"Paris under attack" Topic

Perhaps we Brits are more pragmatic. We have lived through the terrorist attacks of IRA, now the leaders shake hands with the queen.

If we can noit kill them all, then need to talk at some stage.

That is not surrender.

Treebeard
Ok but what then do you mean by 'In any case, I submit that you can't win a war by pretending that your enemy is not your enemy.' which seemed to me to be in answer to posts by Geoff and other non Americans that the enemy was not Muslims per se but a minority within that community
To me its quite clear that the enemy is radical Islam not Islam per se. We do need a global without borders campaign on many different levels against radical Islam.

I also have to say (and this is not to you) that in at least the Uk media the conflation of these terrorists attacks with the failure of multiculturalism is quite (not by posters here) often a tool of nasty little racists who dislike anyone not white and NW European – multiculturalism also includes people from Africa, the Caribbean, Asia – my wife is Chinese – anyone who tries to tell me my son is not British may sorely try my generally pacific nature.

Someone will have to point to the statement by the IRA that they were trying to create a global Caliphate. And that they were recruiting non-Irish Catholics by the thousands to further that goal.

At that point I'll see the equivalence.

gunnerphil
I think the problem though with ISIL is that unlike the IRA they are not likely people we can negotiate with ("our demands are the dismantling of Israel, complete withdrawal from all Muslim lands – maybe we might in return for that postpone the demand for a world wide caliphate" – they are not going to be bought off with promises of future referendums on a united Ireland and seats on the Policing Board etc)

also at least in the UK, there is a perception that in the US anything Russia does is opposed by many on the basis they are still really Commies underneath and many Brits probably think that Americans at least on the right really always view Reds as the real enemy.

Goragrad, as an ex British soldier I think I know more about IRA politics and methods than you.

I do not think that the victims of bomb care if the are planted by Catholic, Moslem or Agnostic.

Ad I say unless you think you can kill them all ypou have to talk at some stage

GNREP
I keep saying need to think the unthinkable.
If your solution is kill em all let God sort it out. Well that is unthinkable to me, ad discussion seems to be to others.

gnrep8--

My statement means exactly what it says -- you can't win a war by pretending that your enemy isn't your enemy. This statement is offered to counter those folks who refuse to even *consider* the question of whether these attacks having anything to do with Islam. *If* they are our enemy, then we probably need to know that.

And I have to say that it is surreal for folks to confidently and blithely dismiss even the possibility of an Islam-terrorism link. And who then indignantly scream "racist" or "bigot" when these assurances are not immediately accepted as fact.

You know, given the fact that self-identified Muslim terrorists seem to be committing attacks rather frequently. Add to that the fact that these folks claim to be acting in accordance with their prophet's command, and that their leader has a PhD in Islamic Studies, and that there do appear to be numerous violent commandments in the Koran and Hadiths.

Forgive me, but I don't feel convinced by blind, confident assurance from people who apparently haven't even read the Koran and Hadiths.

At the very least, I think a closer look might be merited. And I think that their self-righteous accusations of bigotry are a tad overwrought (and indicative of a lack of evidence to support their claims).

Oh and "Treebeard" is not my user name.

And I suspect that I can match you with multi-ethnic family and friends, but that has precisely *nothing* to do with whether there's a link between Islam and terrorists claiming to act in accordance with the prophet's commands. Besides, virtue-signaling is *so* lame.

tbeard are you really willing to kill your " multi-ethnic family and friends " if they are unfortunate enough to be tenuously related to a terrorist.

Crumple--

Of course not. Your point? (Please tell me it isn't YET ANOTHER tiresome "you're a bigot" attack).

Gunnerphil--

It was not necessary to kill all of the Germans and Japanese to put paid to their murderous ideology. I don't think that this changes for any other enemy.

Tbeard hope so.

But remember we are dealing with a different mindset. I do not claim to an expert in moslem mind but those I have know have known have often seen things very differently to me.

So one way to attack the problem of terrorism is to visit retribution on the clans or even nuclear families of individual terrorists.

Gunnerphil--

Many times -- not in your case -- apologists (or merely opponents of military action) will hysterically characterize the opposing position as advocating genocide. This is, of course, patently absurd, and strong evidence that they have no real arguments or facts on their side. I know you weren't doing this, but I figured that others might try. Hence my comment.

The Muslim world has conquered and been conquered throughout its history, I don't see any evidence that they are any more fanatical than the Germans and Japanese of WW2, so I don't believe that it would be necessary to "kill em all".

That said, the Islamist propensity for over the top violence, grotesque miscalculation, and delusional overconfidence, combined with a significant lack of testicular fortitude in many Western leaders, could lead them to commit acts so heinous that many might be killed unnecessarily due to Western moral outrage.

Crumple--

Yes, that is a strategy that has been demonstrably effective in combatting clan-based cultures, particularly ones prone to irregular warfare. I recall in the 1980s when Muslim terrorists took some Soviet diplomats hostage. They tortured and murdered one. This was the KGB's response:

"The KGB kidnapped a man they knew to be a close relative of a prominent Hezbollah leader. They then castrated him and sent the severed organs to the Hezbollah official, before dispatching the unfortunate kinsman with a bullet in the brain.

"In addition to presenting him with this grisly proof of their seriousness, the KGB operatives also advised the Hezbollah leader that they knew the indentities of other close relatives of his, and that he could expect more such packages if the three Soviet diplomats were not freed immediately."

The diplomats were freed immediately and no other Soviet hostages were taken.

By using tactics designed to combat clan-based cultures, the Soviets resolved a crisis without having to level entire cities or kill thousands in conventional attacks. <shrug> Would that -- killing thousands in conventional attacks -- have been a better approach?

Lets not forget the death toll in Paris would have been far higher if were not for the actions of an alert security guard who happened to be a Muslim – Zouheir:

link

Navy 417--

Most victims of Muslim terrorism are Muslims. So it's not surprising at all.

it was a quote from one of your posts, what if one of your friends/relatives was the one chosen as the counter threat.

Tbeard
The calls for crusade (not you) are as wrong as the appeasement brigade.

The truth will lie somewhere in the middle. It will take courage not military courage that exists but political courage, that is less of a supply.

But the start is debate, honest debate, where people can disagree,

You and I agree on more than we disagree,
Let us hope that people in charge can move away from sound bites and looking good for cameras and start to do the right thing

Crumple -- I am not a member of a "clan" as that term is defined in the third world. And none of my family are terrorists. So, your question seems to be pointless, does it not?

Gunnerphil-- Agreed in general. You and I have avoided the tactics used by so many others in this thread. We have not intentionally mischaracterized each other's position and have not responded to valid arguments with tiresome ad hominem attacks. It also appears that both of us are mindful that emotional beliefs are not the same as facts.

So of course we've had a constructive conversation :D

tbeard, Do you not know what Clan means? anyone of your "multi cultural friends and relatives" could be a member. It's no ones fault if a relative turns out to be a , but you advocate taking the innocent and torturing them as a lesson.

Crumple-- again you seem unwilling to read my posts. I said that I am not a member of a clan as that term applies in the third world.

So answer one question -- would you have preferred for the Soviets in the above example to have launched a conventional, indiscriminate bombing campaign in Lebanon? Or a conventional military invasion? Would that have been BETTER?

Crumple--

You are aware that noting that a strategy is effective is NOT the same as advocating it, aren't you?

And saying strategy A is more effective than strategy B is not the same as saying that strategy A should be used in all cases. You get that, don't you?

tbeard apols. Certainly i dont seek to claim that the terrorists are not linked to a radical branch/view call it what you will of Islam. As to reading the Koran – well its often said that people can find a justification for almost anything in the Bible too – certainly you have groups in the US with the very odd/nay vile views that they would claim they can find biblical justification for (mainly from the OT or sometimes bizarre interpretations of Paul I grant you)

tbeard, you purposely miss the point. You said you had multicultural friends and relatives.
You said seizing the relative of a terrorist and torturing them was fair game and ok.
How is it your " multicultural friends and relatives " fault that a member of their clan is a terrorist?

Gnrep8-- Understood. However, would you agree that the human ability to rationalize does not somehow render the Koran completely irrelevant to an analysis of Islamic beliefs?

Crumple-- I would not want any of my family/friends to die for any reason. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything…

Now that I've answered your question, please answer my question:

Would you have preferred for the Soviets to have launched a conventional military campaign in Lebanon, which would have likely killed hundreds or even thousands of people?

tbeard – but thats an ends justifies the means argument.Going down route you end up like the Argentinean military and police of the Dirty War – they probably believed that what they were doing was stopping more violence in the long run etc. Those kind of black ops are not an offered alternative to a conventional action – more of a lets try this and see if it works. Israel tries a targetted approach and certainly outside of your country has become quite morally isolated as a result

I would not want any of my family/friends to die for any reason. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything

Because it what you seem to be continually advocating as the only solution to dealing with anyone who follows a violent ideology

Meanwhile my Muslim sister and niece are living with me. I haven't yet noticed any tendencies but will certainly keep my eye out.

tbeard – of course the Koran is relevant – just as the Bible is the beliefs of many right wing Americans (I am a Christian btw just not a right wing one)

tbeard, so why offer it as a solution? Is it only OTHER peoples friends and family you would offer up for torture?

Could have a solution have been reached in '82, I don't know but a whole load of people have died there in the last 33 years.

…if the OT has been superseded by the NT, who is to say that both are not superseded by the (later) Koran? Or do we just get to pick and choose?

I keep saying need to think the unthinkable.
If your solution is kill em all let God sort it out. Well that is unthinkable to me, ad discussion seems to be to others.
----------------
different kind of war of course but of course we won WW2 without (even if was thought) offering the Germans anything other than unconditional surrender which in the face of the evil regime there was the right thing to do – maybe if the bomb plot had succeeded there could have been a govt to negotiate with but not as long as the Nazis were in charge.

Geoff-- I am very sorry for offending you. That was not my intention; I meant no disrespect to your sister. Had I realized that this was (understandably) highly personal, I would have likely been more sensitive in my comments. Sometimes I get caught up in the analytical stuff and fail to remember that I'm talking to people.

However, I never said that all Muslims are responsible for terrorist attacks and it is not a fair reading of my posts to infer that from my posts.

My point is simply that it is unreasonable to blindly assume that the terrorists have nothing to do with Islam. The evidence should be evaluated, not summarily dismissed by accusations of bigotry.

I am also not sanguine that Islam can modernize in the same way that Christianity did, due to profound differences in Islamic and Christian theology, which I identified.

Anyhow, my apologies for being insensitive. Just know you were tripped over, not kicked.

…all I was saying is we shouldn't be blaming all Muslims for the actions of what increasingly appears to be a small handful of nutcases.

Crumple -- why are you unwilling to answer my question about the Soviets?

tbeard, I did.

Gnrep8--

At the end of the day, most military decisions are made on the basis of utility. I am not taking a moral position on the Soviet actions. I merely note that they were very effective and that they caused FAR less destruction and death than the conventional attack option.

This cannot be fairly interpreted as a blanket "end justifies the means" argument. EDIT -- not saying you made that accusation. Just making my argument clear.

For the record, she moved out there in 1988 and married a Lebanese (who schooled in Kuwait and grew up in the UAE). She converted by her own choice and her six children have been raised as Muslims. I also lived out there for a while, so my fears that attempts by ISIS to turn this into a religious war are very close. I also work in education dealing with students across the Middle East (including Israeli, Saudi, Egyptian, Libyan and Syrian, all of whom seem to get on very well together).

Comments that seem to label Islam itself as the issue, rather than a radicalised element who wish to take the most extreme elements distorted to the furthest possible end as an excuse for waging war on civilians, smacks very hard of racial and religious intolerance. That's not meant as you personally, but something I monitor on a daily basis to ensure that no elements of it exist in my own environment.

My wife, technically Russian Orthodox, has read the Q'ran, as has my sister.

Crumple, I don't think you answered my question. But if you did, please humor me and answer it again. And it's cheating to argue that there were other options besides conventional attack. So, let's make it easy -- assume for purposes of discussion that the Soviets are willing to consider only two options -- (a) conventional attack, probably killing hundreds or even thousands or (b) the option they actually chose.

Which choice would *you* have preferred?

(As an aside, the Soviets also privately threatened to level an Iranian city. Had the KGB operation failed, it seems probable that they would have done so. So I guess you could choose that option…)

I'm not convinced that that the strategy of wiping out clans wholesale would not slide into genocide – those clans are extended and interconnected. So, Tbeard, see you in The Hague on that one eh?

I suppose "clan" doesn't really translate to the west, but if we are talking some kind of guilt via a blood connection, then I'd say your endorsing the concept of sippenhaft. That's a great precedent.

GNREP
Yes it was a different war, we shared a common belief system and history with both Germans and Italians.

Compare that to the war with Japan, no shared belief system, no common history. An enemy prepared to kill themselves to kill others.

Belief systems need to be taken into account. A solution that works in Europe might not play well in Asia.

We tried to force democracy on people that did not want it. Now the region is more unstable more unsafe and less democratic than before.

Any solution must take into account that not all people think the same way

Goonfighter, please read my posts before responding to them.

"Remember that the goal isn't necessarily extermination of a clan. Rather, it is to incentivize clan leaders to keep their members from being radicalized. If the West will simply adapt its warfighting to the realities of the cultures we're fighting, I'm optimistic that we can prevail without having to obliterate and occupy an entire region."

And since you have such strong feelings on the subject, please tell us what you would have preferred the Soviets to do in Lebanon -- flatten an Iranian city, kill hundreds or thousands in a conventional invasion or the actual option they chose.

Well?

How does that work with the home grown kids who become radicalised? We going to take actions against their (potentially entirely innocent and in many cases pretty much unaware) families too?

Why would you choosing to abandon your relatives to torture and rape give you any insight into what I would choose about 1982.
As I said , it could have been worse, it could have been better. It was in fact a world of shit.
Or are you talking about more recent events?

Geoff-- obviously, clan reprisals aren't a viable option for homegrown extremists. But by cutting off the extremism at its source, I would expect that radicalization of homegrown extremists would be dramatically lessened.

The problem of homegrown extremism requires different solutions, I think, than the problem of state-based (or encouraged) extremism. Personally, I think that the multicultural elites' hostility to assimilation is the most destructive thing that can be done to immigrant populations. I think it makes 2nd and 3rd generation radicalism far easier. But that's probably a different discussion.

Crumple, you gonna answer my question or not? If you *really* are so morally outraged then your answer is easy, isn't it?

Tbeard – aside from any other considerations I am not sure that this clan concept works anyway. Groups like Al-Q or ISIS don't have membership cards or some kind of overarching command network – its been a way of putting a convenient label on things by often lazy journalists and probably even military intell people. A lot of these attacks have effectively been self tasked by individuals who have been radicalised (the murderers of Lee Rigby in the UK were from Nigerian Christian families – how do you incentivise Nigerian Christians to stop people getting converted and radicalised – sounds too much like German WW2 corporate hostage taking/community responsiblity for my liking)

Also when one reads about how in Afghanistan the military were played by different factions and families, one would have serious concerns about how accurate the intell of some kind of modern version of the Phoenix Program would be – according to one very clever British intell officer (who spoke the languages etc and had studied tribal structures – probably not too popular with his fellow officers) a lot of the people kept in prison there were not involved in Al-Q whilst those who were got released.

Well, I've tried to read them but all I seem to see is "kill them all and let God sort them out". It gets a bit boring after a while.

As to the Russian Solution, I don't actually have strong feelings. what I do have is a strong feeling of concern as to whether any of my Parisian colleagues won't be turning up for work. In that context your views are sand in the wind.