat simplistic term, which is xenophobic, that is responsible. This act will exacerbate an already existing problem. Xenophobia and Islamophobia are problems. However, criticism of religion in general, including Islam, is more than ok if done with integrity and intelligence. I agree that to some it really does appear that accusations of racism, bigotry and Islamophobia etc surface whenever Islam is criticized , but one problem is that a lot of the same crowd holds religious belief to a completely different and lower standard when it's their own belief that's questioned... which leads to the other problem of discourse in the west having steadily deteriorated into nonsensical superficial garbage to a large degree. Domestically you will have problems with what appears to be hypocrisy. When the Danish paper published the Mohammed cartoons, which was entirely their right, what didn't really surface in the media after the response is how the very same magazine had chosen not to publish a satire of Jesus on the grounds that it would be offensive. Clearly the response would have been different, but it explains a division in society and a hypocrisy that are both understood by many people.
Fighting IS, the way I see it, would probably be easiest done if the middle east was left along for a few years, and once they had consolidated their rule perhaps they'd be consolidated enough to be wiped out militarily in an actual war. But that's if one wants to use the military to kill them off.
Iraq and Iran both provide good examples of that being difficult to accomplish. People want self-determination and trying to impose something on them is hard to do. While a lot of the worlds population doesn't build rocket ships on their spare time one shouldn't make the mistake and think 'they' are all stupid. When they see the west say one thing and do another there's a clear message being sent. Not only have these nations showed how both military and covert ops to change governments is seemingly ineffective, I think they've pointed the finger at just why that is the case.
And so at the heart of the matter is whether or not we judge by looking at intent or action. It just doesn't work to simply proclaim that they are bad because just look at what they do, while then say we do it because our intentions are good. The message that sends is that the means actually do justify the means, and so the only question is; is our intent 'good'. We can't on the one hand promote following the word of god to get into heaven, and then admonish those who do exactly that because their understanding of what he wants is wrong. You can't do it because the basic premise is subjection to authority. That's the problem with these religions. Arguing over interpretations would be a moot point if one wasn't subjected to god's commands. And we can't argue that group X has the right to territory Y because they are a religious group, or an ethnic group, while simultaneously argue that other groups claims on the same grounds are invalid.
What needs to happen is leading and changing the world by setting a good example, or at least avoid setting bad ones, and spreading good values. Unfortunately it seems our politicians are doomed to repeat mistakes. We can never close the borders the way that would be necessary to keep this out of society, and we can not (it seems) militarily eradicate this evil nonsense, so something else has to happen. I would propose that we try to spread good values and try to turn off the supply of willing participants in these groups - because I agree that to the leaders it's probably just as much about absolute concrete power as it is religious beliefs, but clearly to the actual warriors it's about a religious belief they've been indoctrinated with. So we need to promote the values that it's ok to not believe in god, that gay people aren't evil, that women should have the same rights as men, that democracy is a way forward for society and self-determination etc. I think it's a long-term project that will take maybe decades, but military action just doesn't seem to eradicate this deeper issue.
"Backlashes" have already occurred in Sweden for example, where refugee housing has suffered arson now for weeks! Obviously that's the "extreme rights", a somewhat simplistic term, which is xenophobic, that is responsible. This act will exacerbate an already existing problem. Xenophobia and Islamophobia are problems. However, criticism of religion in general, including Islam, is more than ok if done with integrity and intelligence. I agree that to some it really does appear that accusations of racism, bigotry and Islamophobia etc surface whenever Islam is criticized , but one problem is that a lot of the same crowd holds religious belief to a completely different and lower standard when it's their own belief that's questioned... which leads to the other problem of discourse in the west having steadily deteriorated into nonsensical superficial garbage to a large degree. Domestically you will have problems with what appears to be hypocrisy. When the Danish paper published the Mohammed cartoons, which was entirely their right, what didn't really surface in the media after the response is how the very same magazine had chosen not to publish a satire of Jesus on the grounds that it would be offensive. Clearly the response would have been different, but it explains a division in society and a hypocrisy that are both understood by many people.
Fighting IS, the way I see it, would probably be easiest done if the middle east was left along for a few years, and once they had consolidated their rule perhaps they'd be consolidated enough to be wiped out militarily in an actual war. But that's if one wants to use the military to kill them off.
Iraq and Iran both provide good examples of that being difficult to accomplish. People want self-determination and trying to impose something on them is hard to do. While a lot of the worlds population doesn't build rocket ships on their spare time one shouldn't make the mistake and think 'they' are all stupid. When they see the west say one thing and do another there's a clear message being sent. Not only have these nations showed how both military and covert ops to change governments is seemingly ineffective, I think they've pointed the finger at just why that is the case.
And so at the heart of the matter is whether or not we judge by looking at intent or action. It just doesn't work to simply proclaim that they are bad because just look at what they do, while then say we do it because our intentions are good. The message that sends is that the means actually do justify the means, and so the only question is; is our intent 'good'. We can't on the one hand promote following the word of god to get into heaven, and then admonish those who do exactly that because their understanding of what he wants is wrong. You can't do it because the basic premise is subjection to authority. That's the problem with these religions. Arguing over interpretations would be a moot point if one wasn't subjected to god's commands. And we can't argue that group X has the right to territory Y because they are a religious group, or an ethnic group, while simultaneously argue that other groups claims on the same grounds are invalid.
What needs to happen is leading and changing the world by setting a good example, or at least avoid setting bad ones, and spreading good values. Unfortunately it seems our politicians are doomed to repeat mistakes. We can never close the borders the way that would be necessary to keep this out of society, and we can not (it seems) militarily eradicate this evil nonsense, so something else has to happen. I would propose that we try to spread good values and try to turn off the supply of willing participants in these groups - because I agree that to the leaders it's probably just as much about absolute concrete power as it is religious beliefs, but clearly to the actual warriors it's about a religious belief they've been indoctrinated with. So we need to promote the values that it's ok to not believe in god, that gay people aren't evil, that women should have the same rights as men, that democracy is a way forward for society and self-determination etc. I think it's a long-term project that will take maybe decades, but military action just doesn't seem to eradicate this deeper issue.
