The Paris Attack Debate Thread

[Siege]

I am not worried about Islam.
I mean, they will kill a lot of more westerners before all this is over, but in the big scheme of things, Islam is condemned to the dust bin of history because natural selection dictates that totalitarian anti technological regimes cannot triumph against technological liberal democracies.

No matter how morally weak the West is today.

[LaCroix]

there's no rule that says you can't use strategy in order to reach religiously mandated goals. jeez.

why? if you have a religious tenant -> kill all the christians. and you believe you must kill all the christians. if you're a true religious person, then you must kill all the christians and make no compromise. attacks should happen before and after. now, obviously this would almost never happen and strategy is of course used. but that's because people act more on a human basis than a religious one. if god were truly on someone's side, strategy is unnecessary because the outcome is essentially predetermined.

[Grey Fox]

I think the problem is Assad.

If NATO troops are on the ground then they will only stop when Assad is ousted. Russia is preventing that.

Okay, but then what would replace Assad?  I don't think the west is willing to simply replace him with another dictator.  The experiences with democracy in Iraq (or Libya or Egypt) don't leave me with a lot of confidence that the situation would improve with him gone.

And that is the problem. We need a dictator in charge, it can be Assad or we can appoint one in concert with Russia & Iran.

Maybe we should let Iran deal with it, actually.

[Valmy]

there's no rule that says you can't use strategy in order to reach religiously mandated goals. jeez.

why? if you have a religious tenant -> kill all the christians. and you believe you must kill all the christians. if you're a true religious person, then you must kill all the christians and make no compromise. attacks should happen before and after. now, obviously this would almost never happen and strategy is of course used. but that's because people act more on a human basis than a religious one. if god were truly on someone's side, strategy is unnecessary because the outcome is essentially predetermined.

LaCroix: theology master.

[Valmy]

The Red Army Faction and their ilk were hardly lone rangers.

And in which broken world did the idea of lynching uppity blacks first originate, so that Klansmen, who would otherwise have sung kumbaya endlessly, could be properly proselytized in the La Croix fashion?

that's why i said "mostly correct." broken world only goes so far. it's really whatever conditions exist that force a violent extreme group into existence. things like red army faction and the IRA formed more because there was a group of people who really desired something. the basis can be caused by religion, political ideology, ethnicity, nationalism, or one of many other reasons why people band together. but there has to be something going on for one person to convince others to jump on board. otherwise it's some ranting nut.

So it could be for any grievance motivated by any reason. Glad we got that sorted out.

[DGuller]

there's no rule that says you can't use strategy in order to reach religiously mandated goals. jeez.

why? if you have a religious tenant -> kill all the christians. and you believe you must kill all the christians. if you're a true religious person, then you must kill all the christians and make no compromise. attacks should happen before and after. now, obviously this would almost never happen and strategy is of course used. but that's because people act more on a human basis than a religious one. if god were truly on someone's side, strategy is unnecessary because the outcome is essentially predetermined.

Good God, you now made me want to make sure to let my properties only to atheists to avoid any trouble.

[Savonarola]

Okay, but then what would replace Assad?  I don't think the west is willing to simply replace him with another dictator.  The experiences with democracy in Iraq (or Libya or Egypt) don't leave me with a lot of confidence that the situation would improve with him gone.

And that is the problem. We need a dictator in charge, it can be Assad or we can appoint one in concert with Russia & Iran.

Maybe we should let Iran deal with it, actually.

I agree with this, but I don't think it's going to be politically palatable to the western powers.

Barack is in a no-win situation.  Invading Syria or the Islamic State may be popular initially; but our experience in Iraq demonstrates how quickly that can fall apart.  Letting Russia or Iran handle the situation is going to be unpopular at home; though may lead to the best long term solution.  Bombing the hell out of ISIS will be popular, but won't solve anything.

[LaCroix]

So it could be for any grievance motivated by any reason. Glad we got that sorted out.

my point is that religious terrorism isn't any different than other forms. if people are forming violent extremist groups, they're going to cherrypick whatever they can from scripture and use it as a basis for their attacks. it's not religion -> terrorism; it's terrorism -> religion.

[Valmy]

So it could be for any grievance motivated by any reason. Glad we got that sorted out.

my point is that religious terrorism isn't any different than other forms. if people are forming violent extremist groups, they're going to cherrypick whatever they can from scripture and use it as a basis for their attacks. it's not religion -> terrorism; it's terrorism -> religion.

Well one would hope they have to cherrypick. If all their scriptures are 100% behind terrorism that would be pretty scary.

But I guess the founder of such a religion would have been too busy blowing people up to convert others so it probably would never catch on.

However we have one religion which is producing most of the terrorists these days so that might mean something. I don't think it necessarily means we must eliminate all Muslims or religion (as if we could do that anyway) but rather that a Muslim problem might require a Muslim solution. As far as broken worlds well one would expect most terrorists to come from the most impoverished or fucked up places. Yet loads of Congolese and Haitian terrorists are not horrifying the world right now.

[Grey Fox]

Okay, but then what would replace Assad?  I don't think the west is willing to simply replace him with another dictator.  The experiences with democracy in Iraq (or Libya or Egypt) don't leave me with a lot of confidence that the situation would improve with him gone.

And that is the problem. We need a dictator in charge, it can be Assad or we can appoint one in concert with Russia & Iran.

Maybe we should let Iran deal with it, actually.

I agree with this, but I don't think it's going to be politically palatable to the western powers.

Barack is in a no-win situation.  Invading Syria or the Islamic State may be popular initially; but our experience in Iraq demonstrates how quickly that can fall apart.  Letting Russia or Iran handle the situation is going to be unpopular at home; though may lead to the best long term solution.  Bombing the hell out of ISIS will be popular, but won't solve anything.

Nope, sadly it is not.

[Syt]

The attacks have moved my sister deeply.

What a way to start the week......listening to a press conference instead of my Michael and Kelly

[Valmy]

The attacks have moved my sister deeply.

What a way to start the week......listening to a press conference instead of my Michael and Kelly

Those terrorists shall pay for this outrage.

[The Minsky Moment]

Barack has been willing to drones or bombers to destroy targets (Libya for example), but has been unwilling (mostly) to put "Boots on the ground."  What decisive action would you like to see?  Anything that would destroy ISIS and prevent another ISIS like group from arising would seem (to me) to require a very long commitment from the west.

His policy was premised on the understanding that Daesh was content to build its Potemkin caliphate in the desert regions of Iraq and Syria and thus could be "contained".  Events have overtaken those assumptions.  There is an effective fighting force already on the ground and within striking distance of the Daesh capital.  NATO ground troops fighting alongside would make the work go much faster.

[Eddie Teach]

The facts that any given religious person* agrees with me that millions upon millions of gods don't exist.  They make an exception for their gods.  I don't.  But we are in fundamental agreement about the non-existence of gods, beyond their quibble.

*Hindus and Sikhs exccepted

(snip)

I am sure that everyone thinks that THEIR religion is the one exception to the general consensus that any given god does not, in fact, exist.  They generally can't respond to this sort of logic other than to post clips saying "there you go again," because there is no intellectual counter-argument to my statement.  "MY god is different because that's what I believe" isn't an intellectual response.

I'd like to remind you that I am not religious. I just find this argument tedious, as well as sophistries like "The facts that any given religious person* agrees with me that millions upon millions of gods don't exist.  They make an exception for their gods.  I don't.  But we are in fundamental agreement about the non-existence of gods, beyond their quibble."

[Richard Hakluyt]

Hollande has reiterated that he considers France to be at war :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34836439