Attacks in Paris + Belgium

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

is that claiming refugees had nothing to do with the attack, or is that claiming that, at the time, we had no info and attacking refugees with no info is pushing an agenda?

you've came straight out and attacked a largely poor, damaged community of refugees in a thread on an (at the moment) unrelated tragedy u illiterate fucktard. that's an agenda, it has no basis to what this thread is on.

9 minutes later too. but u keep pushing that PC CULTURE GONA MAD thang it's working well for u

 

[TheMinsterman]

daesh as an an army, occupying territory and wreaking havoc, could be defeated in a month if the west decided to. the u.s. war machine is a terrifying one, can't think of a conventional army that ain't been obliterated by them in a loooong while. the thing is, the terror attacks ain't been executed by the 'armed forces' of daesh. it's daesh's third wing that did the attacks. no amount of bombing can rid the world of that

We'd be better equipped to deal with their ability to recruit and their pool of recruits if we had a presence in the region, we'd also be able to respond to intel a lot more effectively, we'd be cutting off their financial base which would diminish their capacity to wage terror attacks against us and so on. It's not a viewpoint I really enjoy holding, I'd really rather that we weren't involved and expressed my reservations before (though they were based on my belief that if we got involved we'd inevitably leave too early again) but I honestly believe we need to look at this as a long game, put boots on the ground and accept a protracted need to be present in the region for some time. We pulled our prematurely, whatever the motives for going in were, and left a vacuum that leaves us where we are today.

 

[G-Dragon]

is that claiming refugees had nothing to do with the attack, or is that claiming that, at the time, we had no info and attacking refugees with no info is pushing an agenda?

Idk you tell me. Somehow you thought my issue with the process of letting in the refugees was me claiming ALL refugees were terrorist.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

We'd be better equipped to deal with their ability to recruit and their pool of recruits if we had a presence in the region, we'd also be able to respond to intel a lot more effectively, we'd be cutting off their financial base which would diminish their capacity to wage terror attacks against us and so on. It's not a viewpoint I really enjoy holding, I'd really rather that we weren't involved and expressed my reservations before (though they were based on my belief that if we got involved we'd inevitably leave too early again) but I honestly believe we need to look at this as a long game, put boots on the ground and accept a protracted need to be present in the region for some time. We pulled our prematurely, whatever the motives for going in were, and left a vacuum that leaves us where we are today.

the occupation created daesh. launching another occupation to dislodge a terrorist network created by the first occupation sounds like an ouroboros

and no it wasn't g-dragon. my issue was with the place and time u chose to raise those concerns. if u can't see how it came across as heartless, opportunistic and as if u had a serious, rather bigoted, axe to grind, then i don't know what to say, other than i was far from the only one to interpret your posts that way

 

[TheMinsterman]

In my opinion, it was the exit of the western military prematurely that really allowed the network to thrive, we didn't leave the Iraqi government in a position to truly combat the problem. We took short term gains in the public opinion polls by withdrawing over the long term implications which are haunting us now, had we maintained our presence I don't believe we'd be in this mess.

The biggest issue is, no "tactic" is perfect, they all have drawbacks and flaws, but we need to look at a long term one and commit to it the last thing we need is to "eliminate ISIS" and pretend like we won only for another group to inevitable take their place.

 

[TheMinsterman]

Idk you tell me. Somehow you thought my issue with the process of letting in the refugees was me claiming ALL refugees were terrorist.

You implied that they were involved in the attacks before there was any evidence though, that is the point Ian is making. It appeared you were weaponising a terror attack to push an agenda before any facts were known, whether that was your intention or not it's how it came across.

 

[G-Dragon]

You implied that they were involved in the attacks before there was any evidence though, that is the point Ian is making. It appeared you were weaponising a terror attack to push an agenda before any facts were known, whether that was your intention or not it's how it came across.

The only thing I implied was the way refugee crisis was handled, made it easier for terrorists to come into Europe. I can't help if that somehow implies I am grouping real refugees and the terrorists together. Whatever it maybe, recent news suggest some of the terrorist did come into Europe pretending to be refugees.

In my opinion, it was the exit of the western military prematurely that really allowed the network to thrive, we didn't leave the Iraqi government in a position to truly combat the problem. We took short term gains in the public opinion polls by withdrawing over the long term implications which are haunting us now, had we maintained our presence I don't believe we'd be in this mess.

The biggest issue is, no "tactic" is perfect, they all have drawbacks and flaws, but we need to look at a long term one and commit to it the last thing we need is to "eliminate ISIS" and pretend like we won only for another group to inevitable take their place.

I don't think keeping the western military longer would have helped considering the long history of radical groups. These radical groups didn't pop out of nowhere. All we hear about now is ISIS, but this does not mean Al-Qaeda is dead. Sooner or later, them or another group will come into power. Biggest mistake in terms of Iraq was getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

 

[Freakyteeth]

Shooting and explosions in Paris suburb as Police hunt the mystery 9th terrorist

Several Police injured

 

[G-Dragon]

I thought this was great.

 

[SUTSS]

In my opinion, it was the exit of the western military prematurely that really allowed the network to thrive, we didn't leave the Iraqi government in a position to truly combat the problem. We took short term gains in the public opinion polls by withdrawing over the long term implications which are haunting us now, had we maintained our presence I don't believe we'd be in this mess.

The biggest issue is, no "tactic" is perfect, they all have drawbacks and flaws, but we need to look at a long term one and commit to it the last thing we need is to "eliminate ISIS" and pretend like we won only for another group to inevitable take their place.

This combined with the complete lack of understanding, or even the attempt to get an understanding, of the complex ethnic balance in Iraq and the idea that you could go from a long standing dictatorship to a 4-year cycle democracy without the creation of any sort of civil society in a country with large rates of illiteracy.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

From BBC Breaking News:

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

jesus, hopefully those terrorists remain the only deaths

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

BBC Breaking News ‏@BBCBreaking 9m9 minutes ago

At least two people killed in Saint Denis, including woman who blew herself up with suicide belt - French police

 

[Bobbin']

Let's not forget Boko Haram either, 32 killed in Nigeria.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

The only thing I implied was the way refugee crisis was handled, made it easier for terrorists to come into Europe. I can't help if that somehow implies I am grouping real refugees and the terrorists together. Whatever it maybe, recent news suggest some of the terrorist did come into Europe pretending to be refugees.

Did you read the thing I posted a few pages back? IS can pretty much forge any passport in the world. They also have thousands of EU nationals in their ranks. They don't need to pretend to be refugees. They can literally jump on a plane in Gaziantep and fly to London.

IS are undermined by the flow of refugees from Syria. They want to be the only option to Syrians fleeing the brutality of the Assad regime or conscription into his army. If Europe is an option to Syrians, they won't join IS.

Literally the only reason they would pose as refugees is to turn European countries against refugees. You're falling into the (large, well-signposted) trap IS have set for you.

 

[HertsWolf]

In my opinion, it was the exit of the western military prematurely that really allowed the network to thrive, we didn't leave the Iraqi government in a position to truly combat the problem. We took short term gains in the public opinion polls by withdrawing over the long term implications which are haunting us now, had we maintained our presence I don't believe we'd be in this mess.

I think it goes back way beyond that and has its roots in our (US, UK, European) attitudes towards the Middle East and Africa since the 1960s. Western governments nearly always support anyone who supports "us". We declare war on leftist undemocratic regimes while actively supporting and arming rightist undemocratic regimes. It doesn't matter if he's a bastard, as long as he's "our" bastard.

In the meantime, unfailing long-term and unchallenging support for Israel combined with a growing, bitter and alienated Palestinian, Jordanian and Egyptian diaspora (both in the ME and in Europe) brewed dissent and anger. Our unwavering support for unpleasant regimes, on almost every continent, changed street-level admiration of the West into a envy and mistrust. Growing unemployment across the ME (and a change in employment policies in GCC countries favouring locals over expats from the likes of Egypt and Jordan) increased the despondency and desperation. A sense (real or perceived) of oppression and of the West trampling on both Muslim and Near-Eastern cultures provided a space for the religious extremists to offer an alternative way, complete with righteousness and personal salvation. The lack of centralised administrative authority in the Muslim faith with reliance on interpretation by scholars, provided few checks and balances.

So no, IMHO I don't believe it was the premature departure of the Western military that allowed the network to thrive. It was more that the West still, to this day, doesn't understand what it is doing in conflicts outside its own borders. We believe that "winning a battle" with guns, tanks and bombs is how you "win". Regardless of how abhorrent we all find the 9/11, 7/7 and the Paris attacks, there are kids and youths and young men and women on the streets of a thousand villages and towns across a wide swathe of the world who will delight in what they see as a victory for David against Goliath. They see it as a strike in retaliation for foreign troops outside mosques, patrolling their market, walking their streets, invading their land. In the chaos of collapsed civil and social institutions (by reasons of conflict, famine, persecution, inept government, corruption), the vacuum is quickly filled by Big Man Politics or Big Man Religion....a strong voice that chimes with the most base and possibly unfounded fears of ordinary people.

I agree with your suggestion that we should have stayed longer, but only because we should never have gone in in the first place. And when I say "in", I mean we should never have spent half a century supporting rich, idle dictators or "royal" elites over the needs of ordinary people. We chose to be on the side that opposes and usually oppresses ordinary people decades ago, and arguably we remain on that side today.

The biggest issue is, no "tactic" is perfect, they all have drawbacks and flaws, but we need to look at a long term one and commit to it the last thing we need is to "eliminate ISIS" and pretend like we won only for another group to inevitable take their place.

We won't eliminate ISIS. It will metamorphose into another grouping with a new name, new leaders, new tactics and widespread grass roots support from the poor, the desperate and the nasty individuals that commit the worst of the crimes.

Personally, I feel we need to focus on how we create peace rather than on how we "win". Because we tend only to think of "winning" in terms of finding a way to make nightclubs, shopping malls and public places safe for our children here in the West. But finding "peace" means considering the safety, security and well-being of those who have nothing and have even less to lose. If lives in Middle Eastern and African countries are worth living, then the vacuum will be quickly filled by endeavour, wealth and comfort, and the need for an alternative diminishes.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

daesh as an an army, occupying territory and wreaking havoc, could be defeated in a month if the west decided to. the u.s. war machine is a terrifying one, can't think of a conventional army that ain't been obliterated by them in a loooong while. the thing is, the terror attacks ain't been executed by the 'armed forces' of daesh. it's daesh's third wing that did the attacks. no amount of bombing can rid the world of that

Yeah, IS have been defeated militarily by the US before - during the Petraeus Surge. To do that, they bunged shitloads of cash to IS-sympathetic Sunni tribes in Anbar to bring them onside and rounded up and interned suspected members of IS.

Course, imprisoning a load of militants, disaffected Ba'athists and radical preachers in the same place sort of created a terrorist university - while the Sunni tribes' loyalty to the Iraqi state melted as soon as Maliki had abandoned any pretences to non-sectarianism. And Iraq's well-equipped but utterly corrupt army was easy pickings for the resurgent IS to outfit themselves with tens of billions of pounds of state-of-the-art weaponry.

So yeah, doing the same thing again? Not going to work. This has some answers - unfortunately they're not easy answers.

http://wire.novaramedia.com/2015/11/after-the-paris-attacks-4-questions-we-need-to-ask/

any attempt to choke off funding to ISIS which doesn’t address the money funnelled out of the Saudi state, or the black market oil exports greasing its operations, or that fails to acknowledge that the polity ISIS has tried to build in Raqqa is modelled in many ways on the Saudi state, is doomed to failure. It is here that the interests of the US state and petro-capital are clearest. But any solution to the situation in Syria would have as its necessary conditions the Turkish state’s willingness to give up its territorial ambitions and repression of Kurdish movements, alongside Western powers’ recognition that they have typically supported Saudi or Qatari proxies in the region, including the Saudi-driven war in Yemen.

These are necessary but not sufficient conditions to defeat ISIS: even with defunding and the demilitarising of Western foreign policy, ISIS’s leaders would retain their broad vision of a Caliphate – but much of their strength and attraction would disappear. A consideration of the political potentials in the region must also come to terms with the legacy of colonialism – explicit and covert – in its make-up.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

Yeah, IS have been defeated militarily by the US before - during the Petraeus Surge. To do that, they bunged shitloads of cash to IS-sympathetic Sunni tribes in Anbar to bring them onside and rounded up and interned suspected members of IS.

Course, imprisoning a load of militants, disaffected Ba'athists and radical preachers in the same place sort of created a terrorist university - while the Sunni tribes' loyalty to the Iraqi state melted as soon as Maliki had abandoned any pretences to non-sectarianism. And Iraq's well-equipped but utterly corrupt army was easy pickings for the resurgent IS to outfit themselves with tens of billions of pounds of state-of-the-art weaponry.

So yeah, doing the same thing again? Not going to work. This has some answers - unfortunately they're not easy answers.

http://wire.novaramedia.com/2015/11/after-the-paris-attacks-4-questions-we-need-to-ask/

yeah the anbar awakening was huge. biggest mistake of the iraq war was dissolving the army imo

 

[spireite]

Let's not forget Boko Haram either, 32 killed in Nigeria.

They're the deadliest group, it's just that they not killing white people so noone really cares.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-deadliest-terror-organisation-a6737761.html

 

[SUTSS]

I think it goes back way beyond that and has its roots in our (US, UK, European) attitudes towards the Middle East and Africa since the 1960s. Western governments nearly always support anyone who supports "us". We declare war on leftist undemocratic regimes while actively supporting and arming rightist undemocratic regimes. It doesn't matter if he's a bastard, as long as he's "our" bastard.

In the meantime, unfailing long-term and unchallenging support for Israel combined with a growing, bitter and alienated Palestinian, Jordanian and Egyptian diaspora (both in the ME and in Europe) brewed dissent and anger. Our unwavering support for unpleasant regimes, on almost every continent, changed street-level admiration of the West into a envy and mistrust. Growing unemployment across the ME (and a change in employment policies in GCC countries favouring locals over expats from the likes of Egypt and Jordan) increased the despondency and desperation. A sense (real or perceived) of oppression and of the West trampling on both Muslim and Near-Eastern cultures provided a space for the religious extremists to offer an alternative way, complete with righteousness and personal salvation. The lack of centralised administrative authority in the Muslim faith with reliance on interpretation by scholars, provided few checks and balances.

So no, IMHO I don't believe it was the premature departure of the Western military that allowed the network to thrive. It was more that the West still, to this day, doesn't understand what it is doing in conflicts outside its own borders. We believe that "winning a battle" with guns, tanks and bombs is how you "win". Regardless of how abhorrent we all find the 9/11, 7/7 and the Paris attacks, there are kids and youths and young men and women on the streets of a thousand villages and towns across a wide swathe of the world who will delight in what they see as a victory for David against Goliath. They see it as a strike in retaliation for foreign troops outside mosques, patrolling their market, walking their streets, invading their land. In the chaos of collapsed civil and social institutions (by reasons of conflict, famine, persecution, inept government, corruption), the vacuum is quickly filled by Big Man Politics or Big Man Religion....a strong voice that chimes with the most base and possibly unfounded fears of ordinary people.

I agree with your suggestion that we should have stayed longer, but only because we should never have gone in in the first place. And when I say "in", I mean we should never have spent half a century supporting rich, idle dictators or "royal" elites over the needs of ordinary people. We chose to be on the side that opposes and usually oppresses ordinary people decades ago, and arguably we remain on that side today.



We won't eliminate ISIS. It will metamorphose into another grouping with a new name, new leaders, new tactics and widespread grass roots support from the poor, the desperate and the nasty individuals that commit the worst of the crimes.

Personally, I feel we need to focus on how we create peace rather than on how we "win". Because we tend only to think of "winning" in terms of finding a way to make nightclubs, shopping malls and public places safe for our children here in the West. But finding "peace" means considering the safety, security and well-being of those who have nothing and have even less to lose. If lives in Middle Eastern and African countries are worth living, then the vacuum will be quickly filled by endeavour, wealth and comfort, and the need for an alternative diminishes.

I think this is quite a narcissistic way to look at it. It's not all about us and it never has been. Sure we haven't helped things at times but we're far from the only ones who have meddled in the region. Russian/Soviet and Chinese influences have also been destabilising factors as well as powers in the region that have little invested in stability like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran. All of this needs to be in any attempt to understand the region as well as some heinous mismanagement and corruption by Middle Eastern leaders that they managed all on their own.

Also by blaming it all on the West it robs middle eastern peoples of their own agency. They can't possibly think for themselves and every action they take has to be because of the big bad west.

 

[SUTSS]

They're the deadliest group, it's just that they not killing white people so noone really cares.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...s-deadliest-terror-organisation-a6737761.html

Do people really not care? There was pretty huge global outcry when they kidnapped the girls from the school. It was all over the news for days.

Further, people are going to care about things that are likely to hit more closer to home. That's not racist, that's human instinct.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

people are generally pretty ignorant of africa, i mean the second congo war was one of the deadliest conflicts ever and it was hardly covered in the west. i think we're pretty ignorant of most of the rest of the world, it's just proxy wars involve us so get more coverage. syria gets media time cause of the russia/iran - u.s./west conflict at play. nigeria is just another failing african state with guerilla issues, it ain't just numbers it's how relevant a conflict is and how easy it is to make people understand the parameters of the violence.

 

[spireite]

Do people really not care? There was pretty huge global outcry when they kidnapped the girls from the school. It was all over the news for days.

Further, people are going to care about things that are likely to hit more closer to home. That's not racist, that's human instinct.

Well I was exaggerating the point for effect, but I think it stands true to a degree. For the last year, every other news story seem to be ISIS this, ISIS that. Yet news stories regarding Boko Haram are few and far between, unless I'm just not paying much attention. Which to be honest I wouldn't rule out, but it seems that way. And given that BH are a right bunch of twats, it's surprising

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

i'm surprised we ain't seeing greater exchange of fighters between the middle east and boko haram territory and vise versa. guess folk stick out more, probably harder to infiltrate too as the passports would tend to stick out

 

[HertsWolf]

Whatever it maybe, recent news suggest some of the terrorist did come into Europe pretending to be refugees.

The 2001 shoe-bomber was a man called Richard Reid, born in Bromley, and had a Jamaican father. Richard Reid stole cars and was known to write graffiti. He spent time in Finsbury Park.

One of the 7/7 bombers lived in Aylesbury but he also had a Jamaican background. He had lived in Yorkshire. He was married and had a child.

I'm assuming that you would sanction arresting or banning or putting the following under surveillance.

• People who are Jamaican or who have dreadlocks or who like reggae (perhaps checking iTunes accounts for evidence)
• People who steal cars except for legitimate purposes
• People called Richard
• People with the name Reid. (Or Reed or Read because terrorismists are fucking clever like that)
• People who have been within two miles of Finsbury Park (to be on the safe side)
• People who write graffiti a lot.
• People from Bromley, Aylesbury or Yorkshire. Or who have been on holiday there.
• Married people
• People with children
• People with a owl tattoo.
• People who pretend to be any of the above.

Biggest mistake in terms of Iraq was getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

Have a look at what Saddam Hussein's Iraq was like here. Am I right in thinking that none of your family were tortured, raped, killed or attacked with chemical weapons in Iraq? Personally, I have huge issues with the West's invasion of Iraq, but the biggest mistake was not that invasion.

No. The biggest mistake in Iraq was that because Iraq and Iran went to war, the West suddenly became the Saddam Hussein's new bestie. Iraq was Iran's enemy and any enemy of our enemy is our friend. Right? (Like the enemy of the Soviets in Afghanistan was a whole bunch of medieval feudal warlords, so lets arm them to the teeth.) Ultimately, we decided that torture, rape and using chemical weapons as a domestic policy instrument were suddenly OK. "Tell ya what, Saddam, old buddy. We can probably supply more efficient, cheaper torture equipment. And with an extended warranty."
But the biggest mistake in Western history has been that our politicians use the words "military" and "intelligence" in the same sentence without doubling up in laughter. Most fucking goldfish in a £4 Ikea circular bowl can better predict the consequences of such myopic foreign policy choices ability than our politicians.

 

[Dr Mantis Toboggan]

their's a real perverse kind of logic in equating the iraq war with being wrong with saddam being right for iraq. liberals bizarelly love the idea of a middle eastern strongman

 

[HertsWolf]

I think this is quite a narcissistic way to look at it. It's not all about us and it never has been. Sure we haven't helped things at times but we're far from the only ones who have meddled in the region. Russian/Soviet and Chinese influences have also been destabilising factors as well as powers in the region that have little invested in stability like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran. All of this needs to be in any attempt to understand the region as well as some heinous mismanagement and corruption by Middle Eastern leaders that they managed all on their own.

Also by blaming it all on the West it robs middle eastern peoples of their own agency. They can't possibly think for themselves and every action they take has to be because of the big bad west.

Narcissisitic? Blimey, wasn't expecting that word!
It certainly doesn't rob the Middle East of their own agency or legitimacy. It was an explanation of why I , personally, feel that the West is complicit in creating a playing field that encourages religious extremism as a potent - if utterly, utterly misguided and abhorrent solution to the many problems at the individual level.

Yes, I agree that Russia and China (and others) have played their equally unpleasant, self-interested hand around the world.
I wasn't even remotely suggesting they can't think for themselves. But their ability to realise many of their aspirations politically (and even economically) are handicapped by institutions that are supported by the West (and by China and Russia, etc).

When you live in a dictatorship (whether that is propped up by "East" or "West") and you then (at some stage) see yourself as being constrained or held back by that regime, then you will react.

 

[HertsWolf]

their's a real perverse kind of logic in equating the iraq war with being wrong with saddam being right for iraq. liberals bizarelly love the idea of a middle eastern strongman

Not quite sure if that first point is aimed at me?
On the second point, there's been a lot written on the strong man, not just in the Middle East but also in Africa. It's not just being considered in political terms but also in religion and the parallels between the two. In most cases, there is an issue also of charismatic behaviour. But not sure why liberals would love it though?

 

[HertsWolf]

i'm surprised we ain't seeing greater exchange of fighters between the middle east and boko haram territory and vise versa. guess folk stick out more, probably harder to infiltrate too as the passports would tend to stick out

I suspect there is quite a strong interchange of fighters. With a few states being either controlled or heavily infiltrated by sympathisers of extremist activity, creating fake documents is likely to be straightforward.

 

[Harrier94]

From Sky News
Update - AP: Seven people have been arrested in raids in Saint Denis linked to the attacks in Paris