The Paris Attack Debate Thread

[crazy canuck]

I had Yi's comments in this thread in mind when I was speaking to a Muslim friend of mine last night.  He expressed a great deal of frustration that society seems to put an obligation on moderates like him to publicly explain that the nutbar Muslims do not represent the views of all Muslims and actually represent only the views of a radical minority.  He said he didn't mind doing it at first because he thought it was important to educate the public.  But he and other Muslims have been trying to do that now for years and there are still idiots out there (here is where I had a clear picture of Yi in my mind) who continue to go on about how all Muslims should be painted with the same brush.

I hope you are not trying to ascribe these views to me as they do not describe me.

I think the onus is not on moderate Muslims but on Western liberals to decry the oppressive treatment of minority groups and women in Muslim countries at the hands of the conservative regimes (and frequently conservative majority).

We are not asking where the moderate Muslims are because we know that - they are in Saudi, Pakistani and Bahraini prisons. But Western left prefers to fight for some kid in Texas who was detained for few hours at school for constructing a clock, and not on a blogger getting lashed or hacked to pieces.

You are right to correct me.  I don't think anyone else has taken the Yi view.  I think your view is closer to that taken by Viper.

[Malthus]

You are missing the different scales in different countries, for one.

As Berkut mentioned, this really is a conflict within the Muslim world. I believe we are the "fringes" of it. The terror attacks against the West are to reinforce their positions in their own societies.

However, while this means it is next to impossible for Muslim extremism to be anything worse than the threat of isolated rare incidents of attacks in the US and Canada, you have countries like France.

As far as I can judge, something has decidedly gone wrong with the integration of their Muslim population there. I am not blaming the Muslims for that. I am quite ready to blame the French Seriously though, the truth in these matters is usually in the middle, but you can't deny that France has more trouble in this regard than, say, the UK.

My point is, it is easy to sanctimonious about this from Canada - there is no risk involved for you. If you misjudge the situation, then you MIGHT get one more terrorist attack a year. In the US it would hardly register next to all the school shootings

However, if France mis-manages the apparent and obvious increased popularity of extremist Islamist views within his society, then the stakes are much, much higher. And by mis-manage I am not necessarily mean being too lenient on extremists or not being fascist enough in their response. It is very possible that trying to tackle this via force and guns is just making things worse. I do not know.
But the worry and the aggrevation is warranted.

Heh, our cops a couple of years ago foiled a terror attack designed to derail passenger trains. So we do have risk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_VIA_Rail_Canada_terrorism_plot

Interestingly, the terrorists were turned in ... by people in the Muslim community.

[Tamas]

My point is, it is easy to sanctimonious about this from Canada - there is no risk involved for you.

I have a short fuse for ignorance at the best of times.  But this kind of ignorance is startling.  Go google the people that have died in Canada because of acts by Muslim extremists in Canada.  Google the face of the boy who lost his father.  Then google the attacks that were stopped in Canada over the last two years.  Then come back and apologize for being such an ass.

What I mean is, there is no (seemingly) imminent danger to the very fabric of Canadian society due to the spread of Islamist extremism. Having to change what Canada is as a state, is not among the possible scenarios, despite the face of the boy who lost his father.

In France, decades of mismanagement seems to be on collision course with the spread of Islamist extremism. If mismanagement continues, the parallel societies within France (the majority one and the Muslim minorities who feel left out) can end up in open conflict.

[Tamas]

You are missing the different scales in different countries, for one.

As Berkut mentioned, this really is a conflict within the Muslim world. I believe we are the "fringes" of it. The terror attacks against the West are to reinforce their positions in their own societies.

However, while this means it is next to impossible for Muslim extremism to be anything worse than the threat of isolated rare incidents of attacks in the US and Canada, you have countries like France.

As far as I can judge, something has decidedly gone wrong with the integration of their Muslim population there. I am not blaming the Muslims for that. I am quite ready to blame the French Seriously though, the truth in these matters is usually in the middle, but you can't deny that France has more trouble in this regard than, say, the UK.

My point is, it is easy to sanctimonious about this from Canada - there is no risk involved for you. If you misjudge the situation, then you MIGHT get one more terrorist attack a year. In the US it would hardly register next to all the school shootings

However, if France mis-manages the apparent and obvious increased popularity of extremist Islamist views within his society, then the stakes are much, much higher. And by mis-manage I am not necessarily mean being too lenient on extremists or not being fascist enough in their response. It is very possible that trying to tackle this via force and guns is just making things worse. I do not know.
But the worry and the aggrevation is warranted.

Heh, our cops a couple of years ago foiled a terror attack designed to derail passenger trains. So we do have risk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_VIA_Rail_Canada_terrorism_plot

Interestingly, the terrorists were turned in ... by people in the Muslim community.

See my post above. And congrats for missing my point like CC did.

[crazy canuck]

My point is, it is easy to sanctimonious about this from Canada - there is no risk involved for you.

I have a short fuse for ignorance at the best of times.  But this kind of ignorance is startling.  Go google the people that have died in Canada because of acts by Muslim extremists in Canada.  Google the face of the boy who lost his father.  Then google the attacks that were stopped in Canada over the last two years.  Then come back and apologize for being such an ass.

What I mean is, there is no (seemingly) imminent danger to the very fabric of Canadian society due to the spread of Islamist extremism. Having to change what Canada is as a state, is not among the possible scenarios, despite the face of the boy who lost his father.

In France, decades of mismanagement seems to be on collision course with the spread of Islamist extremism. If mismanagement continues, the parallel societies within France (the majority one and the Muslim minorities who feel left out) can end up in open conflict.

There is no danger to the "very fabric" of any Western Democracy.  That is the point Minsky is making.  Your analysis is based on overblown rhetoric.

[Tamas]

Ok case closed then!

[Malthus]

You are missing the different scales in different countries, for one.

As Berkut mentioned, this really is a conflict within the Muslim world. I believe we are the "fringes" of it. The terror attacks against the West are to reinforce their positions in their own societies.

However, while this means it is next to impossible for Muslim extremism to be anything worse than the threat of isolated rare incidents of attacks in the US and Canada, you have countries like France.

As far as I can judge, something has decidedly gone wrong with the integration of their Muslim population there. I am not blaming the Muslims for that. I am quite ready to blame the French Seriously though, the truth in these matters is usually in the middle, but you can't deny that France has more trouble in this regard than, say, the UK.

My point is, it is easy to sanctimonious about this from Canada - there is no risk involved for you. If you misjudge the situation, then you MIGHT get one more terrorist attack a year. In the US it would hardly register next to all the school shootings

However, if France mis-manages the apparent and obvious increased popularity of extremist Islamist views within his society, then the stakes are much, much higher. And by mis-manage I am not necessarily mean being too lenient on extremists or not being fascist enough in their response. It is very possible that trying to tackle this via force and guns is just making things worse. I do not know.
But the worry and the aggrevation is warranted.

Heh, our cops a couple of years ago foiled a terror attack designed to derail passenger trains. So we do have risk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_VIA_Rail_Canada_terrorism_plot

Interestingly, the terrorists were turned in ... by people in the Muslim community.

See my post above. And congrats for missing my point like CC did.

Not sure what point you were making. Are you alleging that France is on the verge of some sort of religious war? Seems rather rash and unsupported by evidence. France, like Canada, like the US, has been targeted by terrorist attacks ...

Now it is true that France has a rather greater problem with integration than Canada or the US, and that this leads to the disaffection that may help terrorists to recruit - but the lack of disaffection in Canada did not (for example) prevent their ability to find people willing to derail passenger trains.

[crazy canuck]

Ok case closed then!

Or at the very least you will attempt make a more persuasive argument about why we should fear the Muslims.

[The Minsky Moment]

I think the onus is not on moderate Muslims but on Western liberals to decry the oppressive treatment of minority groups and women in Muslim countries at the hands of the conservative regimes (and frequently conservative majority).

Western liberals are doing that; one of the reasons we know about that oppressive treatment is because of the dedicated and courageous efforts of NGOs and human rights organizations founded and staffed to a great extent by Western liberals.  ANd for the same reason we know about the oppressive treatment meted out by Hindu fundamentalists in India, by military dictators throughout the world, by NK communists, the PRC, and so on.  Muslim countries have no monopoly on human rights violations.

[crazy canuck]

Here you go Tamas, et al.  If you are looking for a good strategic reason to accept the refugees and stop alienating other Muslims read this.

The strategic value of compassion: Welcoming refugees is devastating to IS 


Aisha Ahmad

Contributed to The Globe and Mail

Aisha Ahmad is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Toronto, specializing in jihadist financing.

In the aftermath of the deadly attacks in Paris last week, we have learned that the organizers were "homegrown terrorists" with Islamic State links. They were not refugees. And yet, officials across Europe and the United States have called for a moratorium on refugee flows from Syria, claiming that migrants pose a security threat.

For IS, the attack was not just about killing 130 people; it was a chess move in its global game, aimed at provoking exactly this reaction. But those of us who have studied jihadist extremists for years are not fooled. We have analyzed their internal messages in every language, tracked their financial resources, and dissected their strategies across the world. This move was predictable. We have known for several months that IS has been trying to seal European borders and incite hostilities against refugees as part of its broader strategy.

How we react to the Paris attack is therefore critical. It will not only determine the fate of the refugees, but will also tip the balance of power on the battlefield. If we take the bait, we will enrich and empower IS even further. But if we respond strategically, we have the ability to undercut the financial base of IS, disrupt its recruitment, and prove that its toxic ideology holds no weight. Saving the refugees is not just a moral issue; it is an inseparable part of the strategic plan to destroy IS.

The fact is that the refugee crisis hurts IS badly. The compassionate response of many Western nations toward refugees undercuts the so-called caliphate in three key ways: money, men and messaging.

The first factor is financial. IS is the richest terrorist organization in the world with assets estimated at $2-billion, and almost all of that revenue is internally generated. Recent estimates indicate that the extremists collect nearly $1-million a day through taxation and extortion of businesses and households, arguably even more than profits from oil and antiquities smuggling.

The refugee exodus undercuts this gain. The more families that escape their violence, the fewer people the so-called caliphate has to extort. The nearly 12 million refugees who have already fled the battlefield therefore constitute a tremendous financial loss. Leading IS operatives are well aware of these costs, and are trying to force people to remain inside their turf.

To stop the flow, IS has directly threatened refugees through its media wing, explains Christopher Anzalone, an expert on jihadist information operations. In one document, IS states: "it should be known that voluntarily leaving Darul-Islam [land of Islam] for darul-kufr [land of disbelief] is a dangerous major sin [kaba'ir]".



The second reason is recruitment. We know that IS relies heavily on foreign fighters and devotes considerable effort both finding and cultivating new conscripts. With air strikes hammering rebel strongholds across Syria and Iraq, IS needs as much new cannon fodder as possible to stay in the fight.

To accomplish this goal, IS has repeatedly stated that it wants Muslims in Western countries to face increased persecution, because they believe this will catalyze a hijra (migration) to their lands. Official IS statements are unequivocal on this point – attacks like those in Paris are designed to incite violence against local Muslim communities in order to facilitate recruitment and force migration.

The third issue is message control. IS has invested tremendous resources into constructing a narrative that portrays itself as a sanctuary for Muslims. When millions of Muslim families run for their lives, IS loses this legitimacy battle on the world stage. Every horror story told by a refugee family shows these claims of being an idyllic caliphate to be utterly ludicrous.

To compensate for this damage to its image, IS has ramped up its propaganda machine, explicitly targeting the refugees. Its media wing has released 12 heavily produced propaganda films, each warning people to remain in Syria. "These media materials portray Western xenophobia, racism and indifference toward refugees" says Mr. Anzalone. These messages aim to tell potential refugees that non-Muslims hate them and that running away will result in abuse and exploitation at the hands of foreigners.

The fact that people across the Western world have reached out to help refugees has been incredibly damaging to this jihadist narrative.

Nothing has countered the message of hate more effectively than the countless church groups, community centres and humanitarian aid organizations that have welcomed Syrian refugees from all backgrounds with kindness, respect and goodwill. Our compassion and empathy have exposed the terrorist narrative as fraudulent.

Realizing these trends, IS is using the refugees as pawns in its global game. Believing the world will betray the migrants, it has bet heavily that a post-Paris xenophobic backlash will seal off the borders and leave the refugees stranded. Our next move is therefore critical. If we react as they hoped, we will have kept IS's tax base under its control, fed its recruitment campaign and reinforced its ideological message.

But we can both save the refugees and tip the balance of power on the battlefield in our favour. We can deplete their resources and disable their propaganda machine.

The strategic move in this case is to stand firm on providing assistance in the refugee crisis. By holding onto the moral high ground, we can also win this war.

[derspiess]

Yeah ISIS is melting away now that we're taking refugees.

[LaCroix]

Those results are not interesting to me, or germaine to my point since I've said about a thousand times already that I know that many Muslim populations are NOT extremists. So pointing out what we already knew is not really interesting. What apparently we did NOT know is that there are huge numbers of Muslims who fully support and recognize as acts of religious faiths activities that are, by Western standards, morally abhorrent.

yeah, lots of cultures support morally abhorrent things. and as those cultures civilize, they tend to reject those views.

but it is The Tool by which the extremists grab and above all, hold, power.

see, this i agree with

[Berkut]

CC, that is a bit over-stated, but I agree with 100% of the basic message it is sending.

This is all related, and we need a consistent, thought out response to the Islamic Jihadist war in general. Refugees, attacks, all of it needs to be thought of in some consistent manner that encompasses an overall strategy.

Right now, my suspicion is that we are basically just knee-jerk reacting from one stimulus to the next. And the argument that there really isn't anything significant going on anyway feeds into that purely reactionary "policy".

[LaCroix]

Then we understand the causes of the violence better, and we seek solutions where they might actually exist, rather than where we prefer they exist.

that's what i mean. how do you seek a solution that avoids attacking all of islam if you think islam causes a fundamental problem?

[crazy canuck]

Then we understand the causes of the violence better, and we seek solutions where they might actually exist, rather than where we prefer they exist.

that's what i mean. how do you seek a solution that avoids attacking all of islam if you think islam causes a fundamental problem?

If you think Islam causes the fundamental problem, then, frankly you are playing directly into the ISIS strategy.  The person I sat next to at a basketball game last night would argue very strenuously that all the good he does in society (and he does a significant amount) is due to his religious beliefs.  As would all other people who are religious and who do good in the world.  The kind of bigoted idiocy that contends a whole religion and everyone who practices it are in some way flawed is one of the significant issues we need to address head on.