Paris Attacks

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
442

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
It plays right into the al-Qaida narrative of a clash of civilizations. ISIL has explicitly embraced a strategy of destroying the gray space between Islam and the secular state system. Emotive and from the hip retaliatory responses are exactly what the enemy wants. Why play right into their hands? [/quote]
Can you provide some sources? I’ve seen similar things mentioned elsewhere, but I haven’t seen any firsthand statements.[/quote]

For al-Qaida, see the following essay by Marc Lynch. Constructivism can be a bit tedious, but your posts suggest that you already have a knack for the paradigm. Lots of good primary source quotes.

http://www.marclynch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Al-Qaedas-Constructivism.pdf

For ISIL, this article by counterterrorism analyst Harleen Gambhir is a good place to start. She quotes an ISIL communique that states that terrorist attacks “compel the Crusaders to actively destroy the grayzone themselve . . . Muslims in the West will quickly find themselves between one of two choices, they either apostatize . . . or they [emigrate] to the Islamic State and thereby escape persecution from the Crusader governments and citizens.”

TLDR: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/20/the-endless-recurrence-of-the-clash-of-civilizations/

Together with its hyperlinks, a good, concise primer on the subject.

443

[quote]pushharder wrote:
In all fairness, there is something to be said for not playing into ISIS’ hands.

Still think we should Kill 'Em All.

[/quote]
Given the info from the article there really arent any options. ISIL attacs until we persecute. If we dont persecute they continue to attack. So fuck em. Kill them all.

444

[quote]pushharder wrote:
In all fairness, there is something to be said for not playing into ISIS’ hands
Still think we should Kill 'Em All.

[/quote]

We agree with the ends, just not the means. The killing should be as clinical as possible. No need to spike the pig skin, pun intended. I believe that HRC’s recent speech at the Council of Foreign Relations was on point. Hers is a three pronged strategy: “one, defeat ISIS in Syria, Iraq, and across the Middle East; two, disrupt and dismantle the growing terrorist infrastructure that facilities the flow of fighters, financing arms, and propaganda around the world; three, harden our defenses and those of our allies against external and homegrown threats.”

http://www.cfr.org/radicalization-and-extremism/hillary-clinton-national-security-islamic-state/p37266

445

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
In all fairness, there is something to be said for not playing into ISIS’ hands.

Still think we should Kill 'Em All.

[/quote]
Given the info from the article there really arent any options. ISIL attacs until we persecute. If we dont persecute they continue to attack. So fuck em. Kill them all. [/quote]

Which article are you referring to? We are damned if we do or damned if we don’t. Some analysts believe that ISIL’s recent spate of international terrorism is a result of the military pressure the quasi-state has been under for over a year.

Feeling Heightened Pressure, ISIS Apparently Broadens Strategy Of Spectacle

446

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
In all fairness, there is something to be said for not playing into ISIS’ hands
Still think we should Kill 'Em All.

[/quote]

We agree with the ends, just not the means. The killing should be as clinical as possible. No need to spike the pig skin, pun intended. I believe that HRC’s recent speech at the Council of Foreign Relations was on point. Hers is a three pronged strategy: “one, defeat ISIS in Syria, Iraq, and across the Middle East; two, disrupt and dismantle the growing terrorist infrastructure that facilities the flow of fighters, financing arms, and propaganda around the world; three, harden our defenses and those of our allies against external and homegrown threats.”

http://www.cfr.org/radicalization-and-extremism/hillary-clinton-national-security-islamic-state/p37266[/quote]

Your post reminded me of this, think she got it from Bill
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/360180.php

447

Of course, any act of terrorism and the death of innocent people is a disaster, but why you so actively pity people from Paris, but not from other parts of the world? I have a lot of friends in http://marrydatingchat.com/ from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and other parts of the world where there is war and people are dying every day, but nobody tells nothing about them!

448

Oh snap… Turkey shot down a Russian jet. Russia talking tough warning of retaliation. Russia striking Turkey, a NATO member and American ally… Geez this could get very complicated if Russia and Turkey start going after each other.

I know Turkey doesn’t like Russia, but breaching air space while fighting a common enemy, I don’t know if Turkey should have done that. I know they have warned the Russians multiple times, but in the interest of not escalating tensions anymore, maybe they should have shown some restraint. What do yall think?

449

[quote]pat wrote:
Oh snap… Turkey shot down a Russian jet. Russia talking tough warning of retaliation. Russia striking Turkey, a NATO member and American ally… Geez this could get very complicated if Russia and Turkey start going after each other.

I know Turkey doesn’t like Russia, but breaching air space while fighting a common enemy, I don’t know if Turkey should have done that. I know they have warned the Russians multiple times, but in the interest of not escalating tensions anymore, maybe they should have shown some restraint. What do yall think?
[/quote]

Yeah, things get pretty crazy when there is no American leadership in the world.

450

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]TheCB wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Anyone here willing to bet that a Paris type attack will not occur in the USA?[/quote]
Nope. This spike in activity tells me that these groups have somehow become emboldened. Like some newly found energy or power has invigorated them.[/quote]

I have been wondering what it could be.

For a terrorist group to brazenly attack both Russia and France within a fortnight while making videos threatening washington and new york is so fucking nuts.

Surely they have the strong backing of at least someone like Saudi Arabia to essentially pursue WW3 or else how do they possibly expect to survive? [/quote]

Or, MAYBE we simply haven’t made the progress against them that we thought we had.
[/quote]
Maybe? I think it’s obvious by now. If your goal is to destroy a terrorist group, but the group continues to carry out terror attacks, you are no where near your goal.

This president is not interested in defeating ISIS or anybody else for that matter. You have to remember who the real enemy is, it’s the Republicans! Watch his posture change from very stoic and measured when talking about ISIS, but he gets all fired up talking about Republicans. What an idiot.

[quote]

Something to keep an eye on as it develops…

Oh there’s lots of interesting things going on… Just not from the U.S.

China joining Russia…

Now the interesting thing is that apparently there has already been some Chinese involvement in Syria, not military action, but they have been there at some capacity.

Russia putting boots on the ground? A LOT of boots on the ground…

Now does obama think he has the remotest chance at deposing Assad now? Not a chance.[/quote]

From the Russia Today (owned by the Russian government) link:

"Meanwhile, an Israeli military news website, DEBKAfile, has cited military sources as saying that a Chinese aircraft carrier, the Liaoning-CV-16, has already been spotted at the Syrian port of Tartus on the Mediterranean coast. It was said to be accompanied by a guided missile cruiser. "

DEBKAfile is widely seen as an unreliable sensationalist source. Avoid it and stories that cite it like the plague. Their military and intelligence sources are almost always fabrications. Case in point - there is no evidence that China has deployed its sole aircraft carrier to Syrian territorial waters. It’s next to impossible to keep the travels of a ship the size of a skyscraper secret. If it were true, it would be front page news.[/quote]

Perhaps it is an unreliable source but these rumblings are emerging more and more.

So there is some evidence. Whether its true or not remains to be seen. I am not going to Syria to verify it for myself, but there is more and more about this seeping up to the surface.
I will take your word for it though, that DEBKAfile is a hack information source as many Russian sources are garbage. But having seen it from other sources as well, I am going to go ahead and leave the door open that it may be true, at least to some degree.

China moving an aircraft carrier in the area would barely be a blip on the news. The main stream media here is barely giving war coverage. Only that there is a war in Syria, hardly any details or information.

451

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ok Bistro, for the third or fourth time, where is the Koran reference?[/quote]

Al-Baqara 2:173 reads, “He has only forbidden you carrion, blood, pig’s meat, and animals over which any name other than God’s has been invoked. But if anyone is forced to eat such things by hunger, rather than desire or excess, he commits no sin: God is most merciful and forgiving.” Shooting jihadists with pig laced ammunition or desecrating their corspes similarly would not be theologically disconcerting to them in the least. Through their ostensibly faithful acts, martyrs are exempt from the practice of ghusl. Even if they were not, forced contact with pork products would not constitute a sin, much less a damnation worthy one capable of deterring them.[/quote]

That’s kinda what I thought, namely you flat-out don’t know what you’re talking about…or the professor you’re echoing doesn’t. One or the other or probably both. The Koranic text you cited above does NOT even remotely imply that immersing a dead Muslim in pork lard is NOT desecration – which is what I mentioned to begin with.
[/quote]

Obviously it is by definition desecration. I never denied as much; in fact, I explicitly stated it multiple times. What was under discussion was whether or not it was theologically damning and thus capable of establishing deterrence. Desecration constitutes forced contact. Ergo, it wouldn’t be sinful for the lay Muslim, much less a martyr, especially so given that they are exempt from the practice of ghusl. Your “cure” isn’t pragmatic hardball; it’s counterproductive barbarism. [/quote]

I don’t know that I considered it a cure, Bistrolita. More like a poke in their eye.

Don’t sweat it though as I won’t get crowned emperor anytime in the next few months or even years.
[/quote]

It plays right into the al-Qaida narrative of a clash of civilizations. ISIL has explicitly embraced a strategy of destroying the gray space between Islam and the secular state system. Emotive and from the hip retaliatory responses are exactly what the enemy wants. Why play right into their hands? [/quote]

Well, biz, I have two thoughts. One is that I agree that acting out against their culture and traditions have little to no value and there is no point in doing it. I think killing terrorists and taking out their safe havens and defeating them coldly should be sufficient language.
So I agree squirting muslims down in pork juice is pointless and is an emotive reaction rather than a qualitative military defeat.

On the other hand, I don’t care what al qaeda, ISIS or anybody else thinks. But I agree needlessly offending millions of muslims just for the sake of offending them is pointless and in the end harmful to our cause.
I maintain the narrative that while I support and encourage harsh military action to defeat islamic terrorism where ever it raises it’s head, we have to as human beings, be better than they are and not stoop to their levels.

Besides, they’ll figure out they are in hell when they get there.

452

[quote]HellenAllen wrote:
Of course, any act of terrorism and the death of innocent people is a disaster, but why you so actively pity people from Paris, but not from other parts of the world? I have a lot of friends in http://marrydatingchat.com/ from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and other parts of the world where there is war and people are dying every day, but nobody tells nothing about them![/quote]

Why pity the death of a family member but not someone you don’t know in another part of the world?

453

Raise your hand if you think Hollande is wasting his time talking to obama?

Obama has made it clear that he’s not going to change or modify the strategy against ISIS one bit. In the mean time, we have the State Department telling us not to stay out to much, don’t go to sporting events, etc. So do you feel safer now?

So don’t be afraid, just stay home? Terrorists 1, obama 0.

Obama is becoming more and more isolated. No one believes him, yet he just won’t admit he might be wrong. He lives in this fantasy world where he can just take his time with ISIS and eventually they will get defeated and while they give us little set backs like the attacks in Paris. Literally, it seems like he’s the only one who believes the current soft strategy is working. Even uber liberals think he’s acting weekly.

I don’t suppose he will ever admit he is actually a war time president. And being at war and pretending like you are not a war time president is kinda dangerous and stupid.

454

When Islamic State fighters overran a string of Iraqi cities last year, analysts at United States Central Command wrote classified assessments for military intelligence officials and policy makers that documented the humiliating retreat of the Iraqi Army. But before the assessments were final, former intelligence officials said, the analysts? superiors made significant changes.

In the revised documents, the Iraqi Army had not retreated at all. The soldiers had simply ?redeployed.?

Such changes are at the heart of an expanding internal Pentagon investigation of Centcom, as Central Command is known, where analysts say that supervisors revised conclusions to mask some of the American military?s failures in training Iraqi troops and beating back the Islamic State. The analysts say supervisors were particularly eager to paint a more optimistic picture of America?s role in the conflict than was warranted.

455

[quote]pat wrote:
Oh snap… Turkey shot down a Russian jet. Russia talking tough warning of retaliation. Russia striking Turkey, a NATO member and American ally… Geez this could get very complicated if Russia and Turkey start going after each other.

I know Turkey doesn’t like Russia, but breaching air space while fighting a common enemy, I don’t know if Turkey should have done that. I know they have warned the Russians multiple times, but in the interest of not escalating tensions anymore, maybe they should have shown some restraint. What do yall think?
[/quote]

Now would be a real good time to kick those belligerent assholes out of NATO. 100% support Russian retaliation against the turks.

456

[quote]Aggv wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Oh snap… Turkey shot down a Russian jet. Russia talking tough warning of retaliation. Russia striking Turkey, a NATO member and American ally… Geez this could get very complicated if Russia and Turkey start going after each other.

I know Turkey doesn’t like Russia, but breaching air space while fighting a common enemy, I don’t know if Turkey should have done that. I know they have warned the Russians multiple times, but in the interest of not escalating tensions anymore, maybe they should have shown some restraint. What do yall think?
[/quote]

Now would be a real good time to kick those belligerent assholes out of NATO. 100% support Russian retaliation against the turks. [/quote]

For doing what? Exercising their inherent rights under international law to maintain the sovereignty of their airspace? This is at least the third time Russian strike fighters have violated Turkish airspace. Kicking Turkey out of NATO would only leave it open to Russian retaliation. Extended American deterrence would be lost. Leaving states out to dry for acting lawfully doesn’t exactly set a good precedent for American allies.

457

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Kicking Turkey out of NATO would only leave it open to Russian retaliation. [/quote]

That’s the point.

459

Turkey is upset that Russia is now bombing their cheap oil supply.

460

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
When Islamic State fighters overran a string of Iraqi cities last year, analysts at United States Central Command wrote classified assessments for military intelligence officials and policy makers that documented the humiliating retreat of the Iraqi Army. But before the assessments were final, former intelligence officials said, the analysts? superiors made significant changes.

In the revised documents, the Iraqi Army had not retreated at all. The soldiers had simply ?redeployed.?

Such changes are at the heart of an expanding internal Pentagon investigation of Centcom, as Central Command is known, where analysts say that supervisors revised conclusions to mask some of the American military?s failures in training Iraqi troops and beating back the Islamic State. The analysts say supervisors were particularly eager to paint a more optimistic picture of America?s role in the conflict than was warranted.

What an absolute disgrace.