Paris attacks

[overtone]

 

 

I think the time for not getting involved in the Middle East , is already in the past. Withdrawing our forces (U.S.) after ousting Saddam is one of the reasons that the Sunni power structure returned in the form that it did (ISIL.)

There was a resurgence of Sunni fundamentalist violence within a few months of US invasion, and it never went away (there was a brief lull toward the end of W's administration brought on by bribing some powerful tribal leaders, but that was never more than a temporary expedient and ended when the bribes ended). The form - Al Qaida, ISIL, etc - was partly a consequence of the US having killed or marginalized the "moderates", who were often connected with Saddam's regime in some way, at the same time as the US was protecting the Sunni radicals from Iranian hostility (no fly zones and other protections for the guerrillas on the Iranian border, etc), and allowing ethnic cleansing operations by Shia and Sunni forces in the large cities.

 

But we have been involved in the Middle East for a century or more, and done enormous harm even before the catastrophe of Iraq, including backing or even imposing tyrannical governments that severely damaged every single country involved here. Like the drunk at the wedding, we can't do anything about this mess we created or help anyone involved by flailing around some more, regardless of who we have injured and risked.

[Airbrush]

Because there are perfectly legitimate and valid reasons for such travel [to Syria or Iraq] by us, a free people. Doctors, nurses, journalists, diplomats, business people, aid organizations, and more. All that would happen if we implemented an idea like this one above is MORE people would suffer and MORE people would be motivated to join the extremist ranks. Why would we do this? That's just silly.

 

Of course doctors, nurses, journalists, diplomats, business people, and aid organization should be able to have unrestricted access to Syria and Iraq. But others, the foreign fighters, who have no documents, they can't prove legitimate business, it should be a criminal act for going to Syria or Iraq for no good reason. These people are obviously fighters who were trained by ISIS, they return to their country and the police have to leave them alone because they didn't commit any crime yet. Going to Syria for no good reason, in itself, should be a crime punishable by a good prison term.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Airbrush

[arc]

 

Going to Syria for no good reason, in itself, should be a crime punishable by a good prison term.

 

Do you think prison is a deterrent to someone who is willing to blow himself to pieces.

[Airbrush]

 

Do you think prison is a deterrent to someone who is willing to blow himself to pieces.

 

It's better then the current hands off policy until they do something illegal. You prefer they should be executed? Or they should have a tatoo on their forehead saying "ISIS"?

 

All but one of the 8 Paris attackers were French or Belgian citizens who traveled to Syria for training, then returned to France and Belgium. Law enforcement was aware of them but could do NOTHING until they committed a crime. There are thousands of young European (and from many other countries) men and women who went to Syria for training and returned to Europe and they are on a list but mostly left alone. CNN just reported there are over 100 known suspects who returned to France from Syria, but nothing can be done about them. Doctors and nurses should be able to prove they are not fighters. Traveling to Syria for no good reason SHOULD be a crime.

 

Are there REALLY many journalists, doctors, nurses, etc willing to risk there lives by traveling to Syria? Are they unaware it is a war zone? Are they not targets for kidnapping, torture, and beheading on camera? We are supposed to risk our lives to rescue them?

 

BTW, what about the news footage of ISIS vehicles filled with fighters, and waving black ISIS flags? "Look at us, we are ISIS fighters!!" Seems like an easy target for drone strikes. What do you think?

Edited November 17, 2015 by Airbrush

[tar]

Thread,

 

I don't have an opinion on this yet, but Da'ish, in a recent video warning of attacks on the U.S. Capitol spoke of death to the crusaders.

 

This is hard to ignore. If we are still fighting the crusades, then we are the crusaders, if we are European, of European decent, Christian, or otherwise not Jewish or Muslim.

 

In terms of being enemies of Da'ish though, being Jewish or Muslim does not make you not an enemy, so crusaders are not the ONLY target of Da'ish.

 

Apostates are just as likely to be targeted as Zionists or Crusaders.

 

So if it is a battle continued from 1000 years ago it still must be fought. Not because both sides are still living by 6th century rules, but that one side is.

 

And if it is a battle between law and order based on current Western Standards, and law and order based on Sharia law, then it still must be fought, because the West's standards, of human rights, women's rights, and secular law and order are not consistent with that that would be imposed by the Da'ish Caliphate. So if the choice is to fight for the Caliphate or against it, then the war still should be fought by those that do not wish to live under the rules of the Caliphate.

 

What does everybody here feel about being crusaders?

(in the eyes of the Da'ish suicide slaughterers)

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 17, 2015 by tar

[John Cuthber]

 

Going to Syria for no good reason, in itself, should be a crime punishable by a good prison term.

If you have given up on the idea of innocent until proven guilty, then you are well on your way to agreeing with the extremists.

[DimaMazin]

The situation only worsens when their guiding texts expressly tell them to kill those who believe differently, that they will be acting under direct sanction of an all powerful god/deity, and that they will benefit from eternal salvation if they do.

Such religious idiocy should be banned in Europe.

[tar]

iNow,

 

Earlier, you posted a study concerning the parts of the brain enlarged in conservatives vs. progressive or right leaning vs. left leaning.

 

It seemed, the study that is, somewhat left leaning itself, in using the term "negativity bias" to characterize the reaction to threat on the status quo whose active brain area was the most engaged and developed in the right leaning folk.

 

It seems we need that side, to survive, and there is no reason to think that only activation of the creative or progressive areas of our brain is what we need to "move forward".

 

We need to be safe and capable and strong first, and protect ourselves against hunger and cold and storms and physical threats of animal and human origin, before we can create better ways to do those things.

 

In the Paris attack, the human reaction was to declare war on the threat. To seek to remove it.

 

In the states, images of boatloads of young men crossing the Mediterranean into Greece to enter Europe, without having a way to know who among them was planted by Da'ish or that might in the future be radicalized like the French Nationals that acted last Friday in Paris, and that were stopped from acting again last night, combined with the hearing of the cheers of Allahuakbar at the Turkish stadium during a soccer game between Greece and Turkey...perks up the ears of everybody that has a brain center that seeks to confront threats.

 

I am not thinking that we should, as civilized human beings, live in fear of each other. We should not fear 1/3 of the population of the world, because they recite the same verses as the radical Islamics that are drawn to Da'ish. The French have been always a voice of reason and diplomacy and a bastion of freedom and upholders of human rights and equality. They laid the blueprint from which the U.S. constitution was forged.

 

But, and this is the big but, the enemy of peace and freedom and civilized behavior is ISIS and Muslims around the world have a huge responsibility to NOT cheer Allauakbar during a moment of silence for the Paris victims.

 

As Obama says, it feeds the ISIL narrative to promote a feeling of a fight between West and Islam. They want to refight the Crusades. The rest of us, however do not.

 

The rest of us. Those with the areas of the brain the most active that want to protect the status quo and those of us with the area of the brain the most active that want to progress and do new and wonderful things, ALL want the barbaric ISIL to die.

 

This is indication to me, that we need both sides of our brain, and the areas that react against threat, and the areas that dream of the future.

 

It is not helpful to throw either side of the brain to the wolfs. We are human. All of us. And are not wrong to raid the drug bars and hotbed radicalized areas in Paris to remove the threat.

 

At the same time, we are France and want to help anybody, of any faith live in peace and freedom.

 

I don't think we should be divided, left against right. I think we should be united against Da'ish.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 18, 2015 by tar

[iNow]

These calls for banning things, for closing borders, for blocking entry of migrants and for cessation of help to those who need it... Are all... So... VERY... Misguided. So sad, yet so predictable, too.

 

Folks need to realize that terrorism is based on a position of weakness. They cannot change or ruin society by killing a few people or by blowing up a few buildings. They cannot win by occasionally taking down a Russian airliner or setting off twin bombs in Beirut. No. Instead, their goal is to alter our character, to edit our values, to change who we are as a people and they cannot do that without our willing agreement and voluntary compliance. Quite simply, we are the terrorists largest source of strength, but consequently also their single biggest obstacle.

 

It truly is a shame that so many people feel compelled to surrender to the will of these idiot terrorists and bow to their desires (whether unconsciously nor not) all out of some acute sense of fear and desire for absolute security. So much wrong. Just. So. Much... 50-kiloton thermostupid.

 

We must help the migrants, acknowledge that for every 1 or 2 of them that may be bad actors with ill-intent, 10s of thousands are not! The OVERWHELMING majority are just like you and me, people and families seeking little more than a safe, peaceful place to raise their children and make a better future for us all. This is not the time to become jingoistic, xenophobic, or isolationist. No. This is the ideal time for us to step up and show who we truly are as a people, to exemplify our moral character through positive acts of giving and kindness, to quite simply reinforce (not abandon!) our values. Doing so will only help. It will create tens or even hundreds of thousands of new allies in this long-term ideological fight. THAT'S the response for which we should be advocating, and it would be a serious error of judgement and a heartlessly ignorant move to choose instead to slam the door in their faces and tell them, "Too bad, so sad. Not my problem. We simply can't risk helping you because you MIGHT be one of those 0.0001% of the bad ones that makes me shit my pants and wet my bed."

[tar]

iNow,

 

Hear Hear

 

At the same time, it is perfectly OK to be cautious.

 

Trust, but verify.

 

There are people that want to kill us.

 

But together, they cannot get us. United we stand. We need our governors to protect us AND we need them to promote the values for which we stand.

I do not think Obama is correct to call his political enemies out in front of the world. As leader of the free world, and leader of the U.S. he needs to use both sides of the human brain, to address the threat.

 

Regards, TAR

[Airbrush]

If you have given up on the idea of innocent until proven guilty, then you are well on your way to agreeing with the extremists.

 

Of course "innocent until proven guilty". If there was a new law that bans unapproved travel to the war zones of Syria or Iraq, then it is simply a matter of proving they traveled there for no valid reason. Sorry for the confusion. But even "valid" reasons for travel there are suspect, since good intentions leads journalists and altruists to capture and perhaps beheading. Everyone should know by now that Syria and Iraq are VERY dangerous places to be for everyone, including wannabe ISIS fighters. Proving guilt should be relatively easy.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Airbrush

[CharonY]

Before one should even consider that one should actually have some data on the travelers. For example, there are numerous help organizations such as Doctors without Borders are active in that region. It should also be noted that not all areas are active battle zones (though the fronts are shifting). Policies based on gut feeling or incredulity have the tendency to bite one's butt at some point in the future. Another thing that I am suspecting is that by allowing travel, it is easier to track movement. It is much harder to see who is getting in, if people slip in through borders. It may be more inconvenient, but if they are radicals I doubt that this will be significant hindrance.

[DimaMazin]

These calls for banning things, for closing borders, for blocking entry of migrants and for cessation of help to those who need it... Are all... So... VERY... Misguided. So sad, yet so predictable, too.

 

 

Those,who need a help to be moslems, should search for the help in another place. Europeans shouldn't help those who help to terrorists. Fight against idiocy should be predictable because it should be always. Refugees should be obedient and they can be such when new laws exempt them from religious obligations.

[iNow]

In which case, you're really no better than the group you claim to despise. You're attitude more closely matches theirs than the rest of the secular world, and you don't even realize it.

[Robittybob1]

News just in. The mastermind of the Paris attacks has been killed.

[John Cuthber]

 

Of course "innocent until proven guilty". If there was a new law that bans unapproved travel to the war zones of Syria or Iraq, then it is simply a matter of proving they traveled there for no valid reason. Sorry for the confusion. But even "valid" reasons for travel there are suspect, since good intentions leads journalists and altruists to capture and perhaps beheading. Everyone should know by now that Syria and Iraq are VERY dangerous places to be for everyone, including wannabe ISIS fighters. Proving guilt should be relatively easy.

LOL

Good luck proving that.

If i say I'm going there to fight Against ISIS, how can you tell if I'm lying?

[DevilSolution]

iNow,

 

I am not thinking that we should, as civilized human beings, live in fear of each other. We should not fear 1/3 of the population of the world, because they recite the same verses as the radical Islamics that are drawn to Da'ish. The French have been always a voice of reason and diplomacy and a bastion of freedom and upholders of human rights and equality. They laid the blueprint from which the U.S. constitution was forged.

 

 

Since when has the French been a voice of reason in diplomacy? Other than helping america out during the biritish civil war they have pretty much been the whipping boys of politics. Other than the anglo-american relationship, the french are always next to follow.

 

 

These calls for banning things, for closing borders, for blocking entry of migrants and for cessation of help to those who need it... Are all... So... VERY... Misguided. So sad, yet so predictable, too.

 

Are you going on the basis that they are closing the borders because 1) lack of identification, 2) the influx of immigrants to their country is unsustainable?

 

or 3) They are xenophobic, 4) They are scared of ISIS infiltration?

 

Don't forget, these "refugees, migrants, immigrants, et.al" alike are all headed north or north by north west, that's where the benefits are.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state#/media/File:Social_expenditure_as_percentage_of_GDP_OECD_2013.svg

 

If you're a refugee from syria your safe as soon as your in turkey....and hence no longer a refugee. They then become migrants and immigrants. (although there is international laws regarding accepting refugee's, refugee's shouldn't explicitly be allowed to choose where they will be "safest", once the immediate threat is gone, you can no longer be classed a refugee?, I imagine Germany only take so many because they enjoy cheap labour.....)

Edited November 19, 2015 by DevilSolution

[MonDie]

I don't think we can criticize until we know how strict their border controls will be. Some degree of control must be reasonable if it could prevent another, even deadlier attack.

All I know is that Francois Hollande is challenging the Schengen agreement, and that Schengen mandates open borders between European Union states.

[Robittybob1]

News just in. The mastermind of the Paris attacks has been killed.

This wasn't confirmed later in the day. Maybe I jumped the gun here.

[tar]

DevilSolution,

 

 

The joke during the Iraq war, where France did not join the coalition in a robust way was "taking France to war with you, was like taking a violin on a deer hunt."

 

The general view of France, in my lifetime is that she is diplomatic (French being the language of diplomacy), tolerant, artistic and generally politically correct to the core.

 

She is guided by the side of the brain that generally does not fear, but trusts.

 

However it is also well known that if you are not French you are somehow subhuman. This Xenophobia wears well on a Frenchman, where it wore horridly on a Nazi in world war ll or on a KKK member or a white supremacist in Montana or Texas or Tennessee.

 

After the slaughter in Paris, the part of the brain that seeks to confront threats, took over in France. It is temporary. It is reactionary, but it is human. We recognize certain things as threats and seek to remove them or remove ourselves from them.

​

On 9/11 my world changed. The terrorists did that. They brought the need for us to close NY that day, and to keep ALL flights from the sky. I had an enemy and I did not know who it was. Later we found out and ​dropped bombs on the Taliban who was protecting Bin Laden. Normal, human response. Same with France. After Friday, Da'ish can not coexist with the rest of us, on this planet.

 

Should France close her borders? Yes. Until this thing is straightened out. She does not wish to live with closed borders, that is ​against the principles of the EU, and against her wishes of how she wants to live in this world. But that is what states of emergencies are about. You meet the threat together, and then, after it is removed, continue on together in a more relaxed and enjoyable fashion.

 

I wish we could forever take iNow's tack and fear nothing, and proceed boldly in the face of danger, trusting our compatriots to protect us and not let the terrorists win by inflicting terror on us, but as long as there are snakes, we have to watch where we step.

 

We let our guard down, just a little and the Schwepp can gets on the airliner.

​

Obama said we should not be afraid of 3 year old orphans. Similarly we should not be afraid of soda cans.

​

However, there are times to be afraid of soda cans. We should always use both sides and all parts of our brain. It has served us well for ​at least 4000 years and there are some 8 billion of us, with them. I would not throw away any part of it. What is weakness in one regard often turns out to be strength in another.

 

We cannot disallow ourselves to be right wing, when required. We have to use all of our brain. That is what got us here. That is what will carry us forward.

 

Regards, TAR​

Edited November 19, 2015 by tar

[Ten oz]

Groups like ISIS thrive in chaos just as Al Quada did before them. Al Quada war born from the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan fueled/funded by the U.S. to weaken the Soviet Union. ISIS was born out the U.S. dismantling of Iraq and fuel/funded by Western countries interested in weaken Assad. They pick a fight and the world responds by threating to fight them? To add insult to injury many people are now anti refugee. Those reugees are fleeing ISIS. The more the refugees are made to suffer the better it is for ISIS. If ISIS had the strength they would just kill them all at once. They don't have that type of military might so they do what they can to terrorize them. Hence, they are a terrorist roup.

 

Terrorists are anarchists. Their goal is chaos and disorder. They kill for attention and to muddy up the waters so no one can see through it. Their goal is no more about achieving a political outcome than a rohypnol using rapist is looking to find a long term relationship. To that analogy the fear of military strike is as much a deterrent to them as law is to a that rapist. The FBI, Interpol, and other Law Enforcement agencies us phycologists to come up with strategies to both minimize and locate serial rapists and killers. They understand the merely increasing officers on the watch and upping the penalty under law is not sufficient. Like wise we need to take a more long term cerebal approach to terror that recognizes it causes, works to prevent it, and stops responding to it like a puppet on a string. Simplier still perhaps we should remind ourselfs that violence begets violence. War gave birth to ISIS. Why would we believe more war would snuff it out?

Edited November 19, 2015 by Ten oz

[Airbrush]

LOL

Good luck proving that.

If i say I'm going there to fight Against ISIS, how can you tell if I'm lying?

 

That is a weak argument. Simply make it public knowledge that if anyone intents to travel into Syria, you better have good documents and authorities know who you are and when you are going there. Along the border of Syria/Turkey have notices posted warning that anyone entering Syria without valid documents will be arrested. It is irrelevent if they say they are "there to fight Against ISIS". They have no permit, signs are posted, it is public knowledge this is a no-man's land. They are guilty as hell. It should not be too difficult to sort out the refugees fleeing from Syria from those entering Syria.

 

"....there are numerous help organizations such as Doctors without Borders are active in that region."

 

REALLY? I thought after so many kidnappings that doctors got smart and are staying away. Can you prove that "Doctors Without Borders" or western journalists are still active inside the ISIS controlled regions of Syria? I would be very surprized if that is true. We can't even get spies into those regions. ISIS just executed a Chinese national.

 

With all the brain power this site has, I have not heard a good reason for not making travel TO Syria illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison IMO. There is a war going on there.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Airbrush

[iNow]

I wish we could forever take iNow's tack and fear nothing...

Nobody is demanding or even requesting fearlessness. The mandate is instead not to make stupid decisions and ill-thought policy/social changes as a result of said fear.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

Violence begets violence, but being dead prohibits living.

 

You must meet a violent threat like ISIL by cutting the head off of the snake.

 

Smiling and letting the snake bite you and release the venom into your system, is not notably helpful.

 

Regards, TAR

Ten Oz,

 

Last year some hikers were teasing a bear, got separated from each other in panic, when the bear started following them, and one was lost. When authorities found the lost hiker he was being eaten by the bear. They tried to get the bear to leave the area but he kept circling. They shot the bear.

 

First time in recorded history that a black bear had killed a human in New Jersey.

 

We have bi-annual bear hunts in this part of New Jersey and the hunt had a little higher number of bears meant to be taken after that incident. Violence may beget violence, but on the other hand, violence might be an appropriate way to meet it.

 

I have bears in my back yard now and again, after my pears, and breaking down my fences. Up in trees when my family is outside with them. I do not shoot them. But I am very glad the one that ate the hiker was shot.

 

Regards, TAR

I don't even have a gun, but I am glad others, in law enforcement, do.

 

 

ISIS just marched across Northeastern Syria and Northwestern Iraq and took territory, while the world watched. They took it by force and threat of death. I doubt we can take it back with flowers.

Edited November 19, 2015 by tar

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

We cannot disallow ourselves to be right wing, when required.

 

By that logic, it's right to blame an entire race of refugees because of the remote possibility they might pick up a gun and shoot up a school.

 

Then on the other hand, when an American picks up a gun and shoots up a school it's wrong to blame anyone except the shooter.

 

 

I'm not directing this at you personally because I'm certain you're above that, but you have a lot of countrymen that are not and never will.