|
Well, f*@k.
Direct ramifications for this could end up with million of people being affected, with hundreds of thousands dead. Europe could very well perceive this as their own version of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. No country will stand idly by and wait to see if the next mass murder is happening in their capital city or that of their neighbors. This may very well be the end of an era.
I hope, I really do, that I'm seriously wrong. But it doesn't feel that way. This is big. This is a historical event. This is Charlie Hebdo magnified more than ten times over. This is the kind of bulls#*t that starts wars.
Please tell me I'm wrong.
I hope that you are wrong, but I truly thing you are. I'ts truly horrible, but this is not the fist time something like this happen. I am from Spain, and I remember perfectly the time of attacks on the trains on Atocha on 2004 (190 deaths). A friend of mine was on a train on Madrid at that time. The angish was short (he was ok) but horrible. I have never seen so much sympathy here on Barcelona for Madrid like on that time.
What I want to say is that Europe will feel the sorrow and rage, of course. What it will not end on war. Despise the many problems Europe has today, is a peaceful place today.
My most sincere condolence for every Paris person, and every French.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really hate to imagine the sort of impact this could end up having on Europe's handling of the refugee crisis.
|
There's been a slow drip of this s*!# ongoing for decades. Nothing's really changed, and fearing/preparing for Armageddon is the best way by far to guarantee that that will actually happen. I'm reasonably certain France will be far, far more intelligent about this than The United States of "b-b-b-but I always thought we were our own f%$@ing magical planet" was.
I've been to France. It kinda rocks. We'll always have Paris.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That will not be good for the Sirian refugees, that's for sure.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really hate to imagine the sort of impact this could end up having on Europe's handling of the refugee crisis.
Yes. Even disregarding the likely increase in hate crimes against them across Europe, I'd assume governments will be forced into action. I can easily see a wave of right wing parties taking elections so long as they promise a more forceful handling of immigrants. And there's no humane way to be forceful at an immigrant.
And that really could be just the start of troubles.
I'm reasonably certain France will be far, far more intelligent about this than The United States of "b-b-b-but I always thought we were our own f+&~ing magical planet" was.
There are millions of Muslim in Paris. This attack means that every French citizen is now in constant danger. It is a serious escalation of events. France might be less inclined to overreact than the U.S... but then, there are many, many horrid reactions they could have that I wouldn't consider an overreaction. You have to do something when this kind of attack happens. Just shrugging it off isn't an option. The truly tragic thing is that whatever you do in reaction is likely to cause a whole lot of suffering and extremely unlikely to actually solve the problem. It's a really sh**ty position to be in.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a mass terrorist attack aimed at my country (France) and my people (French people, whatever their religious leanings).
Though it has new aspects (kamikaze bombings for one), it is far from the first. And I think it less likely to divide the French people because it was not aimed at a specific group of French people, as opposed to the january attacks which were clearly aimed at "blasphemers" and French jews.
That said, of course our politicians will seize on it, with the Right and Far-Right opposition strengthening their stance against migrants, and against French people of muslim religion or ancestry (Far Right thinly veiled stance).
This stance was already strengthened and reiterated in recent months due to nation-wide elections taking place next month and where the Right and Far Right expect some landslide votes in their favor.
The fact that these attacks have likely most to do with France's military engagement against Daesh in Irak and Syria will be mostly lost on many voters. As will the fact that many many migrants are themselves victims of the same terrorists.
Obviously, politicians in other countries will also seize on the event to strengthen their own stance on issues of immigration, military options and restriction of rights, as they always do.
Still, those who do govern countries are quite aware of why this happened and their reactions will be based on this.
I do not think it will change the result of the treatment of migrants, though it will bring fodder for speeches by those who oppose immigration.
I believe the greatest impact will be to make a sacred union against Daesh no matter the consequences, which would result in Assad staying in power in Syria and Iran gaining more influence in the Middle-East.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The BBC reporting indicates quite strongly that the terrorists blamed this atrocity on the French president and the decision to take action in Syria.
I weep for the people lost, and I stand proud of my French neighbours (screw the usual British/French thing. This is serious), and will support them in any way I can (meagre though it is).
Vive la France.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I... Need to process this. I think much is going to depend on what the investigation turns up. That said, my suspicion is that it will reinforce France's dedication to fighting against IS. The only question is why IS wants that. If, indeed, they were behind this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I... Need to process this. I think much is going to depend on what the investigation turns up. That said, my suspicion is that it will reinforce France's dedication to fighting against IS. The only question is why IS wants that. If, indeed, they were behind this.
These sorts of attacks always serve multiple purposes, it shows they can hurt you, it tells others who might agree with them that they can successfully carry out such attacks, but the most pernicious aspect is the divisiveness. There's a specific terminology that I can't remember, but basically they want to turn the general public against Muslims so that Muslims turn to them for support. They know that following these attacks there will be paranoia and discrimination, and they want that, they want to harden people's hearts, because that's how they recruit.
Also was a bombing that IS took credit for in Beirut that killed 40+, and, apparently, the migrant camp in Calais was set on fire hours after the Paris attacks.
Well, f*@k.
Direct ramifications for this could end up with million of people being affected, with hundreds of thousands dead. Europe could very well perceive this as their own version of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. No country will stand idly by and wait to see if the next mass murder is happening in their capital city or that of their neighbors. This may very well be the end of an era.
I hope, I really do, that I'm seriously wrong. But it doesn't feel that way. This is big. This is a historical event. This is Charlie Hebdo magnified more than ten times over. This is the kind of bulls#*t that starts wars.
Please tell me I'm wrong.
Historically, you are spot on. Lesser things have started wars, this is causus belli, especially with Daesh having claimed responsibility.
If the Muslim civilians in Paris and France are lucky, France won't go the route that the US did in 1942 ... or worse. People are going to be boiling in that vicious stew of angry and afraid.
May we be fortunate enough for things not to go as bad as I imagine that they can/will ...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paris endured five years of occupation by one of the most brutal regimes in history (1940-44). Paris will continue to endure, it's spirit will not be easily extinguished.
I'm not sure I understand the "this will cause war" thing.
Hasn't France already carried out a couple hundred airstrikes against IS in Iraq and Syria over the past year or so?
With PaizoCon France cancelled, I've heard some people are still running their scheduled tables at various hotels and such. I'm glad, it sounds to me like our own nerdy little way of giving ISIS the finger.
Awesome.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure I understand the "this will cause war" thing.
Hasn't France already carried out a couple hundred airstrikes against IS in Iraq and Syria over the past year or so?
Daesh has been getting kid gloves compared to attempting to defend their geography in all-out war against the heavy hitters of the members of NATO, let alone NATO in its entirety.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately Is uses acts like these as marketing tools. It's like they are saying "look at us! We are strong, we can kill the westerners in their homes and bring war to them". To a large part of the muslim world who perceives itself as opressed by western politics that's a powerful message. Besides that, as it has been correctly pointed out by Squeakmaan Is wants the french people to strike back at muslims. Hate breeds hate and so they can expect a lot of new recruits.
To be clear I'm more concerned about what can happen in some little french villages or in the backalleys of Paris or Lyon. People wanting to take justice in their own hands, or whole communities getting discriminated against by religious association. If those things happen resentment will grow and so Is power will grow. On the other hand it's difficult to forsee any different outcome right now. People want an answer and unless that answer is quick and convincing the corresponding sense of frustration is bound to cause a huge uncontrolled backlash ahgainst french muslims (and a lot of french people are muslim, considering how they follow a Ius Solis system, you are french if you are born inside french land so this can cause major problems at all levels).
Besides that there are people on the western front who can expect to profit from this: Marine Le Pen and her (far) right wing extremists will increase their following too. The sytuation is not unlike the one we see in Israel where conflict between palestinians and jews strengthens Hamas and Likud making all moderate options, on both sides, weaker.
P.S.
Pope Francis called for an extraordinary jubilee in Rome next year. It's bound to become Is and Al quaida's next big target.
Daesh has been getting kid gloves compared to attempting to defend their geography in all-out war against the heavy hitters of the members of NATO, let alone NATO in its entirety.I'm not sure I understand the "this will cause war" thing.
Hasn't France already carried out a couple hundred airstrikes against IS in Iraq and Syria over the past year or so?
OTOH, from some evidence I've seen Daesh (and similar groups) hate the air strikes. Ignoring them they'd love, since they can then expand and grab territory. Western armies on the ground might cause them more losses, but it gives them something to strike back against and gives them the propaganda tool of "fighting the invaders".
France, and/or the US, attacking their territory in all-out war means they lose territory and then we're bogged down in another occupation in Iraq and probably Syria.
My opinion is we don't really need to send troops there. Airstrikes against Daesh are enough if then we allow the Kurds and Syrian Loyalist to fight on the ground.
Problem is we (meaning we westerners) don't really wish for the Kurds and the loyalist to be successful and clean house.Turkey hates and fears the Kurds much more than it hates Daesh (Erdogan bombed the Kurds much more than he bombed Daesh, and there are multiple reliable reports pointing at Turkey allowing Daesh forces to act undisturbed). The US and by extension NATO want to get rid of Assad more than they want to get rid of Daesh for geopolitical reasons (Assad is Russia's main ally in the middle east and gives them their only mediterranean military base).
Things got worse for Daesh when the Russians decided to act directly against them and whoever else was fighting Assad (which basically means Al Quaida, as the so called "moderate opposition" is largely a myth, as the recent debalce with the Congress founding for the free syrian army showed, on top of the aforementioned groups being filmed leaving armaments intended for them for Daesh forces to take). That has meant western forces had to do things seriously too and this is Daesh answer to that. It might be a sign of desperation, but it risks spreading low inensity conflict to all of Europe and potentially to the whole western world.
No matter how you look at this, it's a mess through and through
Since Putin is fighting them in Syria openly, I wonder why they haven't targeted them...
Oh. Putin.
Since Putin is fighting them in Syria openly, I wonder why they haven't targeted them...
Oh. Putin.
They probably will, a good part of Daesh forces seems to come from Chechnya and to be veterans of the conflict against Russia there after all.
By the way it seems Daesh sympathizers made a russian airplane bringing russian tourists back from Sharm el Sheik explode in midair.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately Is uses acts like these as marketing tools. It's like they are saying "look at us! We are strong, we can kill the westerners in their homes and bring war to them". To a large part of the muslim world who perceives itself as opressed by western politics that's a powerful message. Besides that, as it has been correctly pointed out by Squeakmaan Is wants the french people to strike back at muslims. Hate breeds hate and so they can expect a lot of new recruits.
This is what concerns me the most about these. I remember reading an article about some reporters and US soldiers who went to a bunch of remote villages in Afghanistan and decided to find out what the villagers knew about why we were there. The large majority of them didn't know 9/11 ever happened, didn't know any of the bad stuff that had happened to some countries outside of the Middle East. As far as they knew, various parts of the world randomly came in and invaded.
This article was written in 2011 or 2012 -- 10 years after 9/11. It's these villages where groups like ISIS are going to find the most likely recruits.
This article was written in 2011 or 2012 -- 10 years after 9/11. It's these villages where groups like ISIS are going to find the most likely recruits.
In mauritania with the peace corps, it was hard explaining the concept of a building with 2,000 people in it, much less the idea that most people had gotten OUT. After various attempts to explain how big they were in feet and meters, I just kicked my foot into the ground, "from here" walked out into the desert about half a mile and yelled back THIS TALL.
Since Putin is fighting them in Syria openly, I wonder why they haven't targeted them...
Oh. Putin.
There was that Russian civilian plane that probably was brought down by a bomb over Sinai.
In all likelyhood its a bag of mixed nuts,with individuals wanting different degrees of religious and temporal strife to seize power along with a large number of people that just want to live.
For those people looking for 'rational' geopolitical motivations, you won't find them. ISIS is motivated by religious fervor and millennial beliefs.
I see nothing in those articles contradicting what I wrote above. The mere fact a large percentage of them are motivated by genuine religious fanaticism was never in doubt.
But, in order to succeed at their designs they need strength and they need recognition. And what they do in Iraq and Syria is meant to gain them exactly that. And, at the same time what they did yesterday in Paris has the same aim. More recognition and more power. The fact they plan to use them as tools to further a millenarist agenda is inconsequential, what they do to get there is the problem from our prospective because they kill and terrorize in order to grow more powerful.Also note that the fact Is may not have geopolitical aspirations in the long term (or better said, they don't plan to stop at what we call Daesh now) doesn't mean they don't use geopolitics at their advantage.
It's widely known how Saudi Arabia supports Daesh against Iran (it's competition to emerge as the dominant force in the region AND inter-religious conflict inside Islam).
It's a proven fact that Erdogan much prefers Daesh to the Kurds, Assad and Iran (this is mainly for geopolitical reasons and the historical and violent turkish fear of a kurdistan emerging as its own nation).
It's pretty clear to everyone who has eyes to see how NATO and Russia view Syria as an asset: Russia wants to keep its position in the area and its only base on the mediterranean, NATO wants to deprive Russia of it for the opposite reasons. So Daesh and Al Quaida were seen as useful tools in order to oust Assad since Russia vetoed UN intervention in Syria (unlike what they did in Lybia, which is just another fine mess at this point) easily removed once their usefulness had expired. It was nothing new, Osama bin Laden himself was supported and cherished as a "freedom fighter" when he was fighting the soviets in Afganistan after all (he only became a terrorist once he turned against us).
Now that things excalated in Daesh and their position seems more and more tenuous they are resorting to terrorist attacks in order to keep their prestige intact and keep fighting. In this you are perfectly right, to Is daesh is just means to an end, so they don't need to die with it. What they need to keep existing as a sect of religious fanatics using terror to achieve their ends is to create the conditions to prosper even without a state in the middle of the desert, I think that what we are seeing now is exactly that.
Then you didn't actually read them.I see nothing in those articles contradicting what I wrote above. The mere fact a large percentage of them are motivated by genuine religious fanaticism was never in doubt.For those people looking for 'rational' geopolitical motivations, you won't find them. ISIS is motivated by religious fervor and millennial beliefs.
In fact I did. Are you sure you did the same?
Just a few points: the articles point out what a lot of Is supporters believe. And it stresses how for the whole thing to be "lawful" under the sharia it needs to hold territory AND to GAIN territory. Does it seem to you like they are gaining anything at the moment? On the contrary they are losing ground.
What happens if Daesh falls? That the oaths of fealty crumble to dust but in their ideology this doesn't mean the a descendant of Mohamed cannot be named khalifa at a latter time or territory regained. Yes they hold that Syria has special importane in the fulfillment of their prophecies but they also believe they will almost be anihilated and be forced to retreat to Jerusalem before Jesus comes down from heaves and spears down the anti-messiah. That does not seem like something even they can think to achieve in the near future (and their current chosen leader is supposed to be just the 8th of a line spanning to 12).
Also note that this stuff is old. It's an analysis written before Russian intervention and the losses suffered by Daesh since because everyone started doing things seriously (and I suppose someone in Washington told the Saudis to stop supporting Daesh so blatantly).
Besides that this doesn't take into account yesterday's excalation. It's naive to believe the mass shootings and suicide bombings were only meant as revenge. They could try to justify them as such, for these people it's important to be percieved as righteous according to their own definition of right and wrong after all, but it's outright stupid to believe there's no ulterior motive here.
Edit: also I forgot to point out that the articles do not make any attempt to analyze the wider geopolitical scenery. They mantain the US and NATO always wanted to get rid of Daesh, they just weren't able to do so (yet). I, on the other hand, believe the US always had the fire power to destroy Daesh even by proxy. They CHOOSE not to do so, BECAUSE that would have kept things in Syria as they were (Assad in power, Russia's position unchanged) and that was not what they wanted, for the strategical value of a big player like Russia out of the Middle East (and mediterranean) in their strategically inclined minds far outweighted the destruction of what for them amounted to a pack of bloody thugs they were using to get what they truly wanted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ended up canceling my Game today because of what happened in France...
My thoughts and prayers for those affected by this tragedy. I just can't imagine it...
But the rage, and subsequent hate, espoused my some of my fellow gamers.. Well, lets just say Hitler would have been proud.
So I took the day to enjoy the simpler things in life, by participating with my roommates 12 yr old granddaughter's birthday.
Bomb them? It'll hurt, but it won't get rid of them.
Invade and occupy Iraq and Syria? That won't get rid of them. That created them.
It would get rid of them, but spawn another similar. I hate to draw a comic analogy, but it really is like fighting hydra.
|
|
Put real pressure on the financial aspect, both by really go looking for their assets and freeze them and by pushing their sponsor states to stop giving them money.
Coordinate war efforts between all current participants, including keeping on killing their key operatives and leaders.
The biggest point there will be to get agreement between the superpowers involved (both global and local) on whom to support and whom to annihilate. Russia will get its compromise, from which Assad will be the short-term winner and Iran the longer-term one in its struggle vs Saudi Arabia and Qatar for influence in the Middle-East.
After some time, fleeing to the welcoming arms of other radical groups with less of an obliteration target on their back will seem quite a good idea to many many IS soldiers.
The goal after all is neither to kill every IS operative, nor to magically instate stable governments in the area, but to get rid of IS as an organization.
We (both westerners and middle-easterners) will face the consequences in their own time.
Only problem is... fanatics don't do that, Raven Black. Being an obliteration target is okay to them. Rather, adversity is what feeds them. People dying left and right around them, and particularly in their leadership, merely confirms the need for their struggle. Legitimizes it. If they are fanatics, of course. The West has enough fanatic nutjobs that we shouldn't be particularly surprised by this.
Even if they are not fanatics, there is still the small matter of information. Leaders dropping like flies doesn't mean much if the foot soldiers don't know of it. It merely makes recruiting leaders difficult.
I am pretty happy that this thread (and, it seems, the Paizo community overall) is proving an island from the bigotry I've been seeing from other people I know. Paizo's community doesn't agree about much, so that's actually a pleasant surprise. I always brace myself reading this thread for a "the refugees should fight off Daesh themselves instead of asking us to do it" poster. Hasn't happened yet.
This is just so horrible, and one of the greatest tragedies from it is going to be the ensuing backlash against an already very poorly treated minority.
|
|
There will be some backlash as I cannot imagine there being none, people being what they are. However, I hope that it will be less than it was in january because this time no specific targets were selected : the attack was against the French people as a whole, no matter their religious leanings.
The only worry I actually have is that the coming nationwide elections will have political leaders, especially from the Right and Far Right, stirring up the hateful feelings for their electoral needs.
I am far more worried about the ever expansive powers given to the police and military "forces of security". Because all the cool tools and legal endorsement they already have did not help prevent this in any way. Yet the answer is always "let's give them even more power".
A good question is why the NSA did not stop this. After all, with all the information they have, they must certainly have been aware of such a complex scheme.
But maybe the NSA are counting on getting a bigger budget, like they do every time they decline to act on their data?
I am pretty happy that this thread (and, it seems, the Paizo community overall) is proving an island from the bigotry I've been seeing from other people I know. Paizo's community doesn't agree about much, so that's actually a pleasant surprise. I always brace myself reading this thread for a "the refugees should fight off Daesh themselves instead of asking us to do it" poster. Hasn't happened yet.
This is just so horrible, and one of the greatest tragedies from it is going to be the ensuing backlash against an already very poorly treated minority.
Not to nitpick, but that "minority" is the second most popular religion in the world, with over a billion (close to two billion I believe) adherents.
Which is part of the reason why Muslim radicals are such a big deal. They currently make up something like 1% of the total Muslim population...but nobody knows which of that percent is poised where to do what. Which is where the paranoia and panic comes from. Close to two billion "potential terrorists"...and no concrete way to weed out the ACTUAL ones from that crowd.
Muslims are FAR from a minority in any realistic sense, and that's exactly why knee jerk anti-Islam reactions are so dangerous. Setting aside that bigotry is clearly not a good trait to have, it's also not practical.
At best you look silly by saying "I hate roughly a third of the Earth's population", at worst you turn the innocent ones against you by making them fear for their lives and legitimize the extremist propaganda.
Even if it were somehow the right choice, genocide of Muslims isn't exactly a feasible option. There's simply too many. So people need to just deal with it.
It would get rid of them, but spawn another similar. I hate to draw a comic analogy, but it really is like fighting hydra.
Bomb them? It'll hurt, but it won't get rid of them.
Invade and occupy Iraq and Syria? That won't get rid of them. That created them.
To an extent. Cut down their weapon supplies and suddenly they are fighting a war against the Kurds (augmented by iranian troops) and the loyalists while being simultaniously bombed by NATO and Russia while on an untenable position (Daesh, unlike Afganistan offers very little in terms of strategical advantages).
Defeating Daesh without direct intervention on the ground is easily achievable actually, but I tried to stress above the problem is NOT defeating or destroying Daesh. It never was. The problem is what happens AFTER they have been destroyed. We don't want Russia in Syria, period. Getting them out of there holds more importance to us in military terms than getting rid of Daesh. On the contrary, Daesh has proven to be an asset in order to oust Assad from Syria.Also consider the prospective of regional powers: if the Kurds manage not only to succesfully defend against Is, but they defeat it decisively on the ground Turkey is going to react, especially now that Erdogan got re-elected with overwhelming majority (well, he bombed them more than Is anyway, and during the recent elections Is supposedly targetted pro Kurds rallies... if those were not the actions of the Turkish secret services).
If Iran backed forces defeat Is that will enrage the Saudis and the Israelians both AND spark more inter religion strife inside Islam (Sunni vs Shiites).
So the question is not who's going to defeat Daesh but who will be allowed to do so. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, no matter if it's made of the life and death of millions of people. In all the history of humanity concerns like that never beared much weight when it came to the interests of the powers that be. This case is no exception.
Edit: Also, I forgot to mention THIS ARTICLE. Do we really think the Pentagon spent 500 millions to train 4 or 5 rebels? I know it's popular to claim they are THAT incompetent, but I find the scenario HIGHLY unlikely and more reasonable to believe those money were deemed better spent for something different than arming 4 or 5 people.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A good question is why the NSA did not stop this. After all, with all the information they have, they must certainly have been aware of such a complex scheme.
But maybe the NSA are counting on getting a bigger budget, like they do every time they decline to act on their data?
Seriously? We needed to add an 'evil government knew and let it happen' conspiracy theory to this?
The NSA is not omniscient. Given that this attack was carried out, and apparently coordinated/planned, in France, there was virtually no way that the NSA could have uncovered it. France does not give them access to all domestic communications.
No. But other countries in Europe do, and that is quite enough. Not to mention domestic intelligence agencies, etc. The NSA famously stated that to find a needle in a haystack, you need the haystack. They got it. They must have known. It's just, you know, more profit in NOT telling anyone about coming disasters. It gets them more powers and more budget.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. But other countries in Europe do, and that is quite enough. Not to mention domestic intelligence agencies, etc. The NSA famously stated that to find a needle in a haystack, you need the haystack. They got it. They must have known. It's just, you know, more profit in NOT telling anyone about coming disasters. It gets them more powers and more budget.
You watch way too many movies. The reason our(speaking about most of the Western world) intelligence agencies fail is they rely too much on tech. Our enemies know this so they avoid organizing these things via chat groups and e-mail. So NSA could find that electronic needle in that electronic haystack...but they don't use that haystack.