Paris attacks

[Ophiolite]

If you read the post I was responding to I think you will see what I was driving at.

 

I am not opposed to careful, measured, physical responses to physical challenges, where the consequences have been properly considered. Earlier, I think, you were arguing "We can get back to normal human dignity and respect once we no longer have to worry about getting blown up, stabbed, shot, cut-up, poisoned or otherwise "by whatever means" killed in the name of the prophet(pbuh)."

 

Human dignity and respect are not items that can be cast aside because we have been offended, or threatened. It seems you understood this as a schoolchild. It is regrettable you seem to have lost the talent in later life.

[MonDie]

I am afraid the attacks were driven by antisemitism.

From this article in French: The Bataclan is a regularly referred target [/size]http://www.lepoint.fr/societe/le-bataclan-une-cible-regulierement-visee-14-11-2015-1981544_23.php[/size]

 

This may be a bit of a diversion from the topic.

 

I recall how some people blamed Charlie Hebdo for provoking the extremists with their drawings of Muhammad, blaming the cartoonists for the ten or so dead. However I'm unaware of how these jews offended Islam. Now the extremists have conducted an attack merely on the grounds that some people are jewish. This time hundreds are dead, AFAIK the jewish owners weren't even killed, and nobody is going to shun jews because their Judaism provokes muslim extremists. At least the Charlie Hebdo attack had a target. Maybe I have a limited perspective as an American, but if these terrorists want compliance, all I see is that their appetite is insatiable and their victims are anybody.

 

These extremists have sacrificed specificity for quantity. Quantity inspires more fear, but specificity inspires fear in the intended recipients. A purely quantitative approach only works on irrational people motivated by fear, but to any rational person it now stands to reason whether there is any use in complying to such an insatiable and indiscriminate monster. I'm definitely not one of the smarter ones here, but it's my humble opinion that the French need to show the extremists they are the latter: rational.

Edited November 24, 2015 by MonDie

[waitforufo]

I ask out of curiosity. At school were you bullied, or were you the bully? In either case ...........

I was occasionally bullied and every time I was bullied I fought. I felt sorry for those who would not fight. There torment from bullies was relentless. Treat me with violence and I will respond with violence.

 

Our state department has a different plan. We are supposed to cower in our homes.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/politics/state-worldwide-travel-alert-paris-terrorist-attacks/

 

Do you see this cowardice as noble?

[Acme]

I was occasionally bullied and every time I was bullied I fought. I felt sorry for those who would not fight. There torment from bullies was relentless. Treat me with violence and I will respond with violence.

 

Our state department has a different plan. We are supposed to cower in our homes.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/politics/state-worldwide-travel-alert-paris-terrorist-attacks/

 

Do you see this cowardice as noble?

Your outright mischaracterization is disheartening, if not unsurprising in the context of your posting here. The article says explicitly:

...The alert does not instruct Americans to avoid travel, but it does urge U.S. citizens to "exercise vigilance when in public places or using transportation."

 

"Be aware of immediate surroundings and avoid large crowds or crowded places. Exercise particular caution during the holiday season and at holiday festivals or events," the State Department said in the alert. ...

[waitforufo]

 

This may be a bit of a diversion from the topic.

 

I recall how some people blamed Charlie Hebdo for provoking the extremists with their drawings of Muhammad, blaming the cartoonists for the ten or so dead. However I'm unaware of how these jews offended Islam. Now the extremists have conducted an attack merely on the grounds that some people are jewish. This time hundreds are dead, AFAIK the jewish owners weren't even killed, and nobody is going to shun jews because their Judaism provokes muslim extremists. At least the Charlie Hebdo attack had a target. Maybe I have a limited perspective as an American, but if these terrorists want compliance, all I see is that their appetite is insatiable and their victims are anybody.

 

These extremists have sacrificed specificity for quantity. Quantity inspires more fear, but specificity inspries fear in the intended recipients. A purely quantitative approach only works on irrational people motivated by fear, but to any rational person, it now stands to reason whether there is any use in complying to such an insatiable and indiscriminate monster. In my humble opinion, the French need to show the extremists that they are the latter.

 

Here is what John Kerry recently said about Charlie Hebdo.

 

 

There’s something different about what happened from Charlie Hebdo [and what happened in last week’s Paris attacks], and I think everybody would feel that. [in the Hebdo case] [t]here was a sort of particularized focus and perhaps even a legitimacy in terms of – not a legitimacy, but a rationale that you could attach yourself to somehow and say, okay, they’re really angry because of this and that.

This Friday was absolutely indiscriminate. It wasn’t to aggrieve one particular sense of wrong. It was to terrorize people. It was to attack everything that we do stand for. That’s not an exaggeration. It was to assault all sense of nationhood and nation-state and rule of law and decency, dignity, and just put fear into the community and say, “Here we are.”

And for what? What’s the platform? What’s the grievance? That we’re not who they are? They kill people because of who they are and they kill people because of what they believe. And it’s indiscriminate.

 

So the Charlie Hebdo massacre was legitimate and rational. So move along. There was nothing to see there.

[Ophiolite]

Do you see this cowardice as noble?

I think it takes great strength of character to suppress the urge to violence when one feels threatened.

I think it is a mark of a civilised individual that before they act they assure themselves of the facts and carefully weigh the consequences of any actions.

I think it requires focused and sustained application of intellect to restrain oneself when hatred wells up in your heart.

 

I think the ones who strike out indiscriminately, who react to destroy, rather than work to build, who embrace stereotypes and follow the herd, the ones who let the terrorists win by making those choices, I think those are the true cowards. And their actions harm and endanger all of us.

[MigL]

I don't often disagree with you Ophiolite, and generally I try to live my life as you advocate.

( started working out with weights in 1976 so I was always pretty solid and never bullied )

 

But what if the attacks had gone down in Texas, and when the half-dozen terrorists pulled out their AKs, 50 guns were pointed back at them ?

Would you blame them for killing the terrorists and neglecting to "assure themselves of the facts and carefully weigh the consequences of any actions" ?

Or do you think they should have done like the French civilians, and work to build an understanding and peace ( more likely plead for their lives )

 

That didn't work out too well for the French civilians.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Can we ensure we don't turn this into another Guns in the USA debate please.

[tar]

Ophioite,

 

I think we should consider the fact that we are human and we do have various parts of the brain that are built for both protecting our troop and for fighting the neighboring troop who is eating our bananas.

 

When there are enough bananas we can make peace with the next troop and together scare off some other animals after the bananas.

 

Religion and law for the most part developed so we would take care of each other and treat each other with respect and live in an orderly fashion where everybody was expected to live in a particular way. Kings often had their priests next to them. The power of the collective was embodied in the king and the power of the universe embodied in the priest. Together they made a force that you listened to, whether you listened to the bully or to your heart.

 

Measured violence, delivered after careful consideration is exactly the principle behind the Hammurabi code, an eye for an eye. You take from the offender what he took from somebody else.

In Raqqa, as described by the story of the two young women who joined the association, and later escaped (that I linked earlier) they joined the club because not joining the club would be dangerous. They enforced rules that they themselves were not happy with, to avoid being whipped or killed themselves or bring such down on family members.

 

According to the rules, if you commit adultery you get stoned. A measured response to your transgression because there needs to be a certain number of witnesses to you transgression and they have to be witnesses of a certain standing in the community.

 

So Ophiolite, what if I don't think the young women made a very good choice to turn in their friends for wearing a too form fitting covering? As is said in the article they lost those friends, forever as friends because the were whipped not only for the form fitting transgression, but received additional lashes because they had makeup on under their veils.

 

If you were in Raqqa would you join the join the association and marry a fighter, escape or fight? What would your measured,intelligent response be?

 

And if you were the rest of the world, whose side would you come down on, the association or the young women?

 

And as the rest of the world, do you have any right to walk into Raqqa and tell the Association their rule is crap and their time is over?

 

How do we, in a measured and intelligent way, liberate Raqqa from the association?

 

Is it evil to want to stand against the terror? Or should we just let the Association impose its rules on everybody.

 

Saw that Turkey shot down a Russian plane that was too close to, or in their airspace after warning them off many times. Perhaps forgetting about our other conflicts, while dealing with the threat of Da'ish as I suggested earlier is not going to work. Perhaps we have to still be upset with Putin over Crimea, and Assad over killing his citizens.

 

I would like to not be like Da'ish, but I am realistic. In some ways I am. I have my rules. I have my guiding principles and I don't like seeing people oppressed, and I would rather people live the way I live. My way of life is better, as far as I am concerned. Even if I charge and pay interest, believe in forgiveness, allow drugs and cigarettes and alcohol, and like looking at the female form and pretty faces.

 

There are other issue at stake here when talking about Assad and ISIL, other than greed and oil and jingoism. And there have been times before where fighting a scourge was required.

 

And you cannot drop a bomb on somebody unless you wish to do harm to them or break their stuff. Even after measured consideration, dropping leaflets to warn civilian drivers to run, your bombs are going to tear and burn metal and road and spill oil. And once you drop the bomb, you are going to enrage the folks you dropped the bomb on.

 

You burned down his banana tree.

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

In the interest of discussion, I'm going to play devil's advocate ( again ), SwansonT.

 

The argument being made is that Islam is just a religion, and isn't responsible for the evil perpetrated by people.

Just like evil is done by Catholics, Jews, Hindus, etc.

 

Now what if we were to replace Islam with the word 'gun' ?

Would you give us the old NRA rant " guns don't kill people, people kill people'.

 

Or, if you would say that guns facilitate the killing of people, so guns should be controlled; Would you then say that Islam facilitates evil, and should be controlled ?

Or could you say that, since Islam doesn't have a single leader ( as the Pope is to the Catholic church ), it is subject to many different interpretations, some good, some misguided and some even evil ?

 

In effect, since the Qur'an is interpreted at the local level by Imans ( often in very different ways than another Iman ), doesn't that make Islam, then, an extension of that particular Iman's ideology ?

And if this ideology is evil ?

 

I am no expert on Catholicism or Islam.

These are at best, shallow views, so, if someone knows differently, I'm open to being schooled.

 

Last a checked, a gun was a physical object rather than an ideology, so replacing "Islam" with "gun" is not particularly apt. But if one were to make the argument that a gun is an object of peace, I would not agree. The functional purpose of a gun is to do violence (regardless of whether the target is a person or not) and the primary symbolic purpose is the threat of violence. Beyond that I'm not going to get sucked into the vortex of a gun rights discussion.

 

The pope is not the leader of Christianity, but even within Catholicism there are radical positions to be had, within its spectrum. Some people are upset that this pope is too liberal/progressive, for instance.

 

Whether a holy book is an extension of one's ideology is an interesting question. I think its more of a tool being used by people wanting to manipulate others. In this case, for violence. Much like you can use a hammer as a tool for driving in nails, but some people use it as a weapon.

[tar]

Ophiolite,

 

I have not changed since I protected the weak against the bully. I have not changed since I opened my fist to land a touch.

I have two daughters and a very feminist Aunt I lived with for a few years. I believe women should be equal citizens, not slaves and sexual playthings and baby makers, with no say in the matter, as was described in the article. The Bible and the Koran both are very sexist. The female is respected, but only as a partial person. Standing with people, against the bully is still my motivation.

 

Regards, TAR

[Ten oz]

@ Tar, how should a society evaluate threats? Last night (23 nov 15) five protestors were shot in Minneapolis. No Muslims were involved, just white supremists, so it isn't being classified as terrorism. The threat alert across the nation won't go up, the candidates for president probably will not have anything to say about it, and so on. Aren't white supremists a radical group driven by a divisive ideology? This past summer we saw 9 innocent people killed in church by a white supremist sympathizer. The second worst terrorist attack in the history of the United State, Oklahoma city bombings, was performed by a white supremist sympathizer. Despite the radical nature of white supremacy and the history of attacks no Presidential candidates with call for a data base for all whites, for evangelicals churches to be monitored, no nation wide heightening of threat levels, and etc. Why is doing nothing in response to one type of radicalism that kills Americans okay but it is not an okay response for another?

The object of terrorism is to terrorize, to create fear and hysteria. Body for body Islamic Terrorists over the past decade have killed no more Americans than have white supremacists, mass college shooters, or Police have killed unarmed citizens. What Islamic Terrorist have done is won a response. Between war, arming foriegn rebels, militarizing our police departments, and etc Islamic Terrorists have gotten us to spend trillions. Islamic terrorists have gotten us to place them before all others. Yet statistically the we are all more likely to die from the flu, cancer, heart disease, car accident, or etc. it guess there is something more thrilling about fighting terror then protecting yourself by eating less red meat?

[waitforufo]

Your outright mischaracterization is disheartening, if not unsurprising in the context of your posting here. The article says explicitly:

 

 

 

...The alert does not instruct Americans to avoid travel, but it does urge U.S. citizens to "exercise vigilance when in public places or using transportation."

 

"Be aware of immediate surroundings and avoid large crowds or crowded places. Exercise particular caution during the holiday season and at holiday festivals or events," the State Department said in the alert. ...

 

Really? A mischaracterization? Not everyone thinks so.

 

 

The travel alert says...

 

 

 

U.S. citizens should exercise vigilance when in public places or using transportation. Be aware of immediate surroundings and avoid large crowds or crowded places. Exercise particular caution during the holiday season and at holiday festivals or events.

So just exactly how am I supposed to show vigilance when in public places or using transportation? Should I frisk each person in stadiums, movie theaters, buses, and air planes? Would that be the proper amount of vigilance? The above might as well say, enjoy the holidays while being fearful and paranoid.

[zapatos]

So just exactly how am I supposed to show vigilance when in public places or using transportation? Should I frisk each person in stadiums, movie theaters, buses, and air planes? Would that be the proper amount of vigilance? The above might as well say, enjoy the holidays while being fearful and paranoid.

Personally I think frisking every person is the right idea, but if that doesn't work for you, other options include quickly moving away from any disturbance you see developing, avoid being close to demonstrations, etc. Edited November 24, 2015 by zapatos

[CharonY]

I don't often disagree with you Ophiolite, and generally I try to live my life as you advocate.

( started working out with weights in 1976 so I was always pretty solid and never bullied )

 

But what if the attacks had gone down in Texas, and when the half-dozen terrorists pulled out their AKs, 50 guns were pointed back at them ?

Would you blame them for killing the terrorists and neglecting to "assure themselves of the facts and carefully weigh the consequences of any actions" ?

Or do you think they should have done like the French civilians, and work to build an understanding and peace ( more likely plead for their lives )

 

That didn't work out too well for the French civilians.

 

I do not want to speak for Ophiolite, but given the context it is pretty clear to me that ultimately he was talking about foreign policy and motivations behind decision making. The bully analogy was an attempt to describe the motivation of certain posters who, apparently (at least to me) seem to translate playground behaviour to international policy.

 

Your example is IMO pretty meaningless in this context. You could as well as if you should take up arms if you are getting invaded by a foreign army. And what if that army happens to be the US?

 

As side note, if your party is the most powerful around and if it is promoting instability and promoting or actively engaging in offensive wars, it is a bit weird to play the defensive card. Even in the short example (well, rather long post but that is when you try to to be brief but to not want to resolve too much into soundbites that completely distorts context) between Iran and Iraq it is obvious that there was little evidence that the motivation were of humanitarian or protective nature. They were either conducted to promote economic interests or to expand Western sphere of influence (at the leader level, of course not so much that the population would have benefitted). The real tragedy to me is that these actions are directly or indirectly responsible for the rise of the terror organizations that are now threatening international security. As I already mentioned, if we claim the right to depose or destabilize any government that suits us, it also means that no pro-Western government is free from the suspicion of colluding with foreign powers. And the argument that radicals can make is rather easy: how can a government that is furthering foreign interests truly be invested in its own people?

 

That, ultimately is what I and I assume others mean when they bemoan a short-sighted foreign policy. And again, to pretend that all these actions were benevolent or defensive in nature just reeks of revisionism. And if you really think that we can do no harm, then we are truly screwed, because it implies that we are unable to reflect on our actions and learn from mistakes.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

I only read one article on the Minnesota shooting. It said three masked men were at the siege that "were not suppose to be there." The three left the rally and a group of men followed them to a nearby corner, where shots rang out. 5 people had injuries, not life threatening, to the arms and legs and one stomach injury.

 

I saw no mention of a white supremacy group responsible for the incident, just that the three masked men were believed to be white.

 

It did not mention the white supremacy thing you mentioned.

 

Blacks groups have called for the shooting of police, and some have been shot.

 

I am not calling for blacks to be registered, you should not be calling for whites and policemen to be registered.

 

Our internal politics have nothing to do with ISIS except in when our citizens go over there to fight, or if the ISIS recruiters are successful in turning one of our citizens into a killer.

 

Bringing in Minnesota to this discussion is suggesting a war between the KKK and Blacks is what whites in this country want. That is not true and fostering such hatred is what iNow believes we should not do. We are not interested in refighting the crusades or the race wars of the 60s. At least I am not.

 

Imaatfal asked us not to bring gun control into this. I would ask not to bring the racism in our country into it. We are trying to rise above that, not make it a war.

 

If on the other hand you are equating trepidation regarding muslims in this country with blacks in this country, then we can talk about it. But folks watching out for radical muslims are not automatically white supremists. There might be a jew or a Mexican, or a black who would rather see Syria free and democratic than endure the terror of Da'ish.

 

Regards, TAR

​CharonY,

 

Well, so this is a party thing?

 

I didn't know Da'ish checked on such affiliations before acting against the Great Satan.

 

Seems my way of life is threatened either way I vote. And seems we already let ISIL grow to the rich and powerful state it is currently in. Democrats have been in power for the last two terms, and even had the majority of the congress for some of that time. Our strategy in Iraq and Syria has not worked that well in the last couple years. We screwed up, and we have to learn from our mistakes, certainly, but being republican or being democrat has little to do with it. If America screws up we should all take the blame, not point fingers at each other.

 

Regards, TAR

My question here is not so much should we be fighting the civil war again or the crusades again but whether or not we are fighting the ideology that brought down the towers and just killed people in Paris and Beirut and Egypt and Mali.

 

I will even accept the argument that I made the mess by not letting Arabs push Israel into the sea.

 

But a party thing? Like we should remove that part of our country that protects our interests...

is like suggesting we give everybody a lobotomy so we can all be docile.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 24, 2015 by tar

[CharonY]

 

 

CharonY,

 

Well, so this is a party thing?

 

I have no idea how you read that into what I wrote. Casting everything in false dichotomy in order to justify actions is not a thoughtful way to go about things.

 

Also note that the US did not "allow" ISIS to grow due to inaction. It was due to their action that they created it. The command is dominated by Ba'athists who, at one time were somewhat secular (as the party was about pan-Arabism rather than religion) that the US dismantled. Also you are confusing your anti-Americanism. The great Satan is a term and popularized used by Khomeini (you know, Iran, not Iraq) mostly in context of UK/US interference in Iran's internal affair.

You know, like operation Ajax. I.e. they have similar reason to oppose the US but in a different historic context.

 

With regards to the the Ba'athists it is probably interesting to note that while they forged an alliance with religions extremists they do not seem to be that religious. In the 90s Saddam did reinvigorate Islam in Iraq to some degree, but I am sure that most leadership would have seen it as a move to strengthen his power in the Arab world. So their goal is probably not in line with that of the fanatics. This goes back to a comments that we had earlier in this thread that religion is a great propaganda tool. And in fact, the whole ISIS thing was seemingly under the radar for a long time because it was simply seen as that, a bunch of fanatics.

Yet it became clear that a significant portion was loyalists.

Of course I cannot pretend to know how the internal dynamics really is but files have been found that highlights a master plan of the take over by ISIS. And as it turns out, religious fanaticism and Shia law is indeed used for a singular reason: control. While many followers are driven by fanaticism, it is not how IS is led or built. In fact, if it was one could argue that it may not have become as organized and powerful as it is.

 

 

 

 

There is a simple reason why there is no mention in Bakr's writings of prophecies relating to the establishment of an Islamic State allegedly ordained by God: He believed that fanatical religious convictions alone were not enough to achieve victory. But he did believe that the faith of others could be exploited.

In 2010, Bakr and a small group of former Iraqi intelligence officers made Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the emir and later "caliph," the official leader of the Islamic State. They reasoned that Baghdadi, an educated cleric, would give the group a religious face.

 

 

 

 

Thousands of well-trained Sunni officers were robbed of their livelihood with the stroke of a pen. In doing so, America created its most bitter and intelligent enemies. Bakr went underground and met Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Anbar Province in western Iraq. Zarqawi, a Jordanian by birth, had previously run a training camp for international terrorist pilgrims in Afghanistan. Starting in 2003, he gained global notoriety as the mastermind of attacks against the United Nations, US troops and Shiite Muslims. He was even too radical for former Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. Zarqawi died in a US air strike in 2006.

Although Iraq's dominant Baath Party was secular, the two systems ultimately shared a conviction that control over the masses should lie in the hands of a small elite that should not be answerable to anyone -- because it ruled in the name of a grand plan, legitimized by either God or the glory of Arab history. The secret of IS' success lies in the combination of opposites, the fanatical beliefs of one group and the strategic calculations of the other.

 

 

Yet, much of mass media (well headline articles at least) and common perception is still focused on fanaticism, a notion that ISIS heavily encourages. In that regard we are falling right into the propaganda trap as we are encouraged to fight shadow of an enemy and, in the course of action, may radicalize others. All being cannon fodder for the ultimate goal, which, not surprisingly, is power rather than religion.

Edited November 24, 2015 by CharonY

[Ten oz]

@ Tar:

http://nypost.com/2015/11/24/white-supremacists-shoot-black-lives-matter-protesters/

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/24/five-people-shot-near-minneapolis-protest-cops-searching-for-3-white-male-suspects/

@ Tar, I am not bringing gun control into the discussion. I also did not call for cops to be hurt or put into a database.You are ignoring the question raised by my post. Why is it Terrorism and demanding of a massive nation wide response when radical islamist assailants are involved but when they are not the violence is merely passed along to other debates like gun control? The threat to life is no more statistically significant, the body count amongst U.S. citizens is no higher, and a radical ideology is equally as involved.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Can we ensure we don't turn this into another Guns in the USA / Police Violence / Black Lives Matter debate please? We understand your contention but it bears within itself the seeds of total derailment of this thread on the Paris Attacks by Islamic Fundamentalists. Feel free to open a thread in Politics or in Psych regarding the different responses to various forms of violence - but here we are discussing Paris Attacks (very broadly - but not broadly enough to accept these branches)

[iNow]

Really? A mischaracterization? Not everyone thinks so.

I absolutely LOVE that you just cited the NY Daily News, a tabloid, as a source for your argument that the US State Department is actively recommending we cower in fear and sit home wetting our pants. Thanks for making me chuckle.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

I can't answer your question. (not because of the moderation, but because I don't know the answer)

 

CharonY,

 

I am considering, after your recent post about the Ba'athists that most of us, including myself are not privy to the halls of power in this country, or in Iraq, or in Syria.

 

Religion has long been known as the opiate of the masses and opium itself is used to control people and the poppy fields in Afghanistan are a subsistence crop.

 

That the CIA is involved with drugs and the Ba'athists use religious zeal to further its goals is I suppose a reality we face. I did not know about the Ba'athists using religion this way, but I did know the CIA has traded in guns and drugs to fund its operations.

 

Those top people, the leaders are the ones who are jousting for power. However, not being privy to the details and motivations and not having very much power myself, it is difficult for me to say I have a better team to be on, than the U.S. regardless of how we may have failed to properly handle Saddam's Guard and regardless of how our current populace may include personages afraid of manufactured threats.

 

So the answer seems to be to insist that our leaders operate in as a transparent way as possible, internally and in as clever and ruthless a way as possible while jousting with our enemies.

 

Whether we are somebody's pawns or not, is not really our choice, if your posts are all accurate.

 

We are bound to be seen as pawns of our leadership, if we go along with them, and bound to be guilty of treason if we fight against them.

 

Whipped in the square, or killed so to speak.

 

But when the Paris law enforcement reacted, another threat was uncovered and neutralized.

 

I am not so sure we have the power to stop power hungry men but with force. And it is obvious to me, and has been obvious to me, that ISIS was bad news and needs to be stopped.

 

Perhaps the U.S. needs to be stopped, or France, or the U.K. or China or Russia or North Korea or Iran. But given the large chance that nobody but the most powerful know what is going on, and why it is going on, and given the high probability that these people would act in a way that would cement or increase their own power, it is difficult to say that we should not act this way or that way, because we are playing right into somebodies hand. It seems they have all the trump and high cards, what ever card we play.

 

So, it is probably best for Afghans to fight for whatever Mullah is winning, and the Palestinians for Hezbulah and the U.S. for Israel and the E.U. for the banks or whatever the power structure that is currently in charge of your place might be.

 

Everybody would rather be aligned with the winning team than the losing team.

 

Probably, by saying I stand with France against ISIL I am playing right into somebodies hand. But whoever it is, I hope they are American, or French or both. I hope we make the contract.

 

Regards, TAR

iNow,

 

I don't think we should go by tabloid headlines as did waitforufo , nor by press releases of political groups as did Ten Oz.

 

I think we should listen to CharonY's facts and sort this thing out.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 24, 2015 by tar

[MigL]

I thought I made it clear, CharonY, that I agree and try to live my life according to the guidelines set out by Ophiolite in post #181.

That being said, I also recognize that there are people in this world who do not ( in the western world or the Islamic world ).

And I apologize to all for the ( unintentional ) derailment.

 

I would also add that the former members of the Ba'ath party may have used the fundamentalists to gain control, but I'm not sure if they are still in charge or if the fundamentalists are now running the show.

They may themselves have created a 'monster' which they increasingly cannot control.

Edited November 24, 2015 by MigL

[CharonY]

I understand what you were trying to say, but I was thinking that your analogy was a bit odd in the given context. And somehow the discussion started to conflate police with military actions in general (not a specific criticism of your post, though).

 

Regardless,

 

 

 

I would also add that the former members of the Ba'ath party may have used the fundamentalists to gain control, but I'm not sure if they are still in charge or if the fundamentalists are now running the show.
They may themselves have created a 'monster' which they increasingly cannot control.

 

This is an interesting question. I faintly recall that there have been some internal power struggles with Baathists removed from power or murdered (sometime last year, I believe). It is therefore possible that by now they got marginalized or radicalized. But I guess it will remain speculative until documents get declassified sometime in the future. I suspect that after they established structure and a power base, the fanatics may have little use for the ex-military. Which in some way may be a good sign, as it would weaken their military expertise. Or so I wildly and baselessly speculate and hope.

[waitforufo]

I absolutely LOVE that you just cited the NY Daily News, a tabloid, as a source for your argument that the US State Department is actively recommending we cower in fear and sit home wetting our pants. Thanks for making me chuckle.

NY Daily News has the fifth largest circulation in the United States. Beats the Washington Post.

 

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

[iNow]

NY Daily News has the fifth largest circulation in the United States. Beats the Washington Post.

And... your point is?

 

 

@MigL (and others) - The Baathists are largely the leaders of ISIS still and a big part of why they're so well organized (except, of course, for the ones that have been killed already in various strikes and operations). It's about a 40 minute watch, but Frontline did a nice piece on the formation of ISIS last year. View online here: http://video.pbs.org/video/2365356572/