Paris Attacked

[Seattle Husker]

27 posts into this thread and nobody still has any valid ideas other than the "kill them all" approach above by theiioftx.. Lots of strawmen though like the insinuation that somewhere someone has advocated for uncontrolled immigration into the country.

Clearly, there are no easy answers to the threat of this radical ideology. Removing ISIS from their controlled territory certainly has to be done, whether in Syria, Iraq or in Northern Africa. That won't kill an ideology though. In fact, the process we'd have to undergo to remove them may actually fan the ideology, achieving ISIS's larger goal.

We can try to stop terror at our border but the far greater threat is the homegrown terrorist that picks up the ideology directly from the internet. How do you stop the homegrown terrorist with no criminal history or overt signs of radicalization?

While some on the far right want to simplify this to a conventional military activity against "radical Islam" this has the potential be much more far reaching and impactful if we don't combat this radicalism militarily and intellectually and emotionally. We are at war for the hearts and minds of younger Muslims.

 

[Joe Fan]

Below is a Fatah (the party of Abbas) cartoon

Can you guess who they blame for Paris without looking?

*

*

*

*

*

*

 

[Joe Fan]

27 posts into this thread and nobody still has any valid ideas other than the "kill them all" approach above by theiioftx.. .....

Not sure that is accurate. One of the biggest problems is that, at this late point, there is no easy solution. Of the available solutions, the political willingness is not there to take the most effective ones. This has been pointed out countless times on these pages, by posters here as well as via links. For example, here are a couple excepts from a piece written by an ex-NSA guy. I bolded what I think is his is his moneyline with regard to the issue you raise.


" ...... The impact of these attacks on the European Union is likely to be deep and long-lasting. What 9/11 was for America in 2001, what Bali was for Australia in 2002, and what 7/7 was for Britain in 2005, the Paris atrocity will likely be for France—and for Europe. The Schengen Agreement, which gave the EU open borders, was already ailing under the impact of vast numbers of refugees surging into Europe from Asia and Africa. The Paris attacks may functionally end Schengen altogether.

Happy notions of Europe replenishing itself with millions of migrants have dwindled suddenly. In response to the Paris attacks, Poland has signaled it plans to reject the migrant quota the EU had given Warsaw, and it would be naïve to expect Poland to be the last to do so, given how unhappy many Eastern European states were with the quota arrangement already.

Stemming the flow of jihadists and their weaponry across Europe is a must-do for the EU now but there is ample reason to be skeptical it can be achieved anytime soon. In the first place, despite strict laws in France regarding guns, terrorists have no trouble getting AK-47s.

* * * *

There now will be much commentary from pundits and politicians arguing it’s time to “get tough” with the jihadists in Europe, accompanied by promises of more resources to deter the next outrage. Spies will believe such promises when executed, not before, but the stark reality is that there is no intelligence or law enforcement fix to the threat that Europe now faces from the global jihad.

As I explained back in January, after the last outrage in Paris, although France has very competent security services, among the best in Europe at countering terrorism, the number of potential jihadists is now so vast that no intelligence agency can reliably track and deter them all. Time and again, suspects on watch-lists go missing. In real life, unlike the movies, intelligence is never perfect.

Unless Paris is willing to contemplate harsher measures, such as the internment of potential jihadists, known Islamist radicals, we should expect more attacks. There is democratic precedent for this. In October 1970, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, a liberal icon, declared martial law, deployed the army in the streets, and rounded up nearly 500 extremists, thereby crushing the nascent terror threat in Quebec. Bleeding hearts objected but Trudeau’s famous response, “go on and bleed,” was telling—and he won....."

http://observer.com/2015/11/jihadists-attack-paris-again-the-world-is-horrified/

 

[Joe Fan]

Addendum to underlined above, since that article was published, France has come out for "effectively" ending the Schengen open borders routine

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...tive-suspension-of-Schengen-open-borders.html

 

[Seattle Husker]

That's the first I've read of "internment camps" on this message board. It's a radical approach but it's an idea. I believe the Muslim communities in the outskirts of Paris and Belgium are already isolated to some degree. I believe the French President mentioned immediately locking down the Paris Muslim Suburbs. Could this be the start of an Israel-light cordoning off specific communities where known terrorists operate from?

 

[theiioftx]

27 posts into this thread and nobody still has any valid ideas other than the "kill them all" approach above by theiioftx.. Lots of strawmen though like the insinuation that somewhere someone has advocated for uncontrolled immigration into the country.

Clearly, there are no easy answers to the threat of this radical ideology. Removing ISIS from their controlled territory certainly has to be done, whether in Syria, Iraq or in Northern Africa. That won't kill an ideology though. In fact, the process we'd have to undergo to remove them may actually fan the ideology, achieving ISIS's larger goal.

We can try to stop terror at our border but the far greater threat is the homegrown terrorist that picks up the ideology directly from the internet. How do you stop the homegrown terrorist with no criminal history or overt signs of radicalization?

While some on the far right want to simplify this to a conventional military activity against "radical Islam" this has the potential be much more far reaching and impactful if we don't combat this radicalism militarily and intellectually and emotionally. We are at war for the hearts and minds of younger Muslims.

I think you are misinterpreting most of those 27 posts. Military action is one part of the equation and a comprehensive internal strategy is now needed due to the mostly inaction by Obama. Those 27 posts are advocating something beyond jobs for the JV.

Now Obama and the democrats are advocating to welcome them into the United States saying they will vet these people to make sure they are not terrorists. Is that a good idea? Most everyone admits, proven Friday by his interview, that Obama has underestimated ISIS? Do you?

What is potentially scarier - has Obama underestimated Iran with the nuclear deal?

 

[Joe Fan]

Another idea ...
Probably long overdue
All Western Nations should do same






edit/update -- So I guess Ted Cruz introduced bill like this proposal above^ -- to revoke American passports of ISIS joiners
But Hawaii Senator Hirono killed it.

 

[Musburger1]

Obama addressed the Syria/Paris situation today (link). What he said with respect to not sending in ground troops makes sense, but he also leaves out pertinent background information and twists the facts a little bit. But everyone else does the same thing.

Summarizing with my commentary:
1. Sending in ground troops would be a mistake. We could easily take back key cities occupied by ISIS, but because the local populations aren't amenable to inclusive government, a permanent occupation would be required to maintain stability. This isn't feasible, especially because the same template of occupation would have to be repeated in other places. There simply isn't the manpower, willpower, etc. to permanently occupy trouble spots wherever terrorists pop up.
I agree with this. Iraq would probably be much more stable had we maintained a large military presence, but the strain on military personnel would be great. Also, a military occupation in Iraq would have no bearing on the terrorist haven in what is now Libya. We would have to occupy that country as well. How feasible is that?
2. Obama said we would continue to squeeze ISIS by doing what we are already doing; cutting off financing, taking out strategic targets, and trying to convince Russia that ISIS presents a danger to them as well.
This is total propaganda and twisting of the facts. First of all, the United States continues to provide weapons and training to the Gulf State allies which spawn the Wahabbi ideology that fuels ISIS. Secondly, Russia and Putin don't have to be convinced that ISIS presents a danger to them. They fought a war in Chechnya against this ideology and keeping them at bay is a constant effort. Russia's first priority is to support the Syrian government (Assad) and that means securing the Eastern part of Syria first. It just happens that the "moderate Jihadis" that the US has been supporting constitute the biggest immediate threat and that's were most of the Russian firepower is aimed. The US refuses to cooperate with Russia unless Russia agrees to force out Assad. That ain't gonna happen.

What Obama (or anyone else) didn't say:

Why is it so important for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Quatar, etc. to overthrown Assad? Assad runs a secular government and does not pose a military threat to any of the Gulf countries. There are at least two reasons for this.

1. Syria facilitates the relationship between Iran (Shiite) and Lebanon's Hezbollah (Shiite). The Gulf States are basically fighting a proxy war against Iran for geopolitical purposes.

2. For economic reasons, regime change in Syria would make possible gas transport via pipeline from the Middle East Gulf States into Turkey and thus Europe. This means hundreds of billions of dollars into the coffers of the Gulf States (and away from Russia) if a regime change favorable to the Gulf States (a Suni regime) takes power.

Why is the US so interested in ousting Assad?

Obviously the human rights excuse is ********. Our Gulf States allies are just as bad and probably much worse than Assad with respect to human rights. But for geopolitical reasons, regime change makes sense for the US. With Assad remaining in control of Syria, both the Iranian and Russian influence in that part of the world remain stable and probably even increase. Russia continues to be the primary energy provider to Europe and the Gulf States are shut out of that market with respect to gas.

So the US allows and supports the war to overthrow Assad even realizing that ISIS and other jihadist groups are the instruments used to achieve that goal. As a result, global terrorism gains a stronger foothold and is a growing threat to wreak havoc across Europe and perhaps even in North America down the road. But you can't have your cake and eat it to. If ISIS and Islamic terrorism is the greater enemy, the US needs to cutoff support to our farcical allies in the Gulf States. If Russian/Iranian influence in the energy rich Middle East threaten either or security or long-term economic viability, I think we have to come up with another strategy to deal with that other than turning lose Wahabbism on the Shia's or the Russians. But none of this is discussed on television. Its all ignored. Terrorism is basically a symptom of the greater problem which is who will control a key region of the planet.

 

[texas_ex2000]

27 posts into this thread and nobody still has any valid ideas other than the "kill them all" approach above by theiioftx.

Valid idea for what?

Islamic extremists have been attacking the United States since the beginning of the 19th Century. And they've been in a jihad with Wesern Civilization since the 1st Century. They will never go away. If Thomas Jefferson couldn't figure this out, do you really think there's actually a way to make this go away? And Globalization only makes them more deadly.

The question, "what can we do to eliminate Islamic extremism?" is a naive one. There isn't anything we can do about them. What we can do, is be the best badass America we can be. This, "People hate the ugly Americans," is a fabrication. The only ones that really dislike Americans are freaking jihadists. Politics aside, even Russians enjoy visiting here. People around the World love America. That's why so many people immigrate here, why American movies, music, and franchises are so popular.

The America the world wants and rallies around is the America that leads described by Admiral McRaven in that video.

 

[texas_ex2000]

edit/update -- So I guess Ted Cruz introduced bill like this proposal above^ -- to revoke American passports of ISIS joiners
But Hawaii Senator Hirono killed it.

Like I've said before, Texans and Le Francais are a lot more similar that everyone thinks.

 

[Clean]

If you'd have listened to the Demo debate, you'd know the answer to stopping global jihadism. Bernie explained it. Jihadism is an offshoot of Global Warming. As drought dries up the farm lands, the young men move to the cities hoping for jobs. When they don't get jobs, they are susceptible to recruitment by the likes of ISIS. Thus Global Warming = Global Terrorism. See? Stop Global Warming and it all works out for the good.

HRC still refused to let the phrase "radical islamists" trickle from her lips. She said that "it paints with too broad a brush". I guess she's hoping for the Muslim vote too.

https://www.rebelmouse.com/constalky/1455820685.html

 

[Seattle Husker]

Valid idea for what?

Islamic extremists have been attacking the United States since the beginning of the 19th Century. And they've been in a jihad with Wesern Civilization since the 1st Century. They will never go away. If Thomas Jefferson couldn't figure this out, do you really think there's actually a way to make this go away? And Globalization only makes them more deadly.

The question, "what can we do to eliminate Islamic extremism?" is a naive one. There isn't anything we can do about them. What we can do, is be the best badass America we can be. This, "People hate the ugly Americans," is a fabrication. The only ones that really dislike Americans are freaking jihadists. Politics aside, even Russians enjoy visiting here. People around the World love America. That's why so many people immigrate here, why American movies, music, and franchises are so popular.

The America the world wants and rallies around is the America that leads described by Admiral McRaven in that video.

Can I just put you in the "kill them all" camp then?

 

[Joe Fan]

Like I've said before, Texans and Le Francais are a lot more similar that everyone thinks.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Can I just put you in the "kill them all" camp then?

If you watch that video, Admiral McRaven is in that camp.

Here's the problem with your question. You cannot kill your way to victory. But you must kill (kinetically) as many of them as you can.

6:53 mark: "You have to eliminate the irreconcileables. This is tough for people when you have to talk in stark terms and you say, 'We have to kill the leadership.' No one wants to use the word 'kill.' And we find a nice word to dance around. Does that mean you have to kill a lot of them?

Yes you do."

 

[Joe Fan]

There was a soccer match in Dublin (I think it was today but maybe last night)
Ireland v. Bosnia in the Euro 2016 playoff second leg.
The stadium called for a moment of silence prior to the start.
But it was disrupted by Bosnian fans who booed and shouted "F France."

http://www.balls.ie/football/minutes-silence-ireland-bosnia/316176

 

[NJlonghorn]

I heard a teaser for an NPR interview, but tuned out before listening to it. The guy being interviewed took the position that ISIS's reason for the Paris bombings was to entice the rest of the world into a massive war. That they wanted to awaken the slumbering lion.

My knee-jerk reaction is that he may be right. One interpretation of the Quran is that it predicts a final battle in which Jews, Christians and Hindus team up against Muslims, and that Muslims prevail and live on in eternal bliss. Is ISIS trying to precipitate that final battle, so that they can recruit other Muslims to join them? If so, to what extent will it work?

 

[Joe Fan]

Video where ISIS says they are coming to DC, god willing, of course.

"..... coming with booby traps and explosives, coming with explosive belts and silencers and you will be unable to stop us because today we are much stronger than before.”

 

[Seattle Husker]

If you watch that video, Admiral McRaven is in that camp.

Here's the problem with your question. You cannot kill your way to victory. But you must kill (kinetically) as many of them as you can.

I fully agree that this is not a problem that will ever go away. I don't think we can kill our way to minimizing the problem either.

 

[texas_ex2000]

I don't think we can kill our way to minimizing the problem either.

Why?

And let me direct you to another post I made on 6721's thread on foreign aid:

http://www.hornfans.com/threads/why-are-we-giving-70-million-to-pakistan-for-education.100465/

 

[theiioftx]

I fully agree that this is not a problem that will ever go away. I don't think we can kill our way to minimizing the problem either.

Can we put you in the "inconvenient truth" camp of solving the ISIS problem? Lots of people on the left advocating the "do nothing" policy as a way of becoming friends with Muslim Extremists. Good luck with that.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Can we put you in the "inconvenient truth" camp of solving the ISIS problem? Lots of people on the left advocating the "do nothing" policy as a way of becoming friends with Muslim Extremists. Good luck with that.

Can you point to anyone on the left who advocates doing nothing about ISIS?

 

[texas_ex2000]

Can you point to anyone on the left who advocates doing nothing about ISIS?

NJ,

I think the implication is air strikes, no combat boots on the ground in Syria, and Hillary's "ISIS is not America's fight" is effectively advocating to do nothing.

From the benchmark of a real actual impact, forget effectively, it is doing nothing.

 

[theiioftx]

Can you point to anyone on the left who advocates doing nothing about ISIS?

Primarily Obama. How is that?

Can you point to anyone to the left who has done anything meaningful or effective? Drawing a line in the sand in Syria did nothing to control Assad. It opened the door for ISIS to gain strength. Did he do anything effective in Iraq other than pull out all meaningful defenses?

Are the democratic candidates offering anything beyond making friends and stopping global warming?

Was training 5 Syrian fighters using hundreds of millions dollars effective?

Do tell. We are all waiting.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

27 posts into this thread and nobody still has any valid ideas other than the "kill them all" approach

You're assuming there is a solution. It would be great if there were a "cure" for extremism. Maybe there is. But just because you haven't found a cure yet doesn't mean you don't treat the symptoms.

I heard a teaser for an NPR interview, but tuned out before listening to it. The guy being interviewed took the position that ISIS's reason for the Paris bombings was to entice the rest of the world into a massive war. That they wanted to awaken the slumbering lion.

I've seen that argument made in a slightly different way by a number of liberals - "don't allow this to rob you of your humanity and tolerance. That is the intended outcome." (That's a direct quote, btw.) I'm pretty sure their goal is to kill infidels, but whatever. The twist is that unlike in your scenario - which makes sense in a twisted sort of way - their argument is basically that the terrorists want to turn us into bad people.

The tweet from that Daily Show guy summed it up well after he had ridiculed the idea of terrorists coming in disguised as refugees - "this act was perpetrated by giant a@@holes." That's the approach so many seem to take: we need to assume that the people coming in think like us and share our values and only want good things, and then when it turns out they do something bad like blow up a building, our response is to say "well that was mean! Thoughts and prayers, we stand as one, I am (insert impacted country), facebook meme, etc.." We weren't stupid in not taking precautions, we were right. But that guy was just a jerk.

We need to stop taking the attitude that terrorists are just rude party guests, and "there's always that guy!" Having buildings blown up and people killed should not be considered "an acceptable risk" of making sure that hundreds of thousands of people who claim to be refugees - a large portion of whom are young single men - can all come into the country of their choice and import cultural norms that do not mesh with Western society (i.e. free speech, respect for women, no honor killings).

 

[Joe Fan]

Another soccer match with a moment of silence for Paris gets booed
This one Turkey v. Greece in Istanbul
Amazing

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Mr. Deez]

Terror attack foiled (about 4 hours from my area). Surely Muslims couldn't have been behind this. It must have been those damn Catholic nuns or the Buddhist monks.

 

[Mr. Deez]

And another attack foiled in Tunisia. I'm sure it was those blood thirsty Quakers or Hasidic Jews.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Sounds like we could fix a lot of this just by leveling this neighborhood in Brussels.

 

[Joe Fan]

Snowden -- hero or enema of the state?

Here is an interview with the CIA head on this issue -- Snowden/Paris
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...s-snowden-michael-morell-interview-cia-213373

Michael Hirsh: How did the Snowden revelations help the Islamic State, and did they somehow lead to the Paris attacks?

Michael Morell: First, ISIS went to school on how we were collecting intelligence on terrorist organizations by using telecommunications technologies. And when they learned that from the Snowden disclosures, they were able to adapt to it and essentially go silent … And so, part of their rise was understanding what our capabilities were, adjusting to them so we couldn’t see them. No doubt in my mind. And the people who say otherwise are just trying to defend Edward Snowden.

Two—and much more damaging: The Snowden disclosures created this perception that people’s privacy was being put at significant risk. It wasn’t only the Snowden disclosures about [Section] 215 [of the PATRIOT Act, allowing for the mass collection of telephone metadata] that created that, it was the media’s handling of it. The media went to the darkest corner of the room, the CNNs and the FOXes etc. of the world, those people who have a 24/7 news cycle. In those early days, if you were watching CNN, they were saying the NSA is listening to your phone calls. It’s reading your emails. When you call your grandma in Arkansas, the NSA knows. All total bulls--t. They made the public more concerned about the privacy issue than the legitimate facts should have done. And so, the result of that was everything you’ve seen. The constraining of 215. The IT companies building encryption without keys. That is all, at the end of the day, back in Snowden’s lap, in my view.

As far as Paris goes, we don’t know for sure yet how these guys communicate among themselves and how they communicated back to the ISIS leadership in Iraq and Syria, but I’m fairly confident we’re going to learn they used these encrypted communication applications that have commercial encryption and are extremely difficult for companies to break—and which the companies have made the decision not to produce a key for. Even if the government goes to them with a warrant, they can’t give them anything because they don’t have a key. These companies made these decisions about encryption when they were finding it very difficult to sell their products overseas because the Snowden disclosures created the impression that the U.S. government was inside this hardware and software produced by them. They needed to do something to deal with the perception.