Paris attacks


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Pathos wrote:

LOL... He sounds down right liberal compared to some of my D&D group.

I'm talking staunch Republicans who want to outlaw Islam... up to, and including death for those who do not comply.

Thank god they are not in a position of power...

Yeah, the leading GOP presidential nominee (Trump) is merely calling for surveilance of mosques and shutting some of them down. Another 'moderate' by those standards... but he theoretically could wind up in a 'position of power'.

The Exchange

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Hollande: "France Will destroy IS."

This comes along with the news of Hollande scheduled to meet Obama and Putin, presumably to discuss steps against IS. Additionally, Hollande will try for lengthening the emergency state for three months and changing the French constitution.

Every single thing about this has the scent of major historical events. Has any European leader said anything as militant in the past couple of decades?

Quote:

I'm talking about actual reasons for what's happened over the last years and decades in that part of the world. And about what the likely consequences of relying on more military action to deal with it are.

Only in the sense that the "actual reason" the Charlie Hebdo people were murdered was the offensive caricatures they drew. Your explanation of the reason Daesh people have to be angry with the west has merit, but it dismisses a very big part of the whole picture: these people come from a destructive, backwards and oppressive society that fosters murderous (and suicidal) violence as a legitimate response to anger. This is true across most of the Islamic world and most of the Arab world (with the conjunction here being obvious) and is not only a crucial ingredient in the recent massacre in Paris but also of the whole interaction between the Western world and the Islamic one.

I'm not sure if you have noticed or not, but Daesh and most other Islamic extremists are far more concerned with killing each other and innocent Muslim bystanders than they are with fighting the West. They don't actually give a damn about the U.S or Israel or Europe, other than as a unifying outside threat they need to attack every once in a while to remind everyone that the conflict exists.

Ignoring all of these cannot be anything but a deliberate act of turning the blind eye in order to take the noble stance of criticizing your own culture. Yes, the west has been meddaling in the middle east. Yes, Western values are a threat to the way of life that the Muslim world clings to. Yes, we shouldn't be surprised that extremist groups form to push back against our influence. But just like the cartoonist in Charlie Hebdo didn't "really" get murdered because of their caricature, the recent attack isn't really because of the West antagonizing Islam - it's because the current Islam world is a seriously massed up and fractured group of societies that clings to ideals and behaviors that the West has mostly outgrown in the past few centuries. Tell it like it is.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens Subscriber

Honestly, I don´t care much if some terrorists are among the refugees. So what? Terrorists will find other ways to infiltrate the country they see as their next target. One man they are currently looking for is a man of (according to his name and picture) arabic heritage, yet born and raised in Brussels, being a belgian citizen. Unless that guy gets a gun and explosives, there is exactly nothing you can do about it.

Terrorists don´t need to hide among refugees, they can be everywhere and anywhere. (I do think that the terrorist using that syrian passport deliberately wanted to sow dissent by doing so). There is no safety against terrorist attacks, it can hit anybody at any time. All the safety measures are for naught, as was seen with Charlie Hebdo and is seen now. France already has severe laws about national safety, but it does not seem to do them any good. All that talk about needing stronger laws will not help a bit in the end.

What worries me at the moment that President Hollande uses the same war rhetorics we heard after 9/11, and wants to change the french constitution to give him even more power, especially in a crisis. It starts with a three months state of emergency, but I´m worried how that will end. I guess it won´t strenghten freedom and civil liberties.

And refusing taking on refugees because one in 1000 _might_ be a terrorist? Well, if it comes to that, our cherished "western values" are worth less than the paper they are written on. In our Grundgesetz, it is written that those who suffer from politically motivated persecution are entitled to asylum. Giving that up is just not an option IMO.


Lord Snow wrote:

Hollande: "France Will destroy IS."

This comes along with the news of Hollande scheduled to meet Obama and Putin, presumably to discuss steps against IS. Additionally, Hollande will try for lengthening the emergency state for three months and changing the French constitution.

Every single thing about this has the scent of major historical events. Has any European leader said anything as militant in the past couple of decades?

Quote:

I'm talking about actual reasons for what's happened over the last years and decades in that part of the world. And about what the likely consequences of relying on more military action to deal with it are.

Only in the sense that the "actual reason" the Charlie Hebdo people were murdered was the offensive caricatures they drew. Your explanation of the reason Daesh people have to be angry with the west has merit, but it dismisses a very big part of the whole picture: these people come from a destructive, backwards and oppressive society that fosters murderous (and suicidal) violence as a legitimate response to anger. This is true across most of the Islamic world and most of the Arab world (with the conjunction here being obvious) and is not only a crucial ingredient in the recent massacre in Paris but also of the whole interaction between the Western world and the Islamic one.

I'm not sure if you have noticed or not, but Daesh and most other Islamic extremists are far more concerned with killing each other and innocent Muslim bystanders than they are with fighting the West. They don't actually give a damn about the U.S or Israel or Europe, other than as a unifying outside threat they need to attack every once in a while to remind everyone that the conflict exists.

Ignoring all of these cannot be anything but a deliberate act of turning the blind eye in order to take the noble stance of criticizing your own culture. Yes, the west has been meddaling in the middle east. Yes, Western values are a threat to the way of life that the Muslim world clings to. Yes, we shouldn't be surprised that extremist groups form to push back against our influence. But just like the cartoonist in Charlie Hebdo didn't "really" get murdered because of their caricature, the recent attack isn't really because of the West antagonizing Islam - it's because the current Islam world is a seriously massed up and fractured group of societies that clings to ideals and behaviors that the West has mostly outgrown in the past few centuries. Tell it like it is.

I don't disagree with anything you say. I'm not ignoring anything or saying that the "actual reasons" are Charlie's cartoons, or even France's airstrikes.

The actual reasons are that very toxic mess in the region you're talking about. What I'm saying is because that's the root of the problem, beating Daesh military doesn't actually resolve anything.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

France alone is not strong enough to take on ISIS without the help of Russia and NATO, and the cooperation of neighboring countries, if only they stopped financing ISIS.

Turkey and Saudi Arabia have a really shady role in all this.


Stebehil wrote:

Honestly, I don´t care much if some terrorists are among the refugees. So what? Terrorists will find other ways to infiltrate the country they see as their next target. One man they are currently looking for is a man of (according to his name and picture) arabic heritage, yet born and raised in Brussels, being a belgian citizen. Unless that guy gets a gun and explosives, there is exactly nothing you can do about it.

Terrorists don´t need to hide among refugees, they can be everywhere and anywhere. (I do think that the terrorist using that syrian passport deliberately wanted to sow dissent by doing so). There is no safety against terrorist attacks, it can hit anybody at any time. All the safety measures are for naught, as was seen with Charlie Hebdo and is seen now. France already has severe laws about national safety, but it does not seem to do them any good. All that talk about needing stronger laws will not help a bit in the end.

What worries me at the moment that President Hollande uses the same war rhetorics we heard after 9/11, and wants to change the french constitution to give him even more power, especially in a crisis. It starts with a three months state of emergency, but I´m worried how that will end. I guess it won´t strenghten freedom and civil liberties.

And refusing taking on refugees because one in 1000 _might_ be a terrorist? Well, if it comes to that, our cherished "western values" are worth less than the paper they are written on. In our Grundgesetz, it is written that those who suffer from politically motivated persecution are entitled to asylum. Giving that up is just not an option IMO.

Also, Daesh doesn't want refugees to flee its control. Stopping the refugees gives them what they want.


thejeff wrote:

I don't disagree with anything you say. I'm not ignoring anything or saying that the "actual reasons" are Charlie's cartoons, or even France's airstrikes.

The actual reasons are that very toxic mess in the region you're talking about. What I'm saying is because that's the root of the problem, beating Daesh military doesn't actually resolve anything.

While true, that also misses the point.

"Do nothing" isn't a particularly viable option either.

Neither is "Sort out hundreds of years of political unrest THAT IS EXACERBATED BY OUTSIDE INFLUENCE".

At this point trying to help will likely just make things worse, and ignoring them to let them sort out their own problems is no longer an option either.

Counter-propaganda actions might work (educate the populace, hope they may turn against Daesh on their own), but it's doubtful.

Destroying their military force is a time buying measure if nothing else.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

From what I can tell, the goal of this attack is to stir up anti-Islamic sentiment in the West to force Muslims back into the Middle East where they can be controlled by ISIL. So the best response we can have in the West is to welcome refugees into our countries, and practice the tolerance and pluralism that ISIL seems so dead set against.


TheJeff wrote:
Also, Daesh doesn't want refugees to flee its control. Stopping the refugees gives them what they want.

Kind of a heads they win tails we lose situation there.

Refugees

1) rid the country of a potential anti Daesh dissidents for their current rule

2) Let them slip daesh members in with the other refugees under less scrutiny

Turning the refugees back

1) makes daesh look like the good guys compared to the heartless west

2) Gives them more poor and desperate people to recruit from


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
From what I can tell, the goal of this attack is to stir up anti-Islamic sentiment in the West to force Muslims back into the Middle East where they can be controlled by ISIL. So the best response we can have in the West is to welcome refugees into our countries, and practice the tolerance and pluralism that ISIL seems so dead set against.

Probably yes, but how do you convince governments of this?

Generally speaking the leaders of every major nation on this planet are old, generally reactionary, and set in their ways.

The potential long term solution is outweighed by the short term perceived gains of not allowing potential terrorists into the country with open arms.

Because any terrorist attacks afterwards (from the refugees or not!) makes them look weak, and harms their chances of staying in power.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

To bar entry to one guy in ten thousand (who would enter anyway, as he doesn't really care about legal niceties and has the backing of a terrorist organization), you would leave 9999 to the tender mercies of Daesh ? Hell, no !

To be precise, the present "state of urgency" (état d'urgence) is quite small potatoes. More stringent gun control (permits can be revoked), expulsion of troublemaking foreigners (already possible, just speedier), possibility of curfew (but none put in place)...

The change to the constitution would be (no details yet) to extend some military powers reserved for time of war to the current situation. Or it could be pure motivation speech, pep talk, as the president is already chief of all armed forces and use them at his discretion under parlementary control.


Rynjin wrote:
thejeff wrote:

I don't disagree with anything you say. I'm not ignoring anything or saying that the "actual reasons" are Charlie's cartoons, or even France's airstrikes.

The actual reasons are that very toxic mess in the region you're talking about. What I'm saying is because that's the root of the problem, beating Daesh military doesn't actually resolve anything.

While true, that also misses the point.

"Do nothing" isn't a particularly viable option either.

Neither is "Sort out hundreds of years of political unrest THAT IS EXACERBATED BY OUTSIDE INFLUENCE".

At this point trying to help will likely just make things worse, and ignoring them to let them sort out their own problems is no longer an option either.

Counter-propaganda actions might work (educate the populace, hope they may turn against Daesh on their own), but it's doubtful.

Destroying their military force is a time buying measure if nothing else.

I don't think I said "Do nothing". I did say "Don't invade and try to occupy Iraq and Syria."

Destroying their military force will have little to no effect on their ability to carry out terrorist attacks outside the area they control. Much like Al Qaeda.

There aren't a lot of good options here, at least for the short term. Continuing the air campaign, possibly intensifying it, helping the Kurds who seem to be having the most success and putting pressure on Turkey and others to keep from helping Daesh.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens Subscriber
Smarnil le couard wrote:
To bar entry to one guy in ten thousand (who would enter anyway, as he doesn't really care about legal niceties and has the backing of a terrorist organization), you would leave 9999 to the tender mercies of Daesh ? Hell, no !

Exactly!

Smarnil le couard wrote:


To be precise, the present "state of urgency" (état d'urgence) is quite small potatoes. More stringent gun control (permits can be revoked), expulsion of troublemaking foreigners (already possible, just speedier), possibility of curfew (but none put in place)...

The change to the constitution would be (no details yet) to extend some military powers reserved for time of war to the current situation. Or it could be pure motivation speech, pep talk, as the president is already chief of all armed forces and use them at his discretion under parlementary control.

But what for did he call together both chambers of the french parliament (an unusual thing, according to the news) and talks about changing constitution? I don´t think it is just some big words, and I don´t like those war rhetorics.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

All of you people need to pull your heads out of your asses, or really your countries asses. Paris wasn't the only one attacked at that time, but because it's the bigger of the countries it gets the most media.

and the Refugee's have nothing to do with it. It was just how the people who did this snuck in. It would of happened regardless of the refugees that got free entry. These people would of found another way in, and they would of done the same damn thing.

And to the rest of those that want to refuse to let the refugees into your countries, congratulations for falling victim to another of their traps. By refusing to let the refugees into your country you will all be branded racists, which might actually turn more of those refugees to the terrorists side. By refusing refugees entry you will essentially be fueling the flames of the terrorists fire, you will be providing it more troops, and the rest of the world will look upon your country unfavorably. because whats worse, a few thousand people dying? OR a few thousand more people joining the terrorists forces, thus giving them more power to harm even more people.

As a famous character once said "The needs of the MANY outweigh the needs of the few or the one" in this case the MANY is the population of the entire world, people throughout the world need to be shown that we can work together and get along. This terrorist thing is but another fleeting attempt to scare and rule the world. Think of the terrorists as the JOKER from Batman, all they really want to do is watch the world burn, or moreover their leader does, he just hides it behind some self righteous opinion that he is superior to all others.

Also should the refugees be let into your country and you then refuse to go out in public for fear of your safety. Again I say congratulations for falling victim to their traps. The terrorists control you, they have forced you to remain home so your country falls into economic turmoil.

You want to show the terrorists they don't scare you, and that you will stand up to them, then welcome the refugees with open arms and don't be afraid to live your life the way you want. Because that is what they are trying to take away from you, Your way of life, because they feel it impedes on theirs, even though they live on the other side of the world and have no business with your affairs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Smarnil le couard wrote:


To be precise, the present "state of urgency" (état d'urgence) is quite small potatoes. More stringent gun control (permits can be revoked), expulsion of troublemaking foreigners (already possible, just speedier), possibility of curfew (but none put in place)...

The change to the constitution would be (no details yet) to extend some military powers reserved for time of war to the current situation. Or it could be pure motivation speech, pep talk, as the president is already chief of all armed forces and use them at his discretion under parlementary control.

But what for did he call together both chambers of the french parliament (an unusual thing, according to the news) and talks about changing constitution? I don´t think it is just some big words, and I don´t like those war rhetorics.

It's first and foremost a show of national unity. They didn't decide anything today, President Hollande just made a speech about what he intended to do in the next months (strike Daesh, a three months state of urgency, what I said before).

It quelled the people who were clamoring for more security, as if it could change anything and prevent kamikazes from blowing themselves up with homemade explosives.

Nota bene : a state of urgency can be put in place by presidential decree for twelve days only : extending it is only possible with a parliament vote.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alric Rahl wrote:
And to the rest of those that want to refuse to let the refugees into your countries, congratulations for falling victim to another of their traps. By refusing to let the refugees into your country you will all be branded racists, which might actually turn more of those refugees to the terrorists side.

At the same time, look at the numbers. The population of France is roughly 66 million; of those, 18 million have at least one parent born outside France, generally in the Middle East/North Africa. Pretend France does the big noble gesture you want them to do and accepts all refugees with open arms, so we add the population of Syria (23 million) to the mix. Suddenly the nation of France is only half French, and half unassimilated or only partially-assimilated Middle Eastern. Given birth rates, in one generation the population of France would be majority non-assimilated Middle Eastern. Is that your vision -- to make France a suburb of the Middle East?

That's why I maintain that the U.S. needs to be actively accepting the lion's share of the refugees. We already have 322 million people, so we'd still be only 7% Syrian if the entire population of Syria came here overnight.

It's time to face facts: the unchecked immigration policies of Western Europe, if they remain unchecked, will destroy themselves within our children's lifetimes. Their hearts are in the right place, but their heads aren't really facing the reality of things. So I don't blame the "far right" from wanting to question those policies. On the other hand, the U.S. can accept and assimilate large numbers of immigrants fast enough to rebound and be ready for more in the future, so it behooves us to step up.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Science suggests that the Syrian refugees are 100% human.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also, if the experts talking on NPR this morning are correct, the US assimilates Muslims faster and more completely than Europe does.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

It's our godless heathen ways...or McDonalds. Not sure.


thunderspirit wrote:
Science suggests that the Syrian refugees are 100% human.

And, you'll note, I'm not in any way suggesting that they be ignored. I am suggesting that there's a simple way to accommodate them and still maintain France as a French nation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh, boy. Let's not muddy this conversation with the borderline 'questionable language' of, "We shouldn't let these people into that country because then the original residents won't be the majority cultural influence anymore."

If America is any indication, White European cultural influences will survive whether or not they remain in the majority—not least because they'll still be richer and will continue to be in charge of most media outlets. Cultures evolve and grow over time as they become more diverse, and whether or not the refugees are sufficiently "assimilated" really shouldn't be that big a deal. And the fact that France already has a ton of Muslim citizens is a pretty clear indicator that they're already seeing influence.

That said, the US really does need to step up to the plate. A change that severe to France's demographics could definitely have negative consequences. I just don't think "Not French enough anymore" would be one of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Alric Rahl wrote:
And to the rest of those that want to refuse to let the refugees into your countries, congratulations for falling victim to another of their traps. By refusing to let the refugees into your country you will all be branded racists, which might actually turn more of those refugees to the terrorists side.

At the same time, look at the numbers. The population of France is roughly 66 million; of those, 18 million have at least one parent born outside France, generally in the Middle East/North Africa. Pretend France does the big noble gesture you want them to do and accepts all refugees with open arms, so we add the population of Syria (23 million) to the mix. Suddenly the nation of France is only half French, and half unassimilated or only partially-assimilated Middle Eastern. Given birth rates, in one generation the population of France would be majority non-assimilated Middle Eastern. Is that your vision -- to make France a suburb of the Middle East?

That's why I maintain that the U.S. needs to be actively accepting the lion's share of the refugees. We already have 322 million people, so we'd still be only 7% Syrian if the entire population of Syria came here overnight.

It's time to face facts: the unchecked immigration policies of Western Europe, if they remain unchecked, will destroy themselves within our children's lifetimes. Their hearts are in the right place, but their heads aren't really facing the reality of things. So I don't blame the "far right" from wanting to question those policies. On the other hand, the U.S. can accept and assimilate large numbers of immigrants fast enough to rebound and be ready for more in the future, so it behooves us to step up.

As far as I know neither France nor the EU has an unchecked immigration policy. Accepting refugees from war zones isn't quite the same thing.

Nor would the whole population of Syria go just to France, even should the whole population of Syria flee the country. If you want to compare populations, you should compare relevant numbers. The EU as a whole has a population around 500 million - even more than the US, so it should be able to absorb at least as much as the US could, at least in terms of demographic changes.

None of which is to say that the US shouldn't take a far larger share of refugees from Syria, Iraq and other crisis zones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Anonymous has Declared war against IS

http://news.yahoo.com/anonymous-hackers-declare-war-islamic-state-paris-att acks-121627558--spt.html


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The saddest part of this is that the tenor of this discussion has changed over three pages. It's still open-minded, but much like any topic with such heat starts heading to Wrath.

We get mad, we want to do something, there's scarce little for us to do, so we speculate, and build on the hate. Whether the hatred is for how the NSA does their business, Daesh murders their own people in their SJW perceptions, or persons lacking color go into places of worship and slaughter everyone within.

Throughout, the constant threaded pulse is 'Don't let the terrorists win!' 'Stand up to the bully!' 'If you walk away, you give the enemy more power!'.

There is a time for war, there is a time for peace, there is a time for reconciliation, and there's a time for wisdom. These do not always blend atop one another, but simply shutting down immigration feeds into Daesh's recruiting techniques.

Persecuting a proportional minority? Feeds the hatred cycle.

The hardest thing that more than one figure held in faithful reverence is 'turn the other cheek'.

Someone made a mention earlier of the Joker. The Heath Ledger version of the Joker is Daesh, but the West seems to think it's the Jack Nicholson version.

This is why we disarm ourselves before we even begin to fight, and then wonder why things are 'not fair'.

Wisdom, compassion, insight. We've got a long, hard road ahead, and unity is a frightening concept...


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
The saddest part of this is that the tenor of this discussion has changed over three pages. It's still open-minded, but much like any topic with such heat starts heading to Wrath... simply shutting down immigration feeds into Daesh's recruiting techniques.

I don't think anyone in the thread has suggested that immigration be shut down. I advocated that the absorption of refugees, and continued immigration thereafter, be guided with reference to the relative magnitude of the demographic shifts caused by them, and that countries better able to assimilate large numbers of newcomers should be the ones who allow correspondingly more refugees in, and have correspondingly more liberal immigration policies. That's Math, not Wrath.

Community Manager

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed posts and their responses. This is not the discussion to be armchair quarterbacking, drawing conclusions based on incomplete information, or making generalized assumptions and accusations about religions or their practitioners.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I don't think anyone in the thread has suggested that immigration be shut down. I advocated that the absorption of refugees, and continued immigration thereafter, be guided with reference to the relative magnitude of the demographic shifts caused by them, and that countries better able to assimilate large numbers of newcomers should be the ones who allow correspondingly more refugees in, and have correspondingly more liberal immigration policies. That's Math, not Wrath.

Kirth,

This is part of the reason this discussion has remained viable and somewhat focused on the issues at hand.

We don't hear about the folks who may have been affiliated with terror efforts when they were younger but then saw that they had a *much better life* and decided to discard their past as a 'passing phase'.

Daesh and other extreme organizations of many different belief systems fear assimilation. The canny few can then shape that fear into a weapon.

Or, it's hard to start a rock-slide when the rock is stable. Introduce some cracks...


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
We don't hear about the folks who may have been affiliated with terror efforts when they were younger but then saw that they had a *much better life* and decided to discard their past as a 'passing phase'.

Granted, given that the jihadist's goal is to die in pursuit his efforts, that's not surprising.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
I don't think anyone in the thread has suggested that immigration be shut down. I advocated that the absorption of refugees, and continued immigration thereafter, be guided with reference to the relative magnitude of the demographic shifts caused by them, and that countries better able to assimilate large numbers of newcomers should be the ones who allow correspondingly more refugees in, and have correspondingly more liberal immigration policies. That's Math, not Wrath.

In the midst of the biggest nativist surge in a couple decades? Perfect timing for your idea, Kirth.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I had a big long post of wishful thinking. I deleted it.

The crux of it is economic engagement with countries that are stable. We need to make them wealthier, but not the already wealthy. Improve the lives of the poor in the somewhat stable countries and you'll see a quiet revolution that takes place over the coming century.

Liberty's Edge

Irontruth wrote:

I had a big long post of wishful thinking. I deleted it.

The crux of it is economic engagement with countries that are stable. We need to make them wealthier, but not the already wealthy. Improve the lives of the poor in the somewhat stable countries and you'll see a quiet revolution that takes place over the coming century.

Not even wrong.

Seriously, read the articles.

ISIS is a very large and heavily armed cult that attracts people by being more Muslim than Mohammed.


Blackvial wrote:

Anonymous has Declared war against IS

LINK

LINKIFICATION COMPLETE


Krensky wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I had a big long post of wishful thinking. I deleted it.

The crux of it is economic engagement with countries that are stable. We need to make them wealthier, but not the already wealthy. Improve the lives of the poor in the somewhat stable countries and you'll see a quiet revolution that takes place over the coming century.

Not even wrong.

Seriously, read the articles.

ISIS is a very large and heavily armed cult that attracts people by being more Muslim than Mohammed.

Just a quick question, do you think the Middle-East was fine prior to the genesis of ISIS?

Edited to add:

ISIS is definitely a problem. I don't deny it.

So far, I haven't heard a single solution to deal with them though that doesn't sound exactly like something else that's been done that has produced an organization that has committed horrible atrocities.

The old adage: Treat the cause, not the symptom... is stupid and shouldn't be given credence. Even in medicine, you routinely treat symptoms, because symptoms can be life threatening. There is no disease called "fever", but a fever can still kill you long before the underlying disease is cured.

ISIS needs to be dealt with. At the same time, there needs to be a plan to solve the more long term problems. I don't think that Muslim people or Arab countries are more prone to violence, but rather that a situation has been created where routinely, violence is seen as the only solution to people in those countries. We might destroy ISIS, but another group is just going to coalesce and cause problems, unless we also address the root causes.

2nd Edit:

Violence doesn't kill ideologies. It entrenches them. Think about the US after 9/11. Did we say to ourselves "Wow, those guys really hate us, maybe we should back off and leave them alone." No, we doubled down, sent in troops to one country, then a second unrelated one "just to be sure".

Right now, France isn't backing down, it's increasing the number of airstrikes they're participating in.

Bombing the people drawn to ISIS ideology isn't going to stop them from joining, they're going to double down and join twice as fast. The only way violence can solve the problem is by killing every man, woman and child.

Violence begets more violence. Sometimes violence is required, but we need to be prepared to look for alternate solutions that will mitigate and hopefully stop the violence at some point. If we participate in the cycle of violence without trying to stop it, it will only ever get worse.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:


Violence doesn't kill ideologies. It entrenches them. Think about the US after 9/11. Did we say to ourselves "Wow, those guys really hate us, maybe we should back off and leave them alone." No, we doubled down, sent in troops to one country, then a second unrelated one "just to be sure".

Right now, France isn't backing down, it's increasing the...

And this is the music that this puts me in the mind of...

Locomotive Breath, Jethro Tull

How does one progressively advance non-violence without being violent on some one level?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, you advance non-violence by refusing to engage in violence. I don't want to engage in to much analogy, but stop adding fuel to the fire. The reasons non-violence worked in South Africa, India and the US was by meeting violence passively, eventually the energy behind it diminishes.

On the state level though, that doesn't completely work, as you have a duty and obligation to protect your citizens. You can't just turn the other cheek as it were, because that cheek is another person's life. This is where the degrade and destroy strategy comes into play, though I would just leave it at degrade. When ISIS strikes out, do our best to limit their capacity to do it again. The problem with terrorist attacks like what happened in Paris, is they're cheap and easy. It's really not possible to stop those. The best thing to do is limit their capacity to make war on their neighbors, prevent or limit their expansion as much as possible.

The real method of destroying them is providing economic opportunity to the majority of citizens in neighboring regions. People who are fed and feel that their children are already guaranteed better opportunities than they had aren't the target demographic for suicide bomber recruitment.

People who are desperate and hungry don't want to sit at a table and negotiate.

Consider US relations between the USSR and Cuba. We were regularly in talks with the Soviets over the years and eventually deals were made cultural and economic exchanges started to happen, several years prior to the fall of the Soviet Union. Contrast that with Cuba, which all contact was forbidden until fairly recently and the people in power stayed there, very entrenched.

I'd agree that ISIS isn't a group we can make deals with. There won't be any negotiations, at least not in the foreseeable future. But enhancing ties throughout the region and encouraging economic stability will greatly limit ISIS potential for growth and possibly deny them resources.

There will be no justice for the attacks on Paris. The French can obtain a form of retribution or vengeance, but nothing resembling justice. I have significant doubts that any amount of retribution will prevent future attacks.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:


There will be no justice for the attacks on Paris. The French can obtain a form of retribution or vengeance, but nothing resembling justice. I have significant doubts that any amount of retribution will prevent future attacks.

Which pushes me to another song...

Zero Game, Rebel Yells

The problem with providing economic incentives is that it costs money, and there is a subsection of society that desires to have all of the money, and don't see that by spending a 'little' one can earn a 'lot' without resorting to such shell games as 'Ponzi' schemes and the stock market.

Without even mentioning industries that directly benefit from continued conflict, there's a great deal of investment in the current structure, and to set it all aside would leave many feeling they were 'being robbed' to 'pay for the poor people', when the reality is that by advancing the collective capabilities of humanity, we improve as a species.


Yup, which is why my first post in the thread started:

Irontruth wrote:
I had a big long post of wishful thinking.


The US has spent several trillion dollars waging war in the Middle East recently. If that same money had been invested in respective countries instead, would it be possible that there would today be thriving, vibrant trade partners that exported things other than terrorists there instead?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
The US has spent several trillion dollars waging war in the Middle East recently. If that same money had been invested in respective countries instead, would it be possible that there would today be thriving, vibrant trade partners that exported things other than terrorists there instead?

Probably not. "Investing" in kleptocracies rarely improves the local economy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Well, you advance non-violence by refusing to engage in violence. I don't want to engage in to much analogy, but stop adding fuel to the fire. The reasons non-violence worked in South Africa, India and the US was by meeting violence passively, eventually the energy behind it diminishes.

It also worked there because the opposite sides in all cases had some other goal besides destruction. There was bargaining to be done and reasoning with to do, and wanton destruction for destruction's sake makes most people look petty if they do it to nonviolent targets.

Essentially, passive resistance takes all the fun out of it.

That doesn't really work here. Widespread destruction is in large part the GOAL, rather than a means to an end. Turning the other cheek just means they'll slap that one too, and feel none the worse about it.

I'm inclined to believe they'd simply take it as a sign the western world was beginning to see the light and "Bowing before the might of Islam as they should" and redouble their efforts.

There needs to be a fine line met between carrying out the same sort of wanton devastation on their home country, and not taking a completely non-aggressive stance.

We (the US) have doubled down on the former multiple times, and it's done jack diddly at best, but that doesn't mean the opposite extreme is therefore the answer.

101 to 150 of 200 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Paris attacks All Messageboards