Bad Day in Paris

The fucking wackos are going insane in Paris. Reports of at least one hundred dead.

Excuse me for jumping to conclusions, but...well, you know.

Europe has been living with terrorism for quite a while. Much longer than Americans have been afraid of it (without actually experiencing much of it).

Coordinated attacks in several locations across Paris, at least 120 dead, possibly as many as 158.  [Edit: I guess they're calling it 128 this morning, with up to 200 more injured, some critically.]

Terrorism, as a political strategy, seems very unlikely to bring anything but retribution and additional repression of Muslims.  One wonders.

You call them "insane" -- it seems to me they were very deliberate and planned and intentional.

Yes, I call them insane, and I think that's valid. How would you describe the mental condition of someone who was willing to blow himself up? Who thought that killing a bunch of unarmed civilians was meaningful courageous?

I got tired of hearing the damned news readers talking about the "sophisticated" level of planning. Here's my idea of the planning: "Everyone have his gun? Suicide belt? Okay, then. Remember, 9:30."

That's about it.

richard09 wrote:

Europe has been living with terrorism for quite a while. Much longer than Americans have been afraid of it (without actually experiencing much of it).

That's true, Richard, but I don't know what that has to do with the subject at hand.

Now we can expect the Republicans to go wild, blaming this incident on Obama and telling us how only they can "keep us safe." Unfortunately, there are a lot of people in this country who have little or no knowledge of history, and will fall for it.

I don't know what the solution is for groups like ISIL, but I imagine that it would involve many hundreds of thousands of troops.

Coulter after Paris attacks: 'Trump was elected president tonight'

Since he's wrong about pretty much everything, that may actually be a good sign.

I don't know that there is any "solution" to ISIS. This is all (basically) fallout from the Iraq disaster and the Libya disaster, and America seems incapable of staying out of Middle Eastern meddling no matter who is president.

_Howard wrote:

I don't know what the solution is for groups like ISIL, but I imagine that it would involve many hundreds of thousands of troops.

ISIL is bigger than that now. I don't know what the solution is either, but it's not something that troops can solve.

Kinda like Viet Nam.

richard09 wrote:

...America seems incapable of staying out of Middle Eastern meddling no matter who is president.

America is, and has been since its inception, incapable of staying out of anywhere that a dollar can be made. Fucking with the Middle East is not a new policy for us.

NoCoPilot wrote:

I don't know what the solution is either, but it's not something that troops can solve.

You don't know what the solution is, but you know what it's not. Well, continue with the process of elimination and see what's left.

It sure as hell isn't statesmanship. Who are you going to talk to? ISIL isn't a nation with interests, it's just a bunch of thugs. I am not in favor of war, and the world should forever despise everyone in the Bush camp for getting us started down this particular path, but I can't think of anything other than big time violence to quash this group.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Kinda like Viet Nam.

Thanks for that, fucko.

They're now saying 129 dead and 352 injured.

Cities all over the world are lighting landmarks in the French colors, and French flags are being displayed. Unfortunately, that's about as effective against terrorism as pink ribbons are against breast cancer.

I'm deeply concerned. I can't get through to my only French friend. I keep making excuses for it, such as the cell towers might be overloaded with everyone trying to call family. But I'm scared. I'm about 12 hours away from contacting the embassy to see if they've amassed a list of the dead and injured.

So, can we close down the worldwide data collection effort now?

NoCoPilot wrote:

_Howard wrote:

I don't know what the solution is for groups like ISIL, but I imagine that it would involve many hundreds of thousands of troops.

ISIL is bigger than that now.  I don't know what the solution is either, but it's not something that troops can solve.

After some thought, here is my five-point plan:

1. Deny them the use of the term "Islamic State." What they're doing has nothing to do with Islam. Everyone worldwide must change to something like "Terrorist State." The psychological value would be invaluable.
   
2. Similarly, condemnation of their actions must be universal from Muslim leaders. Assassination of innocents and suicide bombings are the antithesis of Islamic teachings. The Mullahs and clerics must proclaim this, loudly.
   
3. The news said they're funded by $40 million/month in oil sales. Somebody must find out who is buying their oil and stop it. If they cannot negotiate with the buyer(s) then OPEC should immediately halve or quarter the price of crude, to undercut them. If necessary, give oil away to deny them funding. The Saudis have a stake in this too.
   
4. Find out who is selling them arms, and stop it. Go after their suppliers if necessary -- even if this leads to the US.
   
5. Immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from the Middle East, closure of Guantanemo, end sanctions. Remove all recruiting tools. End the war on Islam, and refocus it as a war on terrorism.

NoCoPilot wrote:

NoCoPilot wrote:

_Howard wrote:

I don't know what the solution is for groups like ISIL, but I imagine that it would involve many hundreds of thousands of troops.

ISIL is bigger than that now.  I don't know what the solution is either, but it's not something that troops can solve.

After some thought, here is my five-point plan:

1. Deny them the use of the term "Islamic State."  What they're doing has nothing to do with Islam.  Everyone worldwide must change to something like "Terrorist State."  The psychological value would be invaluable.
   
2. Similarly, condemnation of their actions must be universal from Muslim leaders.  Assassination of innocents and suicide bombings are the antithesis of Islamic teachings.  The Mullahs and clerics must proclaim this, loudly.
   
3. The news said they're funded by $40 million/month in oil sales.  Somebody must find out who is buying their oil and stop it.  If they cannot negotiate with the buyer(s) then OPEC should immediately halve or quarter the price of crude, to undercut them.  If necessary, give oil away to deny them funding.  The Saudis have a stake in this too.
   
4. Find out who is selling them arms, and stop it.  Go after their suppliers if necessary -- even if this leads to the US.
   
5. Immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from the Middle East, closure of Guantanemo, end sanctions.  Remove all recruiting tools.  End the war on Islam, and refocus it as a war on terrorism.
   

Not bad. But I feel like we're gonna have to address Palestine at some point.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-vs-islamic-state-vs-isil-vs-daesh-what-do-the-different-names-mean-9750629.html

In addition to settling on a derogatory name, it is CRITICAL that the Arab nations step up to the plate.  For too long they've been sitting on the sidelines, collecting higher gas prices while the US sheds blood defending the oilfields.  This is, at heart, a Muslim problem and the nations who have reaped 70 years of unfettered profits from US oil exploration in the ME sands must take ownership of the problem.

If the European and American troops withdraw, there can be no more blaming Western "Crusaders."  That puts the monkey square on the back of those who need to take responsibility. Let them sell a few of their Lamborghinis and desert hotels and take care of business.

Philosophically, I think you have some good points. But out here in the real world, referring to the group by a different name would be meaningless. Just another "Freedom Fries" silliness.

You seem to have the idea that these people give a shit about the opinions of others. They don't. They are thieves, thugs, and pirates. They are not a political movement. They are really, really well-armed criminals, and have to be treated as such.

I'm quite sure that the purchasers of oil, and those who transport it, are well known. You can't hide ongoing transactions of that size. Asking oil producers to give away their oil is something that will never happen.

Yes, the Arab and Persian states need to intervene in a big way. Saudi Arabia has one of the world's largest militaries and should step up to the plate. But they probably won't, until such time as ISIS decides to take the conflict to the Saudis.

Maybe it's time for the UN to act in the manner for which it was designed. One or two million UN troops, with massive air support, should be able to take care of the matter.

The whole fucking mess has to be straightened out with long-term military, political, and economic planning to remove the conditions that lead people to support such groups and which allow for their inception and continuation. "Freedom Fries" won't do it.

I disagree, and let me tell you why.

Right now, all Arabs are feeling the distrust and suspicion: coming through airports, applying for jobs, walking on the streets in a hijab.  All Arabs feel a bond, a kinship, a brotherhood because they are all pariahs ever since 2001.

This makes it easy to recruit, easy to fund-raise, easy to turn a blind eye.  Many many Arabs feel a guilty pleasure in identifying with terrorists, even if they'd never consider joining their ranks.

This perception must change.

It must be made clear that Islam is not the enemy, it must be made clear that Islam does not endorse terrorism.  The world must strive to separate the terrorists from the rest of the Muslims, so they do not feel any kinship with them, any sympathy for their cause or any tolerance of their actions.

Until then we're fighting 1.57 billion people.

_Howard wrote:

You seem to have the idea that these people give a shit about the opinions of others. They don't. They are thieves, thugs, and pirates. They are not a political movement. They are really, really well-armed criminals, and have to be treated as such.

You DO realize ISIS started as the remnants of the Iraqi army, disbanded by Donald Rumsfeld but not disarmed?

They can't all be criminals.  They're an ethnic group with an attitude.  An attitude brought on by rampant discrimination, because people aren't making the distinction -- Christians *OR* Arabs.

Quote :

It must be made clear that Islam is not the enemy

Hell, even George W. made that statement many times. And I think most rational Muslims are aware of it.
The great majority - in fact, nearly all - of the victims of ISIS are Muslims. Is ISIS fighting 1.57 billion people?

Quote :

it must be made clear that Islam does not endorse terrorism.

There are differing opinions about this. What others call terrorism, many Muslims refer to as the prophet's commandments.

Quote :

They can't all be criminals.  They're an ethnic group with an attitude.  An attitude brought on by rampant discrimination,

That is exactly what they want you to believe. And it's bullshit.

Quote :

If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

What do you mean by that?
I disagree with you in this instance, therefore I am supporting terrorism?

I am not a believe in the absolutism of duality.

_Howard wrote:

What do you mean by that?
I disagree with you in this instance, therefore I am supporting terrorism?

I am not a believe in the absolutism of duality.

What I mean, is that I think your comments betray a subtle muslimophobia which is common, pernicious and harmful.

Notice I did not say Islamophobia.

You said "many Muslims" believe terrorist acts are the prophet's commandments -- I would dispute that.

You said that Muslims as a group believe they are discriminated against, and that this is bullshit.  I also dispute that.

You said the great majority of victims of ISIS violence are Muslims.  This may be true in the military campaigns where cities keep changing hands, but we were talking about terrorist bombings like in Paris, and those most certainly are not targeting Muslims.  So I dispute you there too.

Your statements that "all Muslims this" or "all Muslims that" are indicative of the issue I was trying to raise in the opening post of this thread, to wit, not enough people make a distinction between terrorist organizations and the general Muslim population.

THAT is part of the problem.

And it's not just non-Muslims who fail to make the distinction.  The Muslim world has done a TERRIBLE job of distancing themselves from hard liners who promote violent solutions to non-Muslim interventions.

NoCoPilot wrote:

What I mean, is that I think your comments betray a subtle muslimophobia which is common, pernicious and harmful.

You may think that, but you are wrong.

NoCoPilot wrote:

You said "many Muslims" believe terrorist acts are the prophet's commandments -- I would dispute that.

Go ahead and dispute it; I stand by it. Of course, we haven't settled on a meaining of the word, "many."

NoCoPilot wrote:

You said that Muslims as a group believe they are discriminated against, and that this is bullshit.  I also dispute that.

I did not say that. You said that. The bullshit part was mine, but it was in reference to ISIS.

NoCoPilot wrote:

You said the great majority of victims of ISIS violence are Muslims.  This may be true in the military campaigns where cities keep changing hands, but we were talking about terrorist bombings like in Paris, and those most certainly are not targeting Muslims.  So I dispute you there too.

My remark was in reference to the overall actions of ISIS, and it is true.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Your statements that "all Muslims this" or "all Muslims that" are indicative of the issue I was trying to raise in the opening post of this thread, to wit, not enough people make a distinction between terrorist organizations and the general Muslim population.

Show me one place where  I said "all muslims." You won't find it.

The short-term issue of dealing with ISIS and the long-term issues relating to the Middle East are not the same and will required different solutions.

NoCoPilot wrote:

In addition to settling on a derogatory name, it is CRITICAL that the Arab nations step up to the plate.  For too long they've been sitting on the sidelines, collecting higher gas prices while the US sheds blood defending the oilfields.  This is, at heart, a Muslim problem and the nations who have reaped 70 years of unfettered profits from US oil exploration in the ME sands must take ownership of the problem.

But, that's like trying to decide which shooter did the kill shot in a shootout. It doesn't matter, it was all wrong. That oil belongs to all of us. ALL. It's part of the earth's resources and allowing it to be owned by anyone privately was a mistake that should never have been allowed. The real answer is that we're all fighting over a dead camel and the first people to realize it and walk away and preserve what they have, wins.