Paris attacks - ongoing

[Deleted member 53669]

If we're just going to ignore the bomb ISIS planted on a Russian airliner two weeks ago, resulting in 224 deaths...

Oh yeah. Well, fuck western media anyways. It's obvious no one cares unless something happens at a certain proximity next to a Starbucks.

But the meme made me laugh. So, join me in laughing.

 

[Sub-Human]

If we're just going to ignore the bomb ISIS planted on a Russian airliner two weeks ago, resulting in 224 deaths...

Oh yeah. Well, fuck western media anyways. It's obvious no one cares unless something happens at a certain proximity next to a Starbucks.

But the meme made me laugh. So, join me in laughing.

Can't really blame them, given how hell-bent Russia was on denying any ISIS involvement and the absolute apathy of the Russian government towards the deaths (any Western leader would have arrived at the airport to welcome home the remains of the bodies... or at least made a speech following the attack).

 

[SuAside]

Am I the only one who thinks that there would be no ISIS if Sadam was still around? Reap what you sow.

Also, if the US wouldn't be so busy supporting Syrian rebels to overthrow Assad perhaps they could join forces with the Russians and get rid of them for good. But no, let's overthrow another middle east leader who keeps things tidy, destabilize the whole area and help organizations like ISIS appear and gain strength.

That's more or less true for all the arab leaders which bit the dust in the arab spring. While they might not all be very friendly to the western countries, they pretty much all had to keep tight reigns on extremism since it also threatened their own power base.

The region would have been better off with Ghadaffi, Assad, Saddam, Ben Ali and so on were still firmly in power. Of course, for the locals, this wasn't always pleasant. But a lot more of them would be alive today, at least. For better or for worse.

 

[Sander]

Am I the only one who thinks that there would be no ISIS if Sadam was still around? Reap what you sow.

Also, if the US wouldn't be so busy supporting Syrian rebels to overthrow Assad perhaps they could join forces with the Russians and get rid of them for good. But no, let's overthrow another middle east leader who keeps things tidy, destabilize the whole area and help organizations like ISIS appear and gain strength.

I don't think a murderous dictator who has multiple groups violently rebelling against him is "keeping things tidy"

 

[Gonzalez]

If I were the leader of one of these nations and these groups are as violent as ISIS I would be a murderous dictator too. Murderous against those groups at least. These nations have not earned their democracies the proper way, you help them take down the current strong man and a worse one will replace it. There should be some sort of "Prime Directive" against intervening in these countries, let them sort themselves out.

 

[valcik]

Am I the only one who thinks that there would be no ISIS if Sadam was still around?

No, I tend to agree, since ISIS power structure was architected by Samir Abd Muhammad al-Khlifawi, former Iraqi colonel in service of Saddam Hussein as a head of his intelligence services. After dissolution of Saddam's military forces in 2003, thousands of top-ranked unemployed Iraqi officers have formed what is know as ISIS today.

 

[Sander]

If I were the leader of one of these nations and these groups are as violent as ISIS I would be a murderous dictator too. Murderous against those groups at least. These nations have not earned their democracies the proper way, you help them take down the current strong man and a worse one will replace it. There should be some sort of "Prime Directive" against intervening in these countries, let them sort themselves out.

Human rights: only for people you like.

The Syrian civil war was a direct response to Assad's ongoing murderous regime and human rights abuses. There are a variety of groups fighting Assad since 2011, with ISIS only joining the fray the past couple of years. Assad is not someone just trying to keep his country tidy. He's been slaughtering his own civilian population for years. This notion that he was keeping sectarian violence in check is unadulterated bullshit.

Which doesn't mean that Western countries should intervene with military force, either. It just doesn't help matters to pretend that murderous dictators preserve order, when what they're really doing is violently oppressing their own population, leading to inevitable violent rebellions.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Dictators that saw also often enough quite some substantial support by the west and Russia ...

 

[Gonzalez]

Don't human rights me, my country had to suffer human rights violators sponsored by the same people who now want to overthrow Assad because of the same human rights violations you are babbling about, so bullshit to that. At the very least letting them slaughter each other would had avoided things like what happened in Paris. Taking the moral high ground is easy when looking from the outside, but both those who fight for Assad and against him on the ground have their reasons and think their view is right, as well as personal feelings of why they are fighting, they don't get the luxury of your black and white evaluations.

So fine, you have the most politically correct opinion, you are a better human being than me, here is a cookie. I still think things would had evolved much better if European and North American coalitions would had stayed out of it instead of using human rights that you believe in but they don't as an excuse to manipulate the fate of nations to their own convenience.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Maybe I am wrong, but I feel this is more or less Sanders point, staying out of it doesn't mean to cancel or cut any kind of support, particularly humanitarian support. Manipulating governments/nations and intervening with military actions very rarely solve problems in the long run. I am sure he is aware of that. *shrugs*

Which doesn't mean that Western countries should intervene with military force, either. It just doesn't help matters to pretend that murderous dictators preserve order, when what they're really doing is violently oppressing their own population, leading to inevitable violent rebellions.

 

[DarkCorp]

Sander: These dictators are murderous assholes but we hqve no right to overthrow/kick them out.

Crni: These dictators are buttholes but we have no right to remove them. We should just throw humanitarian money at them so they can keep the status quo going.

Gonz won this round, whats the point of doing any damn thing when all one does is TALK about how bad dictators are.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I am with you on that one, we should not do more than offering humanitarian aid, as harsh as that might sometimes be, but I feel in the long run it is the better decision when you consider the alternatives, going in with full military force.

 

[naossano]

Which doesn't mean that Western countries should intervene with military force, either. It just doesn't help matters to pretend that murderous dictators preserve order, when what they're really doing is violently oppressing their own population, leading to inevitable violent rebellions.

IMO, the problem isn't that France and EU intervened in Syria, the problem is that they intervened when it was way too late in Syria and withrawed too early from lybia. The Islamic State wasn't that much a reality in 2011. The problem is that rebellion reached a stalemate that lasted too much years, years during which that fanatic group has risen. Had the rebellion succeded faster, that group wouldn't have gained so much strenght. We aren't paying the price of intervening now, we are paying the price of not having intervened in 2011. Beside that, we also were careless in preventing our citizens to become fanatic themselves. Many of the people the coalition is fighting in Syria/Iraq are frenchmen that converted themselves to islam and islam fanatism. In short, many of the things that are currently happenning to us are caused by the fact we did nothing for years.

 

[Sander]

Don't human rights me, my country had to suffer human rights violators sponsored by the same people who now want to overthrow Assad because of the same human rights violations you are babbling about, so bullshit to that. At the very least letting them slaughter each other would had avoided things like what happened in Paris. Taking the moral high ground is easy when looking from the outside, but both those who fight for Assad and against him on the ground have their reasons and think their view is right, as well as personal feelings of why they are fighting, they don't get the luxury of your black and white evaluations.

So fine, you have the most politically correct opinion, you are a better human being than me, here is a cookie. I still think things would had evolved much better if European and North American coalitions would had stayed out of it instead of using human rights that you believe in but they don't as an excuse to manipulate the fate of nations to their own convenience.

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I'm not calling for Western armies to intervene. That kind of neo-imperialist policy has failed over and over again, producing mass civilian casualties and stripping local people of their agency. It's horrible.

What I was objecting to was not the notion that the West should stay out, but that Assad was "keeping things tidy." That's nonsense, and really dangerous nonsense at that because it's the exact rationale that Western countries (and the USA in particular) have used over and over again to prop up oppressive regimes.


@naossano: The rise of ISIS is more or less a direct result of the West's invasion of Iraq, a war that led to over a million dead in the region. I don't think "didn't intervene enough" is the issue here.

 

[Crni Vuk]

We really need a prime directive.

 

[Akratus]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...n-isis-stronghold-in-syria-after-paris-attack

French fighter jets launched their biggest raids in Syria to date targeting the Islamic State’s stronghold in Raqqa just two days after the group claimed coordinated attacks in Paris that killed more than 130 people, the defence ministry said.“The raid ... including 10 fighter jets, was launched simultaneously from the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. Twenty bombs were dropped,” the statement said, adding that the mission had taken place this evening.

The operation, carried out in coordination with US forces, struck a command centre, recruitment centre for jihadists, a munitions depot, and a training camp for fighters. The sites targeted had previously been identified on earlier reconnaissance flights, the statement said.

A defence official was quoted by Associated Press as saying the strikes were ‘massive’ and had destroyed two jihadi sites in Raqqa.
“The first target destroyed was used by Daesh (another Arabic acronym for IS) as a command post, jihadist recruitment centre and arms and munitions depot. The second held a terrorist training camp,” a ministry statement said.

In the aftermath of the attacks on Paris, the French President, François Hollande, said terrorists strikes were an “act of war” on France, “organised and planned from the outside”.

He said the attackers wanted “to scare us and fill us with dread”, but warned France’s retribution would be swift and unflinching.

“We are going to lead a war which will be pitiless. Because when terrorists are capable of committing such atrocities they must be certain that they are facing a determined France, a united France, a France that is together and does not let itself be moved, even if today we express infinite sorrow.”

Information from inside Syria suggests the bombings had cut water and electricity supplies.
Activists in Raqqa have said the bombings have caused “panic” in the city.

Raqqa is claimed as the de facto capital of the IS ‘caliphate’, and has come increasingly under the control of the terrorist organisation since 2013.

The city has hollowed out under IS rule - the population has fallen from about one million to 400,000 - and IS has imposed an increasingly harsh regime on those who remain.

I think it's important to act after a crisis. But this just seems to add to the loop of violence some more. No doubt it will make those french or other westerners who want retaliation happy, I suppose. But it makes me feel sad that even a small step on a road to a permanent solution seems nigh impossible.

I feel both sunni doctrine and western imperialism have created a situation that will take decades to change, let alone be dissolved.

 

[DarkCorp]

You talk as if Shia extremists are non-existant.

Even without western influence, Al Qaeda and the like will always be around. They will continue to exist as long as people are dumb enough to join and think sectarian violence is ok.

 

[Akratus]

I'm ignorant on these subjects, forgive me on that. But I know they'll always be around. But they weren't going to the west to blow people up nearly as much 50 years ago. Neither side is wholy to blame.

Footage of french bombing:

Spoiler

Mission accomplished?

 

[Sander]

You talk as if Shia extremists are non-existant.

Even without western influence, Al Qaeda and the like will always be around. They will continue to exist as long as people are dumb enough to join and think sectarian violence is ok.

These folks are targeting Western countries specifically because their neighbors have been killed, their homes destroyed, their country's institutions demolished by Western interventions. Al Qaeda's main mission was to push the West out of (what they saw as) Muslim countries. ISIS plays on anti-Western sentiment to recruit both in the region, and among people in Europe. That anti-Western sentiment is rooted in the violence and death the West has brought to the Middle East and other places around the world. And that sentiment makes a lot of sense if you look at what actually happened, and not at the stories we tell ourselves about our intentions. For instance, the Iraq invasion killed over a million people. A million! As horrifying as these Paris attacks are, they are nothing compared to the violence that region has seen, much of it inflicted by Western hands. We can't just wave our hands and go "not our fault". It is to a large extent our fault.

Moreover, a lot of these folks would not be fighting if they had a home, a job, a family -- all threatened by wars that continue to rage not because of some law of nature, but because of specific policy decisions both in the region and outside of it over the past centuries. See for instance, this enlightening piece by a researcher who interviewed ISIS fighters in prison.

 

[Dr Fallout]

You talk as if Shia extremists are non-existant.

Even without western influence, Al Qaeda and the like will always be around. They will continue to exist as long as people are dumb enough to join and think sectarian violence is ok.

Yep, there were tons of Muslim bombings during or before World War 2. Stop saying shit, it started after west and Soviet intervention in the Middle East.