Poor Paris

[beatnik]

yeah in an ideal world the revolution would be educating those countries and letting them prosper so there won't be those struggles that in the end are all economic related. same thing for africa. the problem in the middle east there is nothing else useful other than fuel, so the western countries have not much interest in going there. syria doesn't even have any oil i think. on the news they tell about France just started doing more bombing on the IS headquarters, they are not gonna give up on this one.

 

[JohnRoberts]

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.

Christians and Jews are routinely lampooned in humor. While it is poking the bear to publish images (not just humor) the response does not seem proportional from our cultural perspective.

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.

That doesn't seem likely. Leaving them alone(?) for several years will just allow them to expand their reach and involve more innocent people under their sphere of influence. Not just ISIL in Iraq/Syria but worldwide we need to clean up and secure all lawless regions so bad actors can not operate freely. 

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.

These radical groups draw energy from sectarian conflict. That entire region is a classic example of national borders drawn with no respect for sectarian alliances. Under strict dictatorships these differences can be held in check but it is not easy for them to work together within a democratic process. I dismissed this suggestion before but Iraq would be easier to manage as 3 self governing regions, Kurds in the north, shia in the south, and sunni in the middle west. Of course for this to really work we would need to rip up the maps for several countries, so kurds could  link up with other kurds in turkey,syria, and Iran, etc. I don't see this happening in my lifetime, so until then we can only try to secure these regions and promote representative governance.

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.

I'd rather not get into a deep inspection of all religion, but Islam seems like a younger, less mature version of older religions that have moved beyond. their primitive roots.

It is never OK to kill innocent people, and if your religion tells you it is OK, that religion is flawed.

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.

It is impractical to just kill them all, while the world will benefit from killing a bunch of them. Once this latest incarnation has it's wealth and power depleted, all we need to do is restore security and rule of law in the regions they occupy.  Of course we have a horrible track record at nation building while IMO better map design would help a lot.

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.

I do not think this is our fault, or appeasement would prevent similar future behavior. The small radical fraction needs to get expunged, and rule of law needs to be returned to the lawless regions. People just want to own a small piece of dirt and be allowed to take care of their family, not behead innocent people for no (real) reason.

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

Christians and Jews are routinely lampooned in humor. While it is poking the bear to publish images (not just humor) the response does not seem proportional from our cultural perspective.

I absolutely agree with you, it's beyond idiotic. All I'm saying is that to some Muslims it looks like (and is) hypocrisy when a Danish newspaper excludes a Jesus cartoon because they think it'll be offensive, but allow it for Mohammed. To them it is a problem. Then, as unwarranted as the response by some may be, it becomes our problem.

That doesn't seem likely. Leaving them alone(?) for several years will just allow them to expand their reach and involve more innocent people under their sphere of influence. Not just ISIL in Iraq/Syria but worldwide we need to clean up and secure all lawless regions so bad actors can not operate freely. 

What I meant to say was that allowing them to gather in one limited area makes them easier to fight. Of course collateral civilian damage would be higher, but the notion of military action sort of begs this question I think. I'm not saying I endorse that option, just that that's a consideration worth making.

As for cleaning up lawless regions; that's a pretty difficult task. It all boils down to the same thing eventually - what leadership is going to be imposed after an area has been "cleaned"? If you go for foreign leadership then we're basically engaging in colonialism. I think we've seen enough of that throughout history to know that the results are generally mediocre. If we're looking for domestic leadership (that aren't our puppets) then we're still left with trying to convince, or "educate", a population to ensure the "correct" outcome. As I mentioned before we have two recent examples of this problem, Iran and Iraq, which both were secular regimes prior to having their leaders ousted by the US, only to be replaced with theocracies.

We need to tread carefully, or not at all.

These radical groups draw energy from sectarian conflict. That entire region is a classic example of national borders drawn with no respect for sectarian alliances. Under strict dictatorships these differences can be held in check but it is not easy for them to work together within a democratic process. I dismissed this suggestion before but Iraq would be easier to manage as 3 self governing regions, Kurds in the north, shia in the south, and sunni in the middle west. Of course for this to really work we would need to rip up the maps for several countries, so kurds could  link up with other kurds in turkey,syria, and Iran, etc. I don't see this happening in my lifetime, so until then we can only try to secure these regions and promote representative governance.

That could very well be true. I absolutely agree that the arbitrary borders are a huge problem, and have been so for many many years. Clearly no nation wants to lose territory, so as you mention Turkey, Syria and Iran would most certainly refuse such a thing.

I think your analysis is very good.

I'd rather not get into a deep inspection of all religion, but Islam seems like a younger, less mature version of older religions that have moved beyond. their primitive roots.

It is never OK to kill innocent people, and if your religion tells you it is OK, that religion is flawed.

Granted, we end up in a much deeper discussion if we go down this road, but I think it unfortunately isn't enough to call a religion flawed because its leaders says it's ok to kill. It's far too shallow an argument, and as such it will only resonate with those that share your particular religious beliefs. If we really want to deal with the problem with Islam, we need to dig deep.

I can guarantee you that you'll find Christians who find it ok to kill innocent people as long as the context and larger goal is ok, while you can find Muslims who state what you just did. This is just something that needs deeper discussion.

I do not think this is our fault, or appeasement would prevent similar future behavior. The small radical fraction needs to get expunged, and rule of law needs to be returned to the lawless regions. People just want to own a small piece of dirt and be allowed to take care of their family, not behead innocent people for no (real) reason.

JR

I think it is partially the "fault" of the west, seeing that the west has been meddling in that region for decades. We can't unwrite history, and we can't ignore it.

I agree that people in general just want to live normal lives, and I agree that if we could just get rid of those elements the world would be a better place. It is a very difficult thing to accomplish though. And perhaps the alternatives aren't mutually exclusive. From my perspective however, it seems that the west has relied a bit too much on stick and too little on carrot. And I'm now not saying that we should try to convert the leaders of IS to our ways or anything - I think the core and a large amount of their followers are a lost cause, so no "appeasement" necessary - I'm simply saying that to those that are susceptible to propaganda and are at risk of becoming new followers of those abhorrent ideologies our behavior and approach needs to be..... "stepped up" a bit.

 

[JohnRoberts]

That doesn't seem likely. Leaving them alone(?) for several years will just allow them to expand their reach and involve more innocent people under their sphere of influence. Not just ISIL in Iraq/Syria but worldwide we need to clean up and secure all lawless regions so bad actors can not operate freely. 

What I meant to say was that allowing them to gather in one limited area makes them easier to fight. Of course collateral civilian damage would be higher, but the notion of military action sort of begs this question I think. I'm not saying I endorse that option, just that that's a consideration worth making.

Ballistic military action is only addressing the symptom not the problem. but the symptom needs to be addressed first.

As for cleaning up lawless regions; that's a pretty difficult task. It all boils down to the same thing eventually - what leadership is going to be imposed after an area has been "cleaned"? If you go for foreign leadership then we're basically engaging in colonialism.

The long term solution for any nation requires self rule, which has been one of my concerns about afghanistan and they do not appear to have enough wealth (industry) to support a strong central government without massive ongoing economic support from outside.

The long term solution is increasing the wealth of poor regions. Not by simply transferring wealth to them, but by helping them enforce local rule of law, and facilitating international trade so they can generate their own wealth. 

In the last few decades we have seen huge advances in reducing world poverty (actual poverty) while the headlines we see are burger flippers wanting higher pay so they can live comfortably in NYC.

I think we've seen enough of that throughout history to know that the results are generally mediocre. If we're looking for domestic leadership (that aren't our puppets) then we're still left with trying to convince, or "educate", a population to ensure the "correct" outcome. As I mentioned before we have two recent examples of this problem, Iran and Iraq, which both were secular regimes prior to having their leaders ousted by the US, only to be replaced with theocracies.

Iran was before I was paying close attention and the theocracy there is not a friend of the west, and never will be no matter what we give them. They are only interested in keeping the power they grabbed through revolution.

Iraq OTOH was stabilized and we dropped the ball by withdrawing forces too quickly. Democracy does not blossom overnight. If we review our own history it took decades for us to get our act together. To expect Iraq to instantly embrace democracy after years of dictatorship rule was just foolish.  While I don't think the pull-out was anything other than a political calculation, not thinking about what was good for the iraqi people.

We need to tread carefully, or not at all.

In my judgement if the US was isolationist for our entire history the world would be a far worse place.  That said this all is never easy or simple.

I'd rather not get into a deep inspection of all religion, but Islam seems like a younger, less mature version of older religions that have moved beyond. their primitive roots.

It is never OK to kill innocent people, and if your religion tells you it is OK, that religion is flawed.

Granted, we end up in a much deeper discussion if we go down this road, but I think it unfortunately isn't enough to call a religion flawed because its leaders says it's ok to kill. It's far too shallow an argument, and as such it will only resonate with those that share your particular religious beliefs. If we really want to deal with the problem with Islam, we need to dig deep.

No, only "they" can fix it... It doesn't matter what I think of Islam. I can't believe that over 1 billion Muslims embrace that behavior by the radical minority..

I can guarantee you that you'll find Christians who find it ok to kill innocent people as long as the context and larger goal is ok, while you can find Muslims who state what you just did. This is just something that needs deeper discussion.

As i noted here a couple years ago there were christians in Africa that killed some muslims. They certainly can't blame it on the teachings of their church, more like a matter of self-defense survival as christians (and jews) are often targeted. Turning the other cheek rarely works against AK47s

I do not think this is our fault, or appeasement would prevent similar future behavior. The small radical fraction needs to get expunged, and rule of law needs to be returned to the lawless regions. People just want to own a small piece of dirt and be allowed to take care of their family, not behead innocent people for no (real) reason.

JR

I think it is partially the "fault" of the west, seeing that the west has been meddling in that region for decades. We can't unwrite history, and we can't ignore it.

And we can't know the result of just leaving the region to fester.  I sincerely doubt it would be better than it is. While some hold that opinion.

I agree that people in general just want to live normal lives, and I agree that if we could just get rid of those elements the world would be a better place. It is a very difficult thing to accomplish though. And perhaps the alternatives aren't mutually exclusive. From my perspective however, it seems that the west has relied a bit too much on stick and too little on carrot. And I'm now not saying that we should try to convert the leaders of IS to our ways or anything - I think the core and a large amount of their followers are a lost cause, so no "appeasement" necessary - I'm simply saying that to those that are susceptible to propaganda and are at risk of becoming new followers of those abhorrent ideologies our behavior and approach needs to be..... "stepped up" a bit.

The west spends huge amounts of wealth on carrots. Nobody wants to put our soldiers in harms way, but these problems do not resolve themselves if we just look the other way.  If recent events don't demonstrate how small and interconnected this world is, i don't know what will.

IMO long term increased world trade and support of security and rule of law for more of the under developed world can help, but this will take a long time and is not the short term response.

JR

 

[sahib]

These radical groups draw energy from sectarian conflict. That entire region is a classic example of national borders drawn with no respect for sectarian alliances. Under strict dictatorships these differences can be held in check but it is not easy for them to work together within a democratic process. I dismissed this suggestion before but Iraq would be easier to manage as 3 self governing regions, Kurds in the north, shia in the south, and sunni in the middle west. Of course for this to really work we would need to rip up the maps for several countries, so kurds could  link up with other kurds in turkey,syria, and Iran, etc. I don't see this happening in my lifetime, so until then we can only try to secure these regions and promote representative governance.
JR

John you have great observations but please allow me to exclude Turkey from these " dictatorships".

 

[JohnRoberts]

These radical groups draw energy from sectarian conflict. That entire region is a classic example of national borders drawn with no respect for sectarian alliances. Under strict dictatorships these differences can be held in check but it is not easy for them to work together within a democratic process. I dismissed this suggestion before but Iraq would be easier to manage as 3 self governing regions, Kurds in the north, shia in the south, and sunni in the middle west. Of course for this to really work we would need to rip up the maps for several countries, so kurds could  link up with other kurds in turkey,syria, and Iran, etc. I don't see this happening in my lifetime, so until then we can only try to secure these regions and promote representative governance.
JR

John you have great observations but please allow me to exclude Turkey from these " dictatorships".

Indeed Turkey is different. I followed the recent (25th) general election to see if they wavered from secular rule and toward theocracy as some political factions argue for. For now it appears secular rule is intact (a good thing IMO).

Turkey's idea of help in the fight against ISIL was to bomb kurds in northern Syria. I doubt Turkey would embrace giving up land to an autonomous Kurdish region while it might reduce some of their internal strife with their Kurdish minority (another consequence of colonial map drawing) .

Turkey has a rough time these days with migrants from Syria trying to get into Europe through Turkey.  The EU recently agreed to pay them 3billion euros over 2 years to help stem the flow of migrants, and that was before the Paris attack.

JR

PS: For those students of history on Nov 14th 1914 the Ottoman empire declared jihad against France and others. The date may not be pure coincidence, but they are year late to make it a round century.

 

[living sounds]

http://www.politico.eu/article/the-saudi-wahhabis-are-the-real-foe-islamic-terrorists-salafi-violence/

 

[beatnik]

the US might have saved the world on a few occasions, but they never managed to get something socially and economically constructive out of the middle east.  the last war in iraq apparently has been a complete failure and a total waste of money, and i think it contributed to leave room for IS to develop. with saddam still in place, those three puppies wouldn't even dare to exist. i guess both are terrible, but at least saddam didn't mess up doing terrorism in europe.....
i fully agree with the idea that if those countries would improve in culture and economy there won't be place for stupid things like that to exist, but is something that - if ever - will be in the very long term i think
the best thing to do now is just form a coalition and eradicate those three four IS idiots. It's not a big job for the western reunite, the problem is if they disappoint the wrong people.... Putin seems to act a bit double-face for the moment, i wonder what will happen next

 

[JohnRoberts]

the US might have saved the world on a few occasions, but they never managed to get something socially and economically constructive out of the middle east.  the last war in iraq apparently has been a complete failure and a total waste of money, and i think it contributed to leave room for IS to develop.

I dislike repeating myself but I guess you don't believe me when I note that Iraq was secure and stabilized, before we pulled our forces out. We still have military in Germany and Japan, but think the flegling iraqi government didn't need any help. THAT is what allowed ISIL to grow and gain real estate.

with saddam still in place, those three puppies wouldn't even dare to exist. i guess both are terrible, but at least saddam didn't mess up doing terrorism in europe.....

As i recall Saddam was offering a reward to families of suicide bombers, he was not a good world citizen ignoring what he did to his own people.

i fully agree with the idea that if those countries would improve in culture and economy there won't be place for stupid things like that to exist, but is something that - if ever - will be in the very long term i think

As was first verbalized by Friedman in the "world is flat" book countries don't usually declare war on their important trading partners.

the best thing to do now is just form a coalition and eradicate those three four IS idiots. It's not a big job for the western reunite, the problem is if they disappoint the wrong people.... Putin seems to act a bit double-face for the moment, i wonder what will happen next

France is going to turn the desert around their headquarters in Syria to glass, but the ISIL leaders probably left town a while ago in anticipation of that response. They're crazy, not stupid.

JR

 

[beatnik]

well if US really cared about stabilization in iraq they would have continued to fight for it.  to me it seems more they went there just to take saddam out, because it wasn't being a good customer anymore. then once they sorted out the two three good links they needed, they left the party. i definitely agree that the iraq government probably didn't do much either to contrast isis, but i guess you can't ask too much to a  country that has just re-born. the whole world should intervene and stop this oppressive islamic cultures. the problem is, they might have stronger allies that still haven't been declared....

 

[mattiasNYC]

Ballistic military action is only addressing the symptom not the problem. but the symptom needs to be addressed first.

Well, but the problem here is that we're not dealing with an enemy with which one can have symmetric warfare. That's the big problem. The west hasn't even done all that much to fight IS yet, and still we had this event in Paris. Imagine how much "worse" it'll get - in the west - before it gets better, if the west starts an all-out assault on IS. Not saying it shouldn't happen, just that I think the effects will be tough.

In the last few decades we have seen huge advances in reducing world poverty (actual poverty) while the headlines we see are burger flippers wanting higher pay so they can live comfortably in NYC.
------------------------------------------
Iran was before I was paying close attention and the theocracy there is not a friend of the west, and never will be no matter what we give them. They are only interested in keeping the power they grabbed through revolution.
------------------------------------------
Iraq OTOH was stabilized and we dropped the ball by withdrawing forces too quickly. Democracy does not blossom overnight. If we review our own history it took decades for us to get our act together. To expect Iraq to instantly embrace democracy after years of dictatorship rule was just foolish.  While I don't think the pull-out was anything other than a political calculation, not thinking about what was good for the iraqi people.

See, here's where we differe a bit. Because the way I see it, we're heading into dangerous territory when we make other nations do what we want because we think it's better, as opposed to lead by example. So you're saying that you didn't pay attention to Iran before, but as I've said before, it was relatively stable before these nutcases AND before the imposed Shah, AND it was secular AND it was capitalist. What it was in addition to all that was nationalist, and them profiting from their oil was a problem. So the revolution you're talking about was a revolution against a CIA imposed leadership.

So, again, this is where we have to be careful. People get annoyed when you try to make  them do what you want. It's better to show what is better and give them the choice to follow that path. And when it comes to Iraq it leads to the other problem which is just how much money and blood western politicians think they can spend. Because at the end of the day people get sick of paying for a nation that faaaar away while they see no positive results at home.

Granted, we end up in a much deeper discussion if we go down this road, but I think it unfortunately isn't enough to call a religion flawed because its leaders says it's ok to kill. It's far too shallow an argument, and as such it will only resonate with those that share your particular religious beliefs. If we really want to deal with the problem with Islam, we need to dig deep.

No, only "they" can fix it... It doesn't matter what I think of Islam. I can't believe that over 1 billion Muslims embrace that behavior by the radical minority..

But even in the US, for example, we've seen young people feel tremendous pressure from their families and societies and they simply either don't understand that there's a different way to think about their religion, or they simply don't dare to do something different. But by showing them that it's ok to be anything from a moderate Christian as opposed to an Evangelist for example, to an Atheist, they're encouraged to think for themselves and find their own way. I don't see why it wouldn't be different for religious people all over the planet. Sure, it's in their heads so they have to "fix" it, but by having debates on the topic we can expose the nonsense for what it is. But then it has to be done intelligently and in depth.

If you watch some debates or discussions on religion between some of the "new atheists" (I hate the term) and people of faith, you'll see that the discussion is filled with honesty and intelligence on the part of the religious participants, but only to the point where their own faith is seriously questioned, and this is exactly the same behavior by members of the three Abrahamic religions.

The west spends huge amounts of wealth on carrots. Nobody wants to put our soldiers in harms way, but these problems do not resolve themselves if we just look the other way.  If recent events don't demonstrate how small and interconnected this world is, i don't know what will.

Sure. But curiously this happens to the US, the UK, France and Spain, right? It doesn't really happen to Palau, Vanuatu or Uruguay (as far as I know). So I would argue again that there is, for the people of the west, an uncomfortable and unfortunate question of whether or not people should be left alone until they actually pose a national threat. As bad as all these terrorist acts have been they pose pretty much zero threat to the nations in which they happen. To the citizens they absolutely are terrible, but they don't threaten the existence of the nation-states the way military conflicts between nations do.

So what I'm saying is that there is possibly an argument to be made for just not messing with that region of the world and let them work stuff out themselves, and only if they actually threaten the existence of western nations is there a "need" to do something. And again, to be clear, the nations that have suffered the worst terrorist attacks from outside are the nations that have engaged in or supported colonialism and more. Not the ones that mind their own business.

 

[mattiasNYC]

I dislike repeating myself but I guess you don't believe me when I note that Iraq was secure and stabilized, before we pulled our forces out. We still have military in Germany and Japan, but think the flegling iraqi government didn't need any help. THAT is what allowed ISIL to grow and gain real estate.

But I think the issue for Americans should probably be that before the US intervened to removed Saddam it was also stable. What removing him did was paint a target on the participating nations' backs. To some people of that region it was an act of aggression against the sovereignty of the nation of Iraq.

As i recall Saddam was offering a reward to families of suicide bombers, he was not a good world citizen ignoring what he did to his own people.

Yes, it's true that that's what Iraq did. But your analysis is shallow and counterproductive. To a Muslim your comment will look deeply hypocritical considering the billions the US has pumped into the Israeli war machine which manages to kill FAR more Palestinians than vice versa, while engaging in colonialism.

You can either argue that supporting bad behavior is bad, or you can leave that argument alone. But if you do want to discuss it then you can't leave it on that relatively shallow level. It makes sense to you because the US is a buddy with Israel, and because you're not a Palestinian having your land taken and your citizens controlled and killed, but obviously to them that argument looks differently.

Again, lead by example and if you are going to discuss something then it needs to be done in depth.

As was first verbalized by Friedman in the "world is flat" book countries don't usually declare war on their important trading partners.

As terrible as that book was I think that line is right. The European collaboration was built on that logic, and I think it is true. The only problem is that it's only true for as long as that important trade is in place. If trade is imposed then self-determination may be a bigger priority than trade and peace.

France is going to turn the desert around their headquarters in Syria to glass, but the ISIL leaders probably left town a while ago in anticipation of that response. They're crazy, not stupid.

JR

Agreed.

 

[mattiasNYC]

well if US really cared about stabilization in iraq they would have continued to fight for it.  to me it seems more they went there just to take saddam out, because it wasn't being a good customer anymore. then once they sorted out the two three good links they needed, they left the party.

Of course. Those idiots in government at the time had been lobbying for an invasion and overthrow of Saddam for about half a decade before they got the chance. Once they were in government the writing was on the wall. Their world view was incredibly warped.

I also think they did the world a huge disservice by marketing the war as a preemptive one where the west was protecting itself against an imminent threat, rather than do it on humanitarian grounds. Of course, it was a  way to get public support for the war, but then if that's how you sell it, that support is going to wane once the imminent threat disappears. No wonder Obama's withdrawal was supported.

i definitely agree that the iraq government probably didn't do much either to contrast isis, but i guess you can't ask too much to a  country that has just re-born. the whole world should intervene and stop this oppressive islamic cultures. the problem is, they might have stronger allies that still haven't been declared....

The issue of allies is interesting. Thanks for bringing that up.

 

[DaveP]

There is a lot of sense in what you have said except the part about leaving them alone.  Their stated aim is the whole world for their perverted version of Islam.

The reason they have not touched the small countries you mentioned is that they are not major players, once they have overcome the major players, then its just simple mopping up of the rest.

Like I said earlier, we could have stopped Hitler in 1930, but no-one had the stomach for it until it was too late.  The similarities to that time are quite staggering, economic depression, bad memories of last war.  What did the delay cost?  450,000 Brits, 415,000 Americans and 25,000,000 Russians.

I can't see that happening again on that scale unless they get hold of a nuclear device (North Korea?) , but it's obvious that it's easier to defeat a small enemy than a large one.

DaveP

 

[sahib]

These radical groups draw energy from sectarian conflict. That entire region is a classic example of national borders drawn with no respect for sectarian alliances. Under strict dictatorships these differences can be held in check but it is not easy for them to work together within a democratic process. I dismissed this suggestion before but Iraq would be easier to manage as 3 self governing regions, Kurds in the north, shia in the south, and sunni in the middle west. Of course for this to really work we would need to rip up the maps for several countries, so kurds could  link up with other kurds in turkey,syria, and Iran, etc. I don't see this happening in my lifetime, so until then we can only try to secure these regions and promote representative governance.
JR

John you have great observations but please allow me to exclude Turkey from these " dictatorships".

Indeed Turkey is different. I followed the recent (25th) general election to see if they wavered from secular rule and toward theocracy as some political factions argue for. For now it appears secular rule is intact (a good thing IMO).

Some are indeed fantasising with the notion of a father figure leader but as you said the secularity is intact. 

Turkey's idea of help in the fight against ISIL was to bomb kurds in northern Syria. I doubt Turkey would embrace giving up land to an autonomous Kurdish region while it might reduce some of their internal strife with their Kurdish minority (another consequence of colonial map drawing) .

I do not exactly know what you meant by "another consequence of colonial drawing". Modern Turkey's borders were a result of  a struggle for survival and independence both from allied occupation and Ottoman Empire. It was not a result of colonial mapping. Contrary to that the straight lines in the Middle East were drawn up by British.

However, strictly speaking I have no problem with that particular part of Turkey being designated for Kurdish autonomy as long as it is done democratically through referandum.

Turkey has a rough time these days with migrants from Syria trying to get into Europe through Turkey.  The EU recently agreed to pay them 3billion euros over 2 years to help stem the flow of migrants, and that was before the Paris attack.

Indeed.  This takes a lot of pressure off Europe.

PS: For those students of history on Nov 14th 1914 the Ottoman empire declared jihad against France and others. The date may not be pure coincidence, but they are year late to make it a round century.

The word of jihad has to be considered within its context. At that time it meant war not "holy war". Besides being an ally with one infidel (Germany)  and declaring holy war to another would not make sense.

The day to day struggle to look after your family can also be a jihad. At the end of the day we could all be jihadis here  ;D, as we go into that studio to make a few bucks to take care of our families. But unfortunately that does not sound as funky as what media makes it out to be with all these jihadi Johns and Dons.

Bottom line is that all these atrocities have nothing to do with the religion at its fundamental. Abbey put it briefly and neatly. All about gaining power and having a share of the cake.  If these guys who blow themselves up could look down from the sky in twenty years time and see their masters driving around in their BMWs as respectable businessman they would go "oh f**k!"

 

[mattiasNYC]

There is a lot of sense in what you have said except the part about leaving them alone.  Their stated aim is the whole world for their perverted version of Islam.

The reason they have not touched the small countries you mentioned is that they are not major players, once they have overcome the major players, then its just simple mopping up of the rest.

Like I said earlier, we could have stopped Hitler in 1930, but no-one had the stomach for it until it was too late.  The similarities to that time are quite staggering, economic depression, bad memories of last war.  What did the delay cost?  450,000 Brits, 415,000 Americans and 25,000,000 Russians.

I can't see that happening again on that scale unless they get hold of a nuclear device (North Korea?) , but it's obvious that it's easier to defeat a small enemy than a large one.

DaveP

I don't entirely disagree actually. I think I touched upon "leaving them alone" in a couple of ways.

The first sense in which I talked about it was to simply allow them to get situated in one place and then launch an all-out attack IF they then try to attack neighboring countries. I don't fully endorse this, but in terms of military operations one could perhaps consider that as being easier than half-assed operations while they spread their 'combatants' globally to fight 'asymmetrically', if you know what I mean. In addition I'm guessing that a perhaps stronger state which ultimately poses a greater threat initially to the region will yield more military support. I would imagine more regional powers would pitch in to a greater extent, as well as other nations.

The other sense in which I mentioned it was also not really a proposition that it is what we should do as much as it was just a reflection of the past. If our primary concern is our own nations then it seems that leaving the region alone is better, statistically speaking. At the very least we need to be careful about what we do.

Now, could we be looking at a situation similar to that of Germany in the 30's? Possibly. But contrary to what happened then there are bigger problems with this enemy as it spreads out and fights using terrorism. I don't think we saw that in pre-Nazi Germany, and after there was a pretty clear enemy to fight.

 

[mattiasNYC]

Bottom line is that all these atrocities have nothing to do with the religion at its fundamental. Abbey put it briefly and neatly. All about gaining power and having a share of the cake.  If these guys who blow themselves up could look down from the sky in twenty years time and see their masters driving around in their BMWs as respectable businessman they would go "oh f**k!"

I really disagree. Why did the suicide bombers kill themselves? What did they think they'd gain by it? "power" and "a share of the cake"? Or guaranteed entry to heaven?

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Bottom line is that all these atrocities have nothing to do with the religion at its fundamental. Abbey put it briefly and neatly. All about gaining power and having a share of the cake.  If these guys who blow themselves up could look down from the sky in twenty years time and see their masters driving around in their BMWs as respectable businessman they would go "oh f**k!"

I really disagree. Why did the suicide bombers kill themselves? What did they think they'd gain by it? "power" and "a share of the cake"? Or guaranteed entry to heaven?

The suicide bombers are victims. I was talking about the masterpuppets.

 

[sahib]

Bottom line is that all these atrocities have nothing to do with the religion at its fundamental. Abbey put it briefly and neatly. All about gaining power and having a share of the cake.  If these guys who blow themselves up could look down from the sky in twenty years time and see their masters driving around in their BMWs as respectable businessman they would go "oh f**k!"

I really disagree. Why did the suicide bombers kill themselves? What did they think they'd gain by it? "power" and "a share of the cake"? Or guaranteed entry to heaven?

They are promised with heaven. And this is where the tragedy is.

Many muslim scholars will argue that in contrary with what they have done they are guaranteed the hell as because of the  simple fact that the civilians, particularly the women and children are not legitimate targets in Islam. I don't do religion but even I know that simple fact. But ignorance is a terrible thing.

Abbey has also touched upon an important point which I was hesitating to do so. Their masters are also puppets.  The simple fact of terror is that you can never ever know the real parties behind it as anybody with vested interest will chip in to support it.  And one things is sure that they will not be living in a cave with a rackety Kalashnikov.

There is a saying " if you do not know who the sucker is around a poker table, it's you".  And these suckers think they are running a holy war. They are not.

 

[DaveP]

Even simple Logic defeats their theology.

You can conclude this whether you believe in God or not, because of the evidence in the world around us.

A rudimentary study of genetics reveals that the maximum shuffling happens when DNA/RNA reproduction takes place.  The resulting logic? Diversity is the name of the game.  In the natural world, every ecological niche is filled by one species or another, further support for diversity.  If for the sake of argument, you admit there is a creator, why would he design diversity  into his creation but insist on  a strictly held narrow exclusive religion in his believers, it does not make sense, because nature abhors a clone.

If you similarly admit that God is a father figure and Man is made in his image, where do you get the justification from to decide which of your "brothers and sisters" (His children) lives and who dies?

If anything is likely to make "God" angry, then it not going to be Yazedis, Alawites, Sunnis, Shia, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc, etc. It is someone thinking they have the right to destroy his creation and children  and to compound this by saying they are doing it in His Name.

No, I don't think these cowards are on the fast track to heaven, I think they may well find themselves in the outer darkness and the place of gnashing of teeth.

DaveP