"Paris under attack" Topic

I could be wrong but I don't expect that Crumple (or goonfighter for that matter) will answer my question.

Obviously, it's because if he sticks to his stated moral position -- "clan reprisals are evil and anyone who mentions them is evil", then he has to admit that he'd rather hundreds or thousands die in a conventional attack. In other words, better to kill thousands than kill one clan member.

And adopting such a dubious position would seriously damage his credibility I think.

*This* is why one should be very careful about moralizing. Moral positions, if they are to have any meaning, must be absolute.

tbeard, you'll have to ask your question again, I thought it was about Russian involvement in the Lebanon .

Gnrep8 -- there are plenty of examples of clan reprisals working. Like any strategy, it will not work in every case. But I think it's a better option than conventional invasion and conquest, which is how we last got rid of murderous ideologies (WW2).

I do think that the West struggles with clan cultures. As I mentioned, this was what caused the disastrous British retreat from Kabul in the 1840s. Nationalism is such an integral part of Western civilization that we struggle understanding how clans work in the non-Western world.

Do you still not get it? One of your friends could be the reprisal!

Crumple, my question may be found in my post made at 1:11 pm PST. So are you gonna answer it?

EDIT-- Oh what the heck, here it is for the THIRD time:

For purposes of discussion assume 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 (i.e. killing a member of the terrorist leader's clan and threatening to kill more if the hostages weren't released).

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…)

So…you gonna answer this question?

I'm not saying you are evil, just that there are dangerous moral – and as GNREP8 points out – practical issues in your concept.

You seem intent to consider a lack of a sufficient reply an admission of defeat. I think you need to realise that unless you are by some amazing chance some kind of west wing decision maker, you are really just some bloke having a rant.

In the late 1700's the Highland clan chiefs conspired with the lowland Scots merchants to get rid of the troublesome clans from the highlands. They did it!! The genius of it was they blamed it on the English.
The lesson is that attacking a clan makes it stronger.All it does is spread it over the world.
tbeard, torture one of mine and I'll make it my life to destroy you.
Your disgusting method will not work.

tbeard, I finally understand, you're talking about smallscale special forces actions. has that got to do with this?

Crumple and Goonfighter--

Sadly, it appears that you are unwilling to answer a single question I posed to you. Presumably because doing so would expose the weakness of your stated moral position.

<shrug>

If you find that a question obliterates a position you've taken, you should reconsider the position, not refuse to answer the question. At least that's how it seems to me. But then, I hate wasting time and energy on indefensible statements and positions.

Crumple, you may rest assured that it is highly unlikely I'd ever torture one of yours (whatever that means). While I'm flattered by your assumption that I hold such fearsome powers, I assure you that I am not so powerful. Even if I were, I would exercise such powers with a fair (but firm) hand.

As for your argument that clan reprisals wouldn't work, well, I just gave you an actual historical example of one working. What else do you want?

For purposes of discussion assume 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 (i.e. killing a member of the terrorist leader's clan and threatening to kill more if the hostages weren't released).

tbeard – i know you don't see it like that, but your idea is an ends justifies the means ones just with the clan angle. That kind of moral question has been posed in TV progs like 24 and in some real life policing etc situations – if someone knows where a bomb (or maybe lets be more practical a large stash of drugs or guns) is do you torture him/her if necessary to death to get the answer and potentially save many. I guess from some povs you do. In Ulster we could have easily killed every single IRA murdering terrorist and their disgreceful US fundraisers (or even just concentrated on the so called high command and their grannies) but all that would have done would have been sow more seeds of revenge for the future.

Oh, and Goonfighter--

You stated in your previous post that you are unwilling to read what I actually wrote. That's your choice, of course. But -- and I'm just spitballing here --perhaps you should refrain from criticizing my positions.

Because, you know, if you don't read what I wrote, then your criticisms of what I wrote will necessarily be rather uninformed.

Just a thought that you might consider.

ye cool it worked. Only problem for you is that the clan member was your best mate's sister's cousin.She got chewed up as revenge.so now it's about hate.

Gnrep8--

You can't fairly infer from my posts that I believe in the blanket proposition that the end always justifies the means.

Of course, the end often does justify the means. If my goal is to satiate my hunger (the end) then my purchase of a hamburger is justified. Indeed, what we normally refer to as a "good decision" should pass the ends-mean test most of the time.

Anyhow, I won't play "hide the ball". I very much prefer the clan reprisal strategy over large scale conventional attacks, assuming equivalent effectiveness. It seems self-evident to me that the Soviet reprisal in Lebanon was far better overall than conventional attack or leveling an entire city.

<shrug>

Unfortunately the clan solution assumes that the other side will be reasonable and consider the threat sufficient to make them reconsider their actions or those of other members of the clan.

However it tends to show a lack of understanding of the mentality of the detached radical elements, who are more likely to use it to further the 'it's them vs us' extremism and actually just propagate more violence. As identified, it fuels the hate.

Is it better to level the city? Probably not. I don't have the answer, but I can understand that targetting potentially innocent family and friends just turns the hate very very personal…

And you are then dealing with a culture that is willing to carry that hate for generations.

The solution has to come from social change from within.

your view – finding a bomb before it detonates would normally be a good thing so therefore pulling someone's fingernails out to do it or much worse therefore passes the test. You wont be surprised to know that one of my favourite film lines on this kind of moral maze question is the bit (in shortened form) from a Man for All Seasons where when asking Roper if he would cut down every law to get after the devil, Thomas More says "And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down…d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake".

It's like the classic western scenario that hires the gunfighter to clear the town up, then finds they are living with a violent gunfighter

Geoff-- as noted the Soviets used the clan reprisal strategy and it worked. We can have this discussion elsewhere, but I've spent a little time learning about clan psychology. Essentially, a clan leader cannot survive if he helplessly allows very many of his clansmen to be murdered. He will lose power and quite likely his life if his clan suffers serious casualties. Therefore, a reprisal strategy should be very effective, but only if the clan leader believes that his clan is seriously threatened. So threats of reprisals must be followed through.

A clan leader who knows that his clan will suffer severe reprisals if his members commit terrorist acts will be very incentivized to prevent radicalization of his clan members. Remember too that clan leaders tend to be fairly capable men. Otherwise they could not typically rise to leadership positions (and keep them).

In any case, I think that there is considerably evidence that this strategy in fact works very well. After all, it is how most Middle Eastern rulers keep power.

'Is it better to level the city? Probably not. I don't have the answer, but I can understand that targetting potentially innocent family and friends just turns the hate very very personal…'

And it would be a criminal offence as well as a war crime. There's enough issues caused by drone strikes without consciously going after someone who may have no actual involvement in activities. Btw I am under no illusion, knowing a fair number of people who have been in the military and police that there would be plenty of people who'd go for your approach and that my approach would be seen by many as liberal do-goodism (even though I believe in using legitimate LE and military force). But then as we say 3m people read The Sun everyday but it doesn't mean its a good newspaper

Ah, the firm but fair hand. That's how it starts. Just the one example to warn the rest. And another….oh, make it a whole village this time.

Power corrupts. This suggestion is worthy of some of the worst names in history. Only my opinion of course and being a silly old liberal Brit, I'm incapable of defending it.

I have read your posts but as I said, they get a bit samey. There I go again. Good grief, haven't you heard of banter and or irony?

Meanwhile you've not addressed the points made as to the need for firm intelligence as to which (extended) clan to target -by which time some schools, hospitals and generally innocent in laws at a wedding have been killed, firmly angering their other relatives who now want your blood (but will settle for that of someone from, well, the same hemisphere as you). And while that's going on, some blokes who aren't part of any clan, who no one is watching (because they aren't part of a clan) have got really wound up by stuff on the internet and, well, that always ends well.

And you think that's a plan? If so, I really, really, need a drink.

After all, it is how most Middle Eastern rulers keep power.
-----------
Yes though emulating morally bankrupt regimes whose collapse (despite playing the clan/tribal game) has led to the very instability that has helped ISIL is maybe not the best thing to do.

You've studied them. I've lived with them. I've seen how the family will happily stab each other in the back (in a business sense) but attack one of thrm and they will suddenly rally together. I would suggest that the potential for setting up a generational feud is much higher than the chance of success, unless you are heading down a complete clan genocide route – it simply helps radical leadership to point to a common enemy, which is exactly what ISIS are attempting to do. You are still proposing targetting individual innocent people as a means to preventing actions by what may be a single radicalised individual.

I think this is all getting a bit of a British and American thing (notwithstanding that we in the past did some pretty terrible things in the days when we thought that being white and British made us morally superior to anyone else) and going round in circles to be frank. Fortunately no-one here is devising CT strategy and we will doubtless bumble along with all the extreme right and left telling us what we are doing is wrong and will see us all a) becoming Muslims apparently b) living in a police state

Gnrep8-- the argument that by using the enemy's methods, we become like them is, frankly, ridiculous. It's utterly illogical because it confuses tactics with goals. It's also very easy to disprove:

The GIs and Tommies that stormed ashore at Normandy Beach used the same methods and weapons as the Germans -- rifles, flamethrowers, tanks, airplanes, etc. Yet they did not turn into Nazis.

Now, some tactics are more morally questionable than others IN CERTAIN CONTEXTS. But context matters. Clan reprisals might be immoral if the problem could be solved just as effectively by arresting an individual. But they are, in my opinion, the moral choice if the alternative is to kill hundreds or thousands in a conventional attack.

Indeed, I fail to understand how clan reprisals differ from normal conventional warfare tactics. In conventional war, innocents die all the time. While civilized armies should avoid gratuitous civilian casualties, it is well settled in international law that legitimate military objectives take precedence over civilian lives. So when terrorists hide behind civilians, they may be engaged despite the fact that civilians will likely die. When civilians live near munition factories, the factories may be targeted despite the fact that civilians may die.

While clan reprisals may offend our Western sense of fair play, they are undeniably effective. And since we are fighting foes who explicitly reject our notions of fair play, I think that we should modify our tactics accordingly. The laws of warfare are NOT a suicide pact.

Geoff-- I am describing a tactic that has been shown to work. Indeed, it *depends* on exactly the kind of familial bonds you describe.

And where the alternative is conventional invasion or bombing, I think that clan reprisals are the better options (if they are effective in the specific context).

Remember -- in these cultures, family and clan are *everything*. They provide what passes for security and usually what passes for economic opportunity. Someone who violates the clan leader's orders and who exposes the clan to destruction will be killed by his own clansmen. And that is the incentive to keep clansmen -- typically young men -- from being radicalized.

I should add that I am well acquainted with Middle East and Pakistani business culture. Don't get me started :)

Goonfighter-- when I say that the Blitzkrieg is an effective strategy in a TMP post, I am not typically asked to provide detailed fuel and ammunition resupply plans, describe how POWs will be dealt with, how occupied territory will be administered, and so on.

I am making what is understood to be a broad statement and most rational people understand that implementing the blitzkrieg is too complex to distill into a few forum posts.

I am stating that my readings lead me to believe that clan reprisals could be a very effective strategy; far more effective (and far less destructive) than conventional operations. Simply pointing out that it may be more complex than I describe in the post doesn't really get us very far, does it? And it certain does not constitute a rebuttal of my assertion.

Shown to work on one occasion, but having effectively lived with a middle eastern family 'clan' for nigh on 30 years I can pretty much guarantee that it stands more chances of generating hate at a personal level than it does of success.

Gnrep8--

I meant to reply earlier but got distracted. I think Americans -- mostly in true blue Massachusetts -- who gave money to the IRA should have been shot.

Indeed, I said to a buddy on the afternoon of 9/11/01 -- "Game over for the IRA. Supporting terrorists just became VERY uncool."

Geoff -- we'll have to agree to disagree then.

Tbeard
The GIs and Tommies that stormed ashore at Normandy Beach used the same methods and weapons as the Germans -- rifles, flamethrowers, tanks, airplanes, etc. Yet the did not turn into Nazis.

------------
that to be frank in this context and website is really a bit silly. we all know what we mean by using the enemy's methods in that context – no-one ever means using tanks or blitzkrieg tactics – they would mean using say in the case of the Nazis, using tactics like torture or hostage taking etc would be wrong and a war crime no matter how laudable the goal. They mean in the war against terror, using terror like cutting people's gonads off with wire clippers as a state tactic. And its not a matter of offending a sense of Western fair play – its a crime and a war crime.

That the KGB did it, an organisation that happily killed many civilians and sent others into mental institutions, is not surprising.

You should read about the old RSA apartheid era police's tactics – initial targetting of terrorists by guys who started out as relatively normal cops, turned into free for all of corruption and murder as they became morally degraded themselves and ended up even stealing the radios out of the cars of their targets (after all how could they turn them in as the killings were all extra judicial in the first place, even though acting under orders from higher ups). You may have read a lot about business culture there but i have read a fair bit about the police/military culture in countries like South Africa and Argentina when tactics of fair play were 'modified'.

Gnrep8--

Again, tactics and goals are completely different. Using an effective tactic like clan reprisals will not automatically turn us into middle eastern strongmen anymore than flying F-15s turned Saudi pilots into egalitarian, democracy loving Americans.

Each tactic should be evaluated on its own merits. The fact that a strongman (or the kgb) uses a tactic does not, by itself, automatically invalidate the tactic.

Oh and my knowledge of third world business culture is from experience, not reading.

tbeard, give me one example of where your method works.

In Western societies, we generally penalize people for their actions, not their beliefs or their associations or family ties.

kyote,

You need to check out some videos on youtube by a man that knows. His name is Tommy Sotomayor. Enjoy.

Mark

Truly astounding ignorance being spouted on this thread…

A Muslim security guard was badly injured preventing a bomber entering the Stade de France. A Muslim policeman was murdered in January by the Charlie Hebdo gang.

Muslims are, frankly, doing more to fight ISIS than we are. And suffering from their violence more.

Too bad kyote. It's enlightening. entertaining and human.

Mark

The University where I work has just held a small vigil, remembering not only those who died in France, but also Lebanon and Iraq.

It was well attended by both students and staff, represented from all faiths and nationalities from all over the world.

This thread had wound up with multiple DHing.

I'm astonished!

Actually, I'm genuinely shocked that there's not more!

John T

I am old and almost deaf so unless it has closed captioning, I don't watch youtube…

You might want to check to see if it has captions…

Oh…and I'm still waiting for your answer…

This thread had wound up with multiple DHing.

I've managed to miss the dragnet so far JT ! But the day is young !

My dear friend Ralph… you are playing bordeline?… (smile)…

Amicalement
Armand

Paris Raid Targeted Suspected Ringleader of Terror Attacks

"A police raid in a Paris suburb ended after seven hours Wednesday with two people dead, seven arrested and the fate of the suspected mastermind of last Friday's attack in the French capital unclear.

Paris Prosecutor Francois Molins confirmed the officials were seeking Abdelhamid Abaaoud, a Belgian national of Moroccan descent, but did not immediately confirm if Abaaoud was at the site.

Speaking shortly after the siege ended, President Francois Hollande said France is "at war" with terrorism, but warned against overreactions. "No xenophobic, anti-Semite, anti-Muslim act must be tolerated," he said…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

The French are doing what they have to do …

And don't worry Tango … don't think I've said anything to upset any of the Eds. ! Yet …

Oh and my knowledge of third world business culture is from experience, not reading.
-------------------
its a true story though that illustrates the corruption that giving people such power and taking the rules away leads to and I have some experience too on the subject having worked in Africa and spent some time with SA cops

Well this thread did fill up the Dawghouse

Cannot state what I want since that would put me in there as well.

It seems that, despite some assertions that they can't as their book basically tells them to go out and kill, we are seeing more and more peaceful Muslims condemning the actions of a small group of radical extremists who claim to do so in their name and the name of their religion.

SIS (there is nothing Islamic about them) want to turn this into a religious war, Islam v Christian, because it's the only way they can guarantee sufficient support. By making it into "Christians want to kill all Muslims" they play on fears and generate paranoia, and attempt to consolidate their position.

I was moved to see Parisian Muslims on the street over the last couple of days, exposed to the population of France by wearing a blindfold with a notice at their feet that read "I am a Muslim, I am not a terrorist, will you give me a hug"

I was more moved to see the number of French people, some of them in tears, who were willing to do so. It shows that we can rise above the hatred that some disillusioned individuals wish to perpetuate.

GeoffQRF:

Agree with you GeoffQUF … and one of my french relatives has been wounded… even that… he didn't hate muslims … french people know who is the enemy…

Amicalement
Armand