Paris attacks

[Ten oz]

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

For terrorist groups like ISIL I think a Hydra would be the better anology. And now place in my post did I suggest smiling or doing nothing. However I have heard all this rhetoric before. Post 9/11 I was told by my president to imagine a mushroom cloud over New York city. Two countries were invaded on the premise of cutting off the head of the snake. Trillions were spent and hundred of thousands were killed and tens of millions displace. Is that snake dead? Are we more safe? Isn't the definition of insanity to do the same thing the same way but expect a different result?

 

If you were a refugee who truly was looking to escape and abhorred ISIL but had several cousins and others family members in ISIL what would you tell authorities when attempting to enter a western country? Such a refugee could be a valuable resource and yet I think many are made to feel afriad. What if the price of honestyis that they and their children are turned around and sent to an uncertian fate. That is a win for a group like ISIL.

[tar]

iNow,

 

So, 5 years ago, I stood in a Midwest airport, looking at hundreds of normal Americans, black, white, brown, red and yellow, young and old, rich and average, man and women, waiting in long security lines to enter the gate areas to take their flights. I thought "bin laden must be laughing at the effect he has had on our society". NONE of those people were terrorists. NONE. I was not afraid of a single one. They were all, "us".

 

Temporarily shutting our borders to people that might pose a threat is no different than making a 70 year old grandma, take her shoes off at the airport.

 

Regards, TAR

[CharonY]

Airbrush, that is not how it works. You made a number of claims without backing them up with data and countered arguments from others with incredulity. Then you expect people to blindly agree with you?

As other have noted, the legal and civil rights framework is an issue. A democratic government should have only limited powers in restricting the movement of its citizens. Another reason is that it is unclear whether it is going to be efficient despite legal issues. It can result in alternative routes that are harder to monitor

 

And yes there are professional reasons to go to dangerous areas. Because there are courageous people who want to do their job. According to a recent MSF report they have about 720 staff in Syria running hospitals and other projects. They are known to be operating in the most dangerous areas of Earth, be it wars or diseases, such as ebola. I am surprised that you are surprised by it. Since I have got their report right here I can add some more things:

In Aleppo they run a 27 bed hospital. Between Jan and Aug 2015 they had: 23k outpatient consultations, 1k inpatients consultations, 11251 emergency room treatments and 900 surgeries.

In NW Syria, they run a 15-bed hospital that has now specialized in burn victims. In NE (Kurdish) area they run health care centers that provide basic services and reported for example over 500 deliveries and so on.

 

Also the fact that still reporters are getting killed or gone missing (in July three Spanish journalists for example) indicates that some are still there documenting the war and the atrocities. Again, incredulity is not an argument.

[overtone]

 

 

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.

Yeah, the "joke". Laugh it up.

France was absolutely correct about the Iraq War, and the advice from France was well informed. The US was wrong. The US was in the wrong, and killing people. The US would have done much more good, and much less evil, had it brought violins, or stayed home.

Had we listened to the voice of reason and civilization from France we might have avoided not only the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, not only the loss of thousands of American dead and tens of thousands crippled, not only the trillions in debt currently eroding our country, not only the degradation of our honor and reputation and competence in public life,

but also the creation, training, and arming of ISIL by the US and its allies, the launching of this wave of refugees into Europe from a war zone that is largely the creation of the United States.

In justice, they might send us not only the refugees, all of them, but the bill for this ugly and completely avoidable mess.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

I like the hydra analogy. I think it more like a snake pit, though. You are right that cutting the head off of one snake is not going to make the pit safe to enter. But then, if one is to hold to the analogy, you have to cut ALL the heads off the hydra, faster than they can grow back, in order to defeat the thing.9

 

Are we safer now than prior 9/11?

 

Perhaps. There have been no buildings brought down by airplanes full of innocents in NYC since.

 

Every day, I am sure the people that protect us, are successful in protecting us. Otherwise the people that want to kill us would have killed us.

 

Regards, TAR

 

There is a somewhat illogical argument that says we should act in a manner that would cause our enemies to not want to kill us.

 

They already want to kill us and destroy our way of life. That is what makes them the enemy. Afghanistan was already invaded by the Soviets and we already funded Bin Laden in his fight against them. Saddam already invaded Kuwait and we already removed him from power. Israel already exists despite the loss this represents to the Palestinians. We already dropped the bomb on Hiroshima.

 

Despite various combinations of blame put on various people for various situations there are, in every situation, winners and losers, powerful and oppressed, actors and victims. In all cases in the last 75 years or so, the civilized world has generally worked together to meet the threats and horrors created by dictators and mullahs and strongmen, that basically oppose human dignity.

 

We can neither get involved nor turn away. Collectively, it is our world, and we are all responsible for our collective demeanor. When a child misbehaves, he brings shame upon the whole family, and should be shunned and punished.

 

Regards, TAR

Overtone,

 

We disagree.

 

TAR

[overtone]

In all cases in the last 75 years or so, the civilized world has generally worked together to meet the threats and horrors created by dictators and mullahs and strongmen, that basically oppose human dignity.

If you are including the US in the civilized world, that is false. Flagrantly so.

 

In the past 75 years or so the US has deposed dozens of decent governments, and installed dictators, strongmen, and - yes - mullahs, in their place. The US has repeatedly financed, protected, armed, and otherwise supported the threats and horrors and destruction of human dignity by dictators and strongmen around the planet.

 

Whether the number of bad ones has been greater or lesser than the number of good ones over the past 75 years depends on how one counts, but the notion that the US has been on the side of the angels - or even the side of the minimally decent human beings - "in all cases", is ludicrous.

 

Collectively, it is our world, and we are all responsible for our collective demeanor. When a child misbehaves, he brings shame upon the whole family, and should be shunned and punished.

You better hope other people don't think like that.

 

We can't even get you to quit voting for Republicans, let alone shun and punish the people who flew the American flag over Bagram, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo.

Edited November 19, 2015 by overtone

[tar]

Overtone,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_possessions_and_colonies

Syria is not not Franc​e's problem to solve.

We have, collectively as the EU colonized most of the world, and brought Western Civilization to those areas. The crusades were not fought just by those that were to become Americans.

​

You see the U.S. as a impediment to civilization. I see it as a part of civilization.

​

We differ on our takes.

​

Regards, TAR​

​

Overtone,

 

We as the U.S. worked with a Germany we defeated and a Japan we defeated to make them both powerful and democratic economic powers.

 

Rather civilized behavior on our part.

 

Regards, TAR

If the G20 should succeed in bringing peace and democracy to Syria and Iraq, upon the destruction of ISIL, I would click that up to an instance where the civilized world would have worked together to bring freedom and democracy to an area under the control of a strongman.

Edited November 19, 2015 by tar

[Ten oz]

@ Tar, are we safer than we were prior 9/11? That is your response to my question regarding the value of two wars, trillions spent, hundreds of thousands killed and millions displaced?

Prior to 9/11 no buildings in New York were brought down and since 9/11 no buildings have been brought down. If current conditions (patriot act, DHS, Iraq war, etc) were in place on 9/11 would the terrorist have be prevented? I don't think a single person on this earth can answer that question with any reasonable level of certainty which makes using the question as a justification for what has happen in the years since 9/11 weak.

[tar]

Ten oz,

 

I know. That is why I used the example. We did not know our world was about to be attacked by such hatred and evil.

 

Bin Laden did not care about the way I felt about the view I had from Eagle Rock of the skyline from the George Washington Bridge to the bottom of Staten Island.

 

He took from me, a world headed toward connection and cooperation. He brought down the towers and killed the thousands of workers and first responders and passengers and bystanders that died that day.

 

Same in Paris. A country open to immigrants and nationals, of differing culture and background to the average saxon, was made to look the fool for that trust and openness. It is appropriate that they raid the areas where Islamic radicalization is the most possible.

 

Regards, TAR

the civilized world does not want to see beautiful works of art and important historical icons of Muslims and Christians and Jews destroyed, but those things, along with human life are not cared about by ISIL . They are anti-civilization. The U.S. is pro civilization. Pro wealth. Pro transportation. Pro medicine. Pro human rights. Pro science. Pro education. Pro law and order. Pro beauty. Pro cooperation. Pro free travel. Pro the Olympics. Pro space exploration. Pro defeating scourges and responding constructively to disasters.

Edited November 19, 2015 by tar

[iNow]

as long as there are snakes, we have to watch where we step.

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.

I like the hydra analogy. I think it more like a snake pit, though. You are right that cutting the head off of one snake is not going to make the pit safe to enter. But then, if one is to hold to the analogy, you have to cut ALL the heads off the hydra, faster than they can grow back, in order to defeat the thing.

Why you find this analogy so compelling in context of our actual discussion topic, I have no idea. Closing borders and turning our backs on those who most need our help and who could ultimately be our strongest allies in this ideological fight is NOT IMO to be conflated with cutting the head off a snake as you continue to do.

 

Temporarily shutting our borders to people that might pose a threat is no different than making a 70 year old grandma, take her shoes off at the airport.

In many ways I agree, but unlikely for the reasons you think. I agree because neither is an effective approach to the actual problem we must address. Having a 70-year old granny take her shoes off at the airport is little more than security theater. It really doesn't make us any safer, though it does perhaps offer peace of mind to all of the bed wetters out there.

 

You know what else it does, though? It expands the population of people who see the people of the US lacking basic decency and humanity, who see the US as being deficient in even basic core values and maturity and intelligence, and it increases the population who see the people of the US as being entirely worthy and deserving of receiving the hatred so many feel toward us.

 

Just as taking our shoes off at the airport doesn't make us any safer, neither does closing our borders. I'd argue quite the opposite, really, and I haven't even begun to touch on the immorality of such a feckless myopic suggestion.

[tar]

Overtone,

 

I am proud of my flag. I am not proud of Abu Ghraib. But I have no shame for any of our behavior against our enemies in prison in Guantanamo. I have no reason to extend human concern to persons that would chop off my head without a thought. And you did prevent me from voting the whole Republican line in my last local election. I voted for two republicans onto the town counsel and reelected the democratic mayor, even though the republican challenger was on a sign on my front lawn with the councilmen. I did not like the "attitude" of the Republican challenger and such was my rebuke in reelecting the Democratic Female Mayor. Partially responsible for my decision, was my seeing some things in his attitude, that you have pointed out, as things we should shun and correct. However, you go to far, and throw out the baby with the bathwater, and discount half the country and all our engagements as evil, because of some questionable motives that occasionally enter our politics.

 

In terms of this thread, and iNow's link with the areas of the brain engaged in right wing and left wing thinking, and consistent with my arguments against you and yours in the problem with America thread, and consistent with France's reactionary response to last Friday, I am of the opinion that we need to use, and do use all of our brains, to survive. And whether we are talking about a single individual, or a family, or a town or a state or a country or a world, we need to use both sides of our brains. It is OK to be reactionary when a reaction is required.

[iNow]

In terms of this thread, and iNow's link with the areas of the brain engaged in right wing and left wing thinking, and consistent with my arguments against you and yours in the problem with America thread, and consistent with France's reactionary response to last Friday, I am of the opinion that we need to use, and do use all of our brains, to survive.

I get the sense that you're misinterpreting the article. It is not about left versus right BRAIN thinking, but is instead about neurological differences between those who ascribe to left versus right WING politics. The idea of left and right brain differences is a bit of a myth: http://www.livescience.com/39373-left-brain-right-brain-myth.html

[tar]

iNow,

 

Well I am sort of feckless and myopic myself.

 

There is an empty resort down in Atlantic City that the owner has offered to Syrian refugees.

 

It is a place that some found beautiful and worth visiting and vacationing at, but it went out of business. There is not much going on in Atlantic city that would provide work for Syrian families, so it is sort of weird to put them there, and see it go downhill. Not good for the place. Not good for the Syrians and not good for America.

 

Besides, Governors can not stop the federal government from letting people into the country. They can only refuse to provide camps to receive them. Some don't want camps. The refugees are sometimes placed in areas where they have no support group, or placed all together in an area that is then avoided by anyone not Syrian.

 

It is like San Denis. If there is an area where the people are comfortable being called to prayer 5 times a day, it is probably not going to look like an average U.S. town. If the right side of my brain would feel uncomfortable if 20 Syrians moved into the house next door, under present conditions of the possibility of radicalization as was seen in San Denis, you can not fault me, because you would have the same trepidation. Not many of the refugees are being resettled in cape cod or on the flordia keys.

 

Like our nuclear plants. Everybody wants the power, but nobody wants the power plants, nextdoor.

 

Regards, TAR

iNow,

 

I know the article was not about left brain/right brain. I am using the terms because there was an area of the brain bigger in the right wing thinkers and a different area of the brain bigger in the brains of the left wing thinkers and it sort of made sense to view the nation as having one brain, with different parts, each with their functions, that together, worked toward the survival of the nation, the same way that the operation of a single brain with various parts and functions worked toward the survival of the individual. ​

 

In this way, it is OK for France to raid the hotbeds of radical Islam. To get that idea out of their heads. Rather than to take your tack or Overtones tack and call for the removal of a section of the brain.

 

We need that section to operate.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

​

[MigL]

Really Overtone ?

" in the past 75 yrs the US has deposed dozens of decent governments "

 

Do you consider S. Hussein's government ( dictatorship ) decent ?

Or the one in Afghanistan?

Because those are the ones we are discussing

 

The fact is that the US and their allies were not inclined or prepared, to use the same methods as S. Hussein to control the various factions of the population.

They were there to 'win hearts and minds', and so, were doomed to failure.

Iraq was previously an ordered society because of Hussein's strong arm' tactics. I'm not sure of the numbers, but he probably killed more of his own people than the US and her allies ever did.

Have you forgotten the chemical attacks on villages, the shredders people were fed into, etc.

 

As long as religious ideology is more important to them than peace ( or their lives ), the populace of those areas is destined for continued conflict ( internal, between factions, and external, the west ).

 

But you're not one to ever pass up an opportunity to sh*t on the US.

[Ten oz]

Really Overtone ?

" in the past 75 yrs the US has deposed dozens of decent governments "

 

Do you consider S. Hussein's government ( dictatorship ) decent ?

Or the one in Afghanistan?

Because those are the ones we are discussing

 

The fact is that the US and their allies were not inclined or prepared, to use the same methods as S. Hussein to control the various factions of the population.

They were there to 'win hearts and minds', and so, were doomed to failure.

Iraq was previously an ordered society because of Hussein's strong arm' tactics. I'm not sure of the numbers, but he probably killed more of his own people than the US and her allies ever did.

Have you forgotten the chemical attacks on villages, the shredders people were fed into, etc.

 

As long as religious ideology is more important to them than peace ( or their lives ), the populace of those areas is destined for continued conflict ( internal, between factions, and external, the west ).

 

But you're not one to ever pass up an opportunity to sh*t on the US.

Where died Hussein get those chemical weapons. Also he had done that before the first Iraq war and we still left him in power.

[MigL]

So because we sold him the weapons, or ignored him previously, his was a decent government ?

[CharonY]

 

As long as religious ideology is more important to them than peace ( or their lives ), the populace of those areas is destined for continued conflict ( internal, between factions, and external, the west ).

 

 

 

 

Actually I would think that the socioeconomic situation (especially large differences), political stability and education are more likely to be the main factors. There are stable, but largely religious countries (including a number of states in the US, but we can take western Turkey as example, too). But a stable life and high levels of education seem to moderate the crazy-think.

 

With regards to the US toppling "decent" governments. The dozens ins certainly a hyperbole and the decent is probably up to discussion. At the same time one does have to acknowledge that the US did force regime changes to further their interests. And it is quite obvious that at least during the cold war it was typically with little concern for the population.

 

If use democratic elected as a goalpost to meet for a "decent government" there are a few (to my knowledge) that were carried successfully

 

E.g. Iran 1953, where the US and the UK prevented the nationalization of oil (which would hurt what is now BP),

Guatemala 1954 on behalf of the United Fruit Company.

Chile 1973 to prevent the election of an Marxist.

Turkey 1980, where the coup was backed by the CIA, again a power move against the left wing. Though it has to be added that the ultimate outcome of the conflict stabilized the nation. Some, however, would state that there was a deliberate escalation of the conflict.

Of course the famous funding of the Contras in Nicaragua which was again politically motivated.

 

There were certainly quite a few more unsuccessful or not certain ones, but I doubt it would make it in the dozens in total. Still, it has to be noted that it would be wrong to characterize the aggressive parts of foreign policy as soft or benevolent. One of the reasons they failed in Iraq to wind heart and minds is because they were not able to stabilize the situation and improve most people's life. Dictatorship or note, guerrillas are hard to control and by destroying power structures it apparently had become easier for rivaling factions to form and to thrive. There is certainly much more to it and I would be careful to reduce these complex issues to simple soundbites (for either argument).

 

 

Edit: with respect to Iraq one probably should add that the US complicit in the the Ba'ath party to overthrow Qasim (who was not a nice fellow) after that one overthrew the Western-backed Iraqi monarchy. One added issue to that region is probably that few areas there had the time to grow strong and independent as a nation, as it was also a hotbed for proxy wars between the West and the Soviets. In some cases ethnicity and/or religious rule is working like a haphazard (and nasty) glue to keep power together.

Edited November 20, 2015 by CharonY

[waitforufo]

As long as religious ideology is more important to them than peace ( or their lives ), the populace of those areas is destined for continued conflict ( internal, between factions, and external, the west ).

 

But isn't Islam the religion of peace? Shouldn't following Islam's religious ideology produce nothing but peace? Doesn't history show that Islam and sharia law generate nothing but peace and happiness? MigL you must be off track with the above opinion. You need to start paying attention to overtone. If it wasn't for The Great Satan (aka the United States of America) everything in the world would be peaceful and happy and without conflict. Get with the program.

[MigL]

Overtone has his moments, but this site would be a lot more dreary without him.

( besides, I thought you guys 'made up' in the gun control thread )

 

But I gotta ask, CharonY, where does a biology whiz get such a deep understanding of history.

I know its not on topic, but I'm usually surprised at the depth of your posts.

Edited November 20, 2015 by MigL

[iNow]

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.

Looks like you had it right. No worries: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2-dead-7-arrested-in-raid-targeted-at-paris-terror-suspects/

[Ten oz]

Really Overtone ?

" in the past 75 yrs the US has deposed dozens of decent governments "

 

Do you consider S. Hussein's government ( dictatorship ) decent ?

Or the one in Afghanistan?

Because those are the ones we are discussing

 

The fact is that the US and their allies were not inclined or prepared, to use the same methods as S. Hussein to control the various factions of the population.

They were there to 'win hearts and minds', and so, were doomed to failure.

Iraq was previously an ordered society because of Hussein's strong arm' tactics. I'm not sure of the numbers, but he probably killed more of his own people than the US and her allies ever did.

Have you forgotten the chemical attacks on villages, the shredders people were fed into, etc.

 

As long as religious ideology is more important to them than peace ( or their lives ), the populace of those areas is destined for continued conflict ( internal, between factions, and external, the west ).

 

But you're not one to ever pass up an opportunity to sh*t on the US.

^[9] Other estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million,^[10][11] including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion.^[12][13] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.^[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein's_Iraq

 

If you believe that Saddam killed more people than have died since he was removed than please provide a citiation. Because while some estimates for deaths under Saddam's 23yr rule are closer to a million so too are some estimates for the Iraq war. Your claim that Saddam killed more people than "the U.S. or her allies ever did" is not accurate. The U.S. led invasion destablized the whole region and resulted in just as many casualties as Saddam's rule in a third the amount of time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

 

You preference your remarks by reminding us of Saddam's methods but then are dismissive about what enabled those methods. Saddam invaded Iran in 1980 and we (U.S.) almost immediately began helping him:

[T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.^[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

 

Saddam used chemical weapons that the United States provided and what was the response? The first Iraq war didn't come for several years after Saddam's U.S. provided chemical weapon attack and that war was only meant to push Saddam out of Kuwait. He was left in power. In my opinion it is false moral outrage to provide someone the means to kill, do nothing as they kill, and then over a decade later when it is convenient to do so start wagging the finger. The United States was complicit to the horrors of the Saddam. It had nothing to do with religion being more important than peace. Saddam was supported because of Oil profits and gamesmanship during the Cold War. We (United States) armed the Taliban in Afghanistan for similar reasons. Heck, we even sent the Taliban Rambo! No ones hands are clean here. It is a false narrative to paint them all as a giant religious cult while suggesting our own actions are just the result of hard political choices. It feeds into us vs them which is part of the mentality that fuels all this killing from both sides.

 

There is no harm is admitting to a mistake. I am not suggesting that the western world allow ourselves to be murdered as penance. Nor am I saying it is all our fault. I am merely pointing out that we have made mistakes and should be learning from them. We can't solve this by treating it as a black and white good vs evil dispute. Wrapping ourselves up in the our national flags and labeling others as the problem will not resolve anything. We must account for our own behavior while holding other accountable for theirs.

[DimaMazin]

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.

European laws let people to be moslems. Islam let moslems to be terrorists against the rest secular world. It all is logic trap for backward people, which turns them into terrorists.

I didn't demand to despise the group. Rather I was demanding to despise the politicians which don't forbid the religion in Europe.

[swansont]

But isn't Islam the religion of peace? Shouldn't following Islam's religious ideology produce nothing but peace? Doesn't history show that Islam and sharia law generate nothing but peace and happiness? MigL you must be off track with the above opinion.

 

It is, in much the same way that Christianity is a religion of peace and love, and has generated nothing but peace and happiness.

European laws let people to be moslems. Islam let moslems to be terrorists against the rest secular world. It all is logic trap for backward people, which turns them into terrorists.

I didn't demand to despise the group. Rather I was demanding to despise the politicians which don't forbid the religion in Europe.

 

Just like Christianity lets Christians do horrible things.

[iNow]

Rather I was demanding to despise the politicians which don't forbid the religion in Europe.

You're merely reinforcing, not rebutting what I previously said.

[DimaMazin]

Just like Christianity lets Christians do horrible things.

Any membership in religion should be forbidden.