Paris attacks

[Phi for All]

I still think we should drop food; it's hard to hate someone who gives you a free lunch when you need it.

 

I agree completely. If trying to kill something makes it grow, maybe feeding that something will have the opposite effect. We should try it.

[CharonY]

Thanks, Ophiolite. It is extremely frustrating if people use bad understanding (obvious even to casual observers like myself) of history to explain or even justify things. It is the same as we see in a number of science threads. I wished we had a history expert here to tackle at least a few of the most common things. But then, I guess it must be even worse than tackling misunderstood science.

 

I take it then, that you haven't actually made a serious study of history. Given that rather obvious fact, do you think it wise to comment on history?

And apparently there was now a coordinated attack on a medical center in San Bernadino, leaving 14 dead and 17 wounded.

Edited December 2, 2015 by CharonY

[overtone]

It is the same as we see in a number of science threads. I wished we had a history expert here to tackle at least a few of the most common things. But then, I guess it must be even worse than tackling misunderstood science.

I'm sure we could round up adequate "experts in history" to match some of the performances of the "experts in science" we've seen here.

 

Actually, learning from such examples as we've had here we could take a fair crack at filling in for them ourselves. Let's see:

 

"It is the consensus of historians that military assault is justified". {defended by the often repeated professional expert's observation that war is merely politics carried on by other means. (From von Clausewitz: "We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means.").}

 

Or we could take advantage of the expert historians on the ground, degreed historians with professional careers in historical analysis, right there in the action, like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_(journalist)

 

who babbled this out of his keyboard, in June of 2014:

 

We now have two administrations in a row that committed their worst foreign policy blunders in Iraq. By withdrawing too quickly from Iraq, by failing to build on the surge, the Obama administration has made some similar mistakes made during the early administration of George W. Bush, except in reverse. The dangers of American underreach have been lavishly and horrifically displayed.

It is not too late to help Syrian moderates. In Iraq, the answer is not to send troops back in. It is to provide Maliki help in exchange for concrete measures to reduce sectarian tensions. The Iraqi government could empower regional governments, acknowledging the nation’s diversity. Maliki could re-professionalize the Army. The Constitution could impose term limits on prime ministers.

But these provisions would require a more forward-leaning American posture around the world, an awareness that sometimes a U.S.-created vacuum can be ruinous. The president says his doctrine is don’t do stupid stuff. Sometimes withdrawal is the stupidest thing of all.

Alternatively, we could try listening to people who make sense when talking about the matter at hand - maybe like Sean MacStiofain, first chief of staff of the provisional IRA at the onset of the Troubles:

 

It is said that most revolutions are not caused by revolutionaries in the first place, but by the stupidity and brutality of governments. Well, you had that to start with in {Northern Ireland}, all right

Edited December 3, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

Well given the lessons you have learned from history, what if anything should we do in response to the existence of ISIL?

 

Does Paris change the plan you had in mind before Paris?

 

Completely forgetting I said anything about it, and assuming I don't know what I am talking about, and my desires on the issue are to be completely ignored. What is the right thing to do, according to you? What course should we lobby our government to take, on behalf of peace, prosperity and understanding on this planet?

 

Regards, TAR

[CharonY]

This is off-topic, but:

 

Overtone, none of the people you have listed are historians and certainly not experts in the relevant field. Clausewitz is a Prussian general and would be the subject of historians, David Brooks is a journalist. Also, comments on current policy is not what a historian would do. After all their job is to identify evidence to establish past events and contextualize them.

 

Note that among historians deeper interpretations of many events can be and should be disputed. What I am saying, is that we are not even within a mile of such depth. I mean, here we typically do not even get the simple facts right, yet many here extrapolate on assumed facts in order to construct a weird alternate reality in which all their believes are founded on hard facts that are largely made up or interpretation of events without context.

In other words, I wished we would first at least try to discuss things by first establishing facts and then proceed.

Edited December 3, 2015 by CharonY

[overtone]

Overtone, none of the people you have listed are historians and certainly not experts in the relevant field

They qualify as "experts in history", fully as relevantly accomplished as the "experts in science" described in the post I was responding to.

 

David Brooks, for example, has a prestigious University degree in "History", and a lifetime of directly relevant and world renowned accomplishment in exactly what is sought here - including, specifically, a life's work including well-informed personally acquainted analysis of the last twenty five years of history of American political and military involvement with Islamic insurgency and violence in the Middle East. You want credentials? There are few with better.

 

I mean, here we typically do not even get the simple facts right, yet many here extrapolate on assumed facts in order to construct a weird alternate reality in which all their believes are founded on hard facts that are largely made up or interpretation of events without context.

And that has been the case with several of the scientific threads guided by experts, as well. This is an issue of reason and perception - expertise has proven to be unreliable, to put it gently, in warding off this difficulty.

 

Well given the lessons you have learned from history, what if anything should we do in response to the existence of ISIL?

Wait for the paint to dry, so we can walk out of the corner. Start the process of rapprochement with our natural ally in the region - Iran. Meanwhile, a large scale program to generate domestic electricity from solar radiation might get us some breathing room - divert, say, 2/3 of the military budget to it, on self defense grounds.

 

Does Paris change the plan you had in mind before Paris?

No. Was Paris some kind of unexpected shock, to anyone?

Edited December 3, 2015 by overtone

[dimreepr]

 

Right, so the way to fight against the ISIS idea is to make religion look rediculous. Point out the inconsistencies in the teachings in all religions. Point out the multitude of pointless verses. Point out that all religions believe they are the best religion, that is proof that religion does not come from God, but it comes from the minds of clever wise men who have rewritten the "holy" books over and over for hundreds of years.

 

Impressionable youths need to find out that religion is a scam, a comfortable lie, a great social club for meeting friends, but ultimately based on the great lie that it comes from God and not from men. Teach them science and the scientific method for understanding things. Religion is not scientific but based on wishful thinking. Teach them psychology and how the human mind craves religion. Teach them about Santa Claus, the nice lie for children, until they are old enough to realize they've been lied to by adults. Only an idiot would not wonder if God may also be such a "good" lie.

 

 

Nice try at diverting the point, the statement is ubiquitous and just happens to include religions.

 

It’s just as easy to ‘believe’ a big enough bomb will solve all our problems, no thought required.

[CharonY]

 

David Brooks, for example, has a prestigious University degree in "History", and a lifetime of directly relevant and world renowned accomplishment in exactly what is sought here - including, specifically, a life's work including well-informed personally acquainted analysis of the last twenty five years of history of American political and military involvement with Islamic insurgency and violence in the Middle East. You want credentials? There are few with better.

 

Last off-topic comment: Brooks is a political commentator and as such certainly has acclaim in that regard. However, there is a distinct difference to historic research. The latter takes a more distant approach and there is a reason why historians typically do not tackle events that are less than ~20 years back. And that is my point with regards to the Middle East, much of the events under discussion here draw from important events at least that time ago and cannot be explained with the lens of current perception. He may have acquired expertise independently, but most likely they will be on current rather than historic events. It should also be mentioned that he has been criticized for pushing a conservative agenda and have accused him with a liberal use of statistics. Either way, it would require an enormous stretch of imagination to describe his work as that of a historian. His thesis was on a science writer, btw.

[tar]

Overtone,

Thank you for your suggestion. Probably not a bad idea. Reduce our dependence on oil from other continents and our "interests" in the middle east shrink and we will not have so much a need to influence the governments in the area to exercise some amount of control over who gets the oil and at what price. But someone already thought of that, and we have already reduced the percentage of our energy needs we satisfy from Gulf oil. That has not reduced the amount of terrorist attacks. I am thinking the industrial and banking and energy industries are connected, and the connections reach across the sea and include players on all continents. I don't think the U.S. is the only player. We may be the stooge for the Saudis or be complicit in grand schemes on world level to affect politics through control of energy and resources...but I am not privy to all those meetings, and the power structures in the world, are not solely national governments, there are other associations and organizations and banks and corporations, both public and private. The U.N., the World Bank, the E.U., Doctors without Borders, and any number of organizations that we would support and thus still have reason to have interest in the area.

 

Regards, TAR

And Overtone,

You have not convinced me yet of the evidence you have that Iran is our natural ally. The Iranian's have burned my flag, held our embassy hostage, financed the mortal enemies of Israel, perhaps aided in mixing it up in Iraq during the civil war there during the anti U.S. occupation years, and are among the people on Hilary's list of the enemies she is most proud of making. At first glance, at the international chess board, I would not naturally put them on my side of the board.

 

Regards, TAR

And yes. Paris came as a surprise to me.

If the Iranians hate the Sunni that does not make them natural allies. Moderate, secular Sunni are our natural ally.

And we withdrew from Iraq and pulled our strong support from the Syrian moderate secular rebels because they were losing to ISIS and ISIS was winding up with our weapons. We "let the paint dry" for a couple of years...and now seeing the color is Daesh, we should probably repaint.

Edited December 3, 2015 by tar

[MigL]

Just putting this out there...

The Iraqi army was 200,000 strong, when the US troops were withdrawn.

They had an opposing ISIL army of approx. 30,000, i.e. at least six times smaller and far worse equipped.

Yet they laid down their weapons and surrendered to ISIL as they did not want to fight their Sunny brothers.

 

Some have blamed this on the US backing ( appointment ) of Maliki, who is Shia, and has ties to Iran.

 

Would we have the ISIL problem today, or would it at least be more contained, if the US had backed a Sunny moderate instead of a former S. Hussein dissenter.

Or would a better course of action been to let the Iraqi people sort it out, without backing anyone?

( or would this have caused a power struggle with external players like the Saudis and Iranians getting involved )

Edited December 3, 2015 by MigL

[waitforufo]

And none of this would have happened if Obama would have negotiated a status of forces agreement with Iraq leaving 30 thousand troops in Iraq as his generals recommended. Instead Obama offered 4 thousand troops and Iraq told him there was no point in leaving such a small force. Now Obama keeps adding more troops. Watching Obama is like watching the keystone cops.

[John Cuthber]

do we let homosexuals get thrown off buildings?

If the alternative is that we wait till both the gay guy and his captor are at the top of the building, then we bomb it, does it matter which option we choose?

 

Seriously, how do you intend to stop him getting thrown off?

[tar]

by not letting ISIS establish a huge state with many cities where that would be the law

I have a family member who is gay. Everybody knows somebody. Do you want to live under a Caliph that not only allows such behavior but demands it?

We cannot save those already thrown. But we can be on the side of those who have not yet been thrown.

[CharonY]

Just putting this out there...

The Iraqi army was 200,000 strong, when the US troops were withdrawn.

They had an opposing ISIL army of approx. 30,000, i.e. at least six times smaller and far worse equipped.

Yet they laid down their weapons and surrendered to ISIL as they did not want to fight their Sunny brothers.

 

Some have blamed this on the US backing ( appointment ) of Maliki, who is Shia, and has ties to Iran.

 

Would we have the ISIL problem today, or would it at least be more contained, if the US had backed a Sunny moderate instead of a former S. Hussein dissenter.

Or would a better course of action been to let the Iraqi people sort it out, without backing anyone?

( or would this have caused a power struggle with external players like the Saudis and Iranians getting involved )

 

From what I understand it was quite a bit more complicated than just the Sunni- Shiite relationship. Corruption on the highest level was arguably one of the largest culprits. And one should remember that large parts of the military are now Shiite dominated (rather than Sunni as it used to be). But in hindsight it would have been crucial to improve dialogue between these groups and utilized a strategy that would have maintained security (using some from the old guard that were more palatable?) .

 

With regard to troop withdrawals, two things are important to remember. First, Bush signed the agreement to leave, so having troops beyond 2011 in Iraq required a new agreement. It is also true that Admiral Mullen suggested leaving 16k troops whereas the Obama administration preferred a 10k option. There are numerous speculations why the agreement failed. Other than doubts regarding military benefits, there was always the issue of sovereignty (after all at various points there have been demands for the US to leave) as well as having persecution rights over US troops. And as MigL noted, it is not clear whether more troops would have stopped the insurgence or whether it would simply had resulted in more US deaths.

Most likely extended intelligence operations would have yielded the largest benefit as ISIS did not waltz in as an army, but rather infiltrated the cities long before they started their actions.

by not letting ISIS establish a huge state with many cities where that would be the law

I have a family member who is gay. Everybody knows somebody. Do you want to live under a Caliph that not only allows such behavior but demands it?

We cannot save those already thrown. But we can be on the side of those who have not yet been thrown.

 

So why was the decision made to create a situation where ISIS could form? And if you say it was a mistake in hindsight then what would you suggest to do that ensure that it will not be a mistake? After all military action brought this mess, so obviously it is not an error-free solution.

Edited December 3, 2015 by CharonY

[John Cuthber]

by not letting ISIS establish a huge state with many cities where that would be the law

 

How?

All the evidence seems to show that military action just helps groups like ISIS recruit by "proving" that they are right-- the West is evil.

So, exactly what do you propose to do?

[DimaMazin]

And none of this would have happened if Obama would have negotiated a status of forces agreement with Iraq leaving 30 thousand troops in Iraq as his generals recommended. Instead Obama offered 4 thousand troops and Iraq told him there was no point in leaving such a small force. Now Obama keeps adding more troops. Watching Obama is like watching the keystone cops.

And Russia doesn't fight against ISIL. Russia just increases a cost of Syrian oil.

[tar]

Thread,

 

I don't think that bombs are the answer. Nor do I think it best to provide the answer. I am pretty much against creating a dependency. People and nations should stand on their own two feet. With representative governments and rule of law. I prefer secular laws voted on by the population or established in some founding constitution. To that end, I would think it prudent not to assist in picking the winners and the losers, but support all parties in establishing self rule. Sunnis should rule Sunnis, Shia Shia, Kurds Kurds, Turkmen Turkmen, Syrians Syrians. We actually don't have the right to bomb in Syria at all. We have some agreements in Iraq to help the government of Iraq, but Assad does not want us bombing his country except perhaps to have us kill his citizens that would have him removed. Russia is assisting Assad directly and is now at odds with a NATO ally, Turkey, who would rather not Russia bomb the Turkmen near their border.

 

So first, I would suggest we not try to be Assad's daddy and tell him what to do. Either consider Raqqa part of Sovereign Syria, and ask Assad how we can help him regain control of his country, and reestablish the rule of law, with representative government happening in all corners of the place, or consider the area under control of ISIS no longer part of Syria, but part of ISIS and declare war on ISIS directly, in the same way that we declared war on Saddam. Then with the support of everybody who would like to shed the yoke of ISIS we go after the leadership. We will need bullets, carefully aimed at ISIS fighters, but not bombs, but to support the ground troops. Search out the tunnels and headquarters and capture the leadership. Put them in jail. Bring along the press and the U.N. and food and medicine and bulldozers and builders to put the infrastructure back together. Make Raqqa a safe zone. Bring the world in to keep people from getting thrown off the tops of buildings. Free the sex slaves, remove the yoke. Bring voting booths and have Raqqa vote for their representatives to Assad's government. Stay around until everybody is playing nicely together. Then when the world thinks it is time to go. Go.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited December 3, 2015 by tar

[CharonY]

Interesting thought. However, it is contradictory to a degree. On the one hand you are saying we should not pick winners, on the other we should create a system based on ethnicity and/or religion. Remember, Sunni or Shiites are not ethnic groups and you can e.g. have Kurds that are Sunni, Shiite (though being a minority), Jewish or Christian (likewise minorities). I.e. the delineation of either group are often not clear. Thus, if you start splitting up countries in order to form new ones, how is it not being "daddy".

 

Also Western powers tried to unseat Assad, I guess it is a bit tricky to convince him to cooperate with them. Also AFAIK the US and allies are already targeting ISIS leadership (and killed several). As a response they tried to organize themselves into a more decentralized form, though it is not clear whether they managed to do so.

 

What I do agree with is that the actions of Western (or other) powers should be directed towards long-term stability and self-governance. This is pretty much the only thing that has proven to remove the basis of terrorists. However, each region will require a different plan as the Middle East is extremely diverse and simple approaches ("just remove the dictator") have not worked. Another requirement would be that the efforts are, at least to some degree, selfless. If it is done to promote one's own interest with little regard to the population as done in the past, people will (rightfully) question motives.

Edited December 4, 2015 by CharonY

[tar]

CharonY,

 

I completely agree. You can't slice it up and say this is this and that is that. That is what the British did in the first place, and the U.N. did with Israel. Causing winners and losers. No, what I meant was not to divide Iraq into three states, but foster an environment where each town could have their leaders and representatives to the next larger political unit. If the feeling of self rule was fostered, it would be up to the various "states" to form a union. Not because somebody else told them how to do it, but because they wanted to do it. But I was mainly thinking about how to go after Raqqa, without dropping bombs and killing people and acting like a invasion force. Without the people of the town, you couldn't hold anything anyway.

But just concentrating on Raqqa, and removing the Caliph, would let Raqqa decide its own fate. With world eyes and pressure on the situation and humanitarian aid a plenty, and coalition partners ready to keep it a safe zone, any way the people of Raqqa wanted to see it go at that point, it could go. The people that wanted to live by old rules could, if everybody wanted to live that way. If not they could make concessions to each other and find a reasonable balance, without the balance someone else is happy with, being imposed.

 

Then if the approach worked, on to the next town. Until Assad had his country back from ISIS. Then the same approach, town by town in Iraq, until

Baghdad had her cities back. Nobody displaced, nobody pushed out, nobody winning, nobody loosing. Each town run by the townspeople, by the townspeople's rules. Even if the West is not pleased with the human rights status. As long as the citizens are pleased and not in fear of reprisal. As long as we make them safe. Safe from us. Safe from each other. But where and how they want to be.

 

Regards, TAR

 

In a way, we could consider the expense of such a military and humanitarian effort the reparation due two nations we helped tear apart. I would imagine, if we were prepared to accept it not going our way, it could even decide to be a Caliphate and we could sign a peace treaty with it.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/are-paris-attacks-a-signal-the-islamic-state-is-stagnating/ar-AAfZDX0?ocid=spartandhp

 

 

Just thought of an additional tactic to employ in the plan, looking at these very young or female fighters. If our coalition ground troops should encircle such a band with overwhelming forces, don't kill them until you give them this chance (loud speakers in several languages saying)" lay down your weapons and approach us, you will not be hurt, we will check you for explosives, feed you and return you to your town of birth where we will release you to your family."

with 100 dollars and a smart phone

having been in basic training myself, I would have liked the opportunity to take a Mulligan

Edited December 4, 2015 by tar

[John Cuthber]

"Thread,

I don't think that bombs are the answer. Nor do I think it best to provide the answer."

Not going anywhere then.

[Ten oz]

"I already answered your first question, that handling an internal criminal you have your own law enforcement community to help you, where as handing a criminal that is outside your borders, you have to get agreement with the other place's law enforcement, violate their sovereignty, declare war, or "let it go".In terms of the second, I will use your highway death example to prove a flip to your question. Why should we get all flustered and reform the law enforcement establishment because a couple people on PCP fight the police and get shot? The numbers are so small, we should not change the course of the ocean liner, because a couple of people fall overboard.Regards, TAR

Well Tar here we are; another few days have past and there has been another mass shooting. This time the shoot may have been a Islamic Terrorist sympathizer. The media seems to be twisting itself into knots trying to figure out if what happened in San Bernardino should be filed under "mass shooting" or "terrorism". A dog whisper distinction that transforms the significance of the attack in the eyes of many. One label makes it meaningful and impacts foriegn policy while the other label makes it a domestic issue that was resolved when the police killed to assailants.

Was the San Bernardino shooting an internal or external event? Possibly inspired by Islamic terrorism but Syed Farook was born and raised in the United States. Just as Nidal Hasan (fort hood shooter) had Islamic terror sympathies but was born and raised in the United States. What foriegn regime shall we support or supply arms to in order to prevent future Syed Farook's? Which international partners do we need? Or perhaps this isn't really an internal vs external issue, isn't us vs them, it is something more holistic. Syed Farook and Hasan Nidal crimes were actually carried out the way most mass shooting are. They went to a place there were familiar with, where they possibly held grudges, and shot the place up. They were not suicide bombers. They did not attack strangers, they did not attack somewhere to maximize fatalities. They both behaved in a way that is becoming frightenly too common for disgruntled U.S. citizens. I don't see how our drone killing people on the other side of the world is effective in preventing people like Hasan Nidal or Syed Farood. We are willing to strip naked to board planes to throttle terrorism but aren't willing to change our gun laws. Syed Farook's arsenal of weapons did not make him suspicious in the United States yet being Muslim in many peoples opinion did. Clearly we are not being rational about these issues domestically. I think we need to clean our own home before we blow up anyone else's.

[waitforufo]

I still think we should drop food; it's hard to hate someone who gives you a free lunch when you need it.

Why don't we just drop bundles of cash? Maybe they are still upset with the United States for taking out the barbary pirates. Maybe if we just paid our jizya the Muslim would calm down and tolerate us infidels more.

[dimreepr]

Why don't we just drop bundles of cash? Maybe they are still upset with the United States for taking out the barbary pirates. Maybe if we just paid our jizya the Muslim would calm down and tolerate us infidels more.

 

 

You can’t eat cash and hatred only nourishes fear and loathing.

[waitforufo]

 

 

You can’t eat cash and hatred only nourishes fear and loathing.

And what do terrorist attacks nourish? What does throwing gays off of 10 story buildings nourish?

If we had just paid those barbary pirates I'm sure this cycle of fear and loathing would have never started. Our bad I guess.

Maybe if we forced the Marine Corps to remove "to the shores of Tripoli" from their hymn would be a good start in creating a Muslim safe space.

Edited December 4, 2015 by waitforufo

[dimreepr]

And what do terrorist attacks nourish?

 

 

Hatred.

 

 

What does throwing gays off of 10 story buildings nourish?

 

 

 

Self loathing.