Armageddon In Paris

[Jake]

Days like today remind me of the article that Harry Browne wrote on September 12th, 2001.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/browne2.html

[dualstow]

If Harry were here today and making the same statements, I would respectfully disagree with some of them. I don't think he's unpatriotic by any means. And, certainly, the argument could be made today that Paris was a target because it is participating in bombing runs. But, is ISIS really going to leave the West alone if we stop? What about if we'd never made a single bombing run? No.

They are an apocalyptic organization by their own definition. They may be blaming France right now for its bombs, but they have also made it clear that they want to draw Western troops in for a battle on the ground. Not to get us to leave the middle east alone.  It is not yet Armagedddon in Paris, but Armageddon is literally something they believe in, and literally something that they want.

[Libertarian666]

If Harry were here today and making the same statements, I would respectfully disagree with some of them. I don't think he's unpatriotic by any means. And, certainly, the argument could be made today that Paris was a target because it is participating in bombing runs. But, is ISIS really going to leave the West alone if we stop? What about if we'd never made a single bombing run? No.

They are an apocalyptic organization by their own definition. They may be blaming France right now for its bombs, but they have also made it clear that they want to draw Western troops in for a battle on the ground. Not to get us to leave the middle east alone.  It is not yet Armagedddon in Paris, but Armageddon is literally something they believe in, and literally something that they want.

The reason that ISIS is a threat at all is due to the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, which was warned against by many people.

So Harry's article is still right on point. Unfortunately, it seems that most people will never learn.

[dualstow]

The reason that ISIS is a threat at all is due to the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, which was warned against by many people.

So Harry's article is still right on point. Unfortunately, it seems that most people will never learn.

Fine, we created them. Can we commit filicide now? Or at least try to? If not, then you're right that I will never "learn" your viewpoint.

[Pointedstick]

The reason that ISIS is a threat at all is due to the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, which was warned against by many people.

That is true. It's also in the past, which can't be changed. So now that we have, in large part due to our own blunders, unleashed this monster on the world, I think we can't just ignore it. If we made the mess, we share in the responsibility to clean it up.

[Libertarian666]

The reason that ISIS is a threat at all is due to the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, which was warned against by many people.

That is true. It's also in the past, which can't be changed. So now that we have, in large part due to our own blunders, unleashed this monster on the world, I think we can't just ignore it. If we made the mess, we share in the responsibility to clean it up.

The burden is on those who want to continue intervening, because those who were against the prior interventions have proven to be right about the effects of those interventions.

[Pointedstick]

The reason that ISIS is a threat at all is due to the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, which was warned against by many people.

That is true. It's also in the past, which can't be changed. So now that we have, in large part due to our own blunders, unleashed this monster on the world, I think we can't just ignore it. If we made the mess, we share in the responsibility to clean it up.

The burden is on those who want to continue intervening, because those who were against the prior interventions have proven to be right about the effects of those interventions.

Can you clarify what this means? I'm not sure what you're saying.

[dualstow]

Non-American Muslims are still getting killed far faster at the hands of these groups than Americans are.
I'm just wondering if they have also figured out a way to blame themselves. 
Oh, I'm kidding. I know they blame the Jews.

[MediumTex]

I think that the U.S. and Russia need to sit down and decide who is going to rule Syria and then get busy installing that guy in to power.  If it's Assad, then it will be easy.

Once this new/existing leader is in place, the U.S./France/Russia/whoever else wants to help can proceed with hunting the bad guys down and killing them.

When a group blows a large plane out of the sky and shoots up Paris like this, you've got to take decisive action against them.

The next time the U.S. gets the itch to attack another country that is relatively stable and not threatening to attack us, I hope people remember what a mess the fallout from Iraq and Afghanistan turned into.

We are going to be paying for Iraq and Afghanistan in the form of these sorts of radical groups for decades.

My theory is that every single civilian casualty in Iraq and Afghanistan had the potential to create 5-10 radicals who might come for us at some point in the future.  Think about all of the young males who saw their homes blown up, who saw their families humiliated, and who saw family members and friends killed for nothing by U.S. forces (just collateral damage).  Imagine the conversations they had with themselves as they tried to cope with their grief.  Imagine how many of them said to themselves that they would make revenge and retribution their life's mission.

[dualstow]

The Iraq War made little sense to me. I accept Bob Woodward's point of view in his book, 'Plan of Attack.' The invasion of Afghanistan, on the other hand, was more justified in my opinion.  I suppose it doesn't matter now. The implementtion didn't work out.

[Libertarian666]

That is true. It's also in the past, which can't be changed. So now that we have, in large part due to our own blunders, unleashed this monster on the world, I think we can't just ignore it. If we made the mess, we share in the responsibility to clean it up.

The burden is on those who want to continue intervening, because those who were against the prior interventions have proven to be right about the effects of those interventions.

Can you clarify what this means? I'm not sure what you're saying.

What I'm saying is:

1. All the previous interventions were done to "make things better in the Middle East".
2. The people who warned that they would make things worse were pooh-poohed as being "isolationists" or "weak" or some such.
3. The result was that they did in fact make things much worse.
4. We are now hearing the same claims that we need to intervene to "make things better in the Middle East".
5. Some of the same people who objected to the previous interventions are objecting to any new intervention.
6. They are being pooh-poohed again for being "isolationist" or "weak".

Since insanity could be defined as doing the same thing and expecting different results, anyone who claims that further interventions will improve anything has the burden of proof that any further interventions will work. I don't see how such a burden of proof could be met, so I'm against any further interventions.

[Libertarian666]

What do you think we should do?

If there's any personally-applicable lesson to learn here, it's this: if they try it here, shoot back. Carry your guns. I'm wearing one right now and you should be too. Don't go down without a fight. Do your part to protect your society and your civilization.

Along these lines:

Logic of a Modern Militia
--- William S. Lind in The American Conservative

To fit 21st-century realities, it would have to begin by acknowledging the greatest change in war since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. That treaty, which ended the Thirty Years’ War, gave the state a monopoly on armed conflict. As laid out in Martin van Creveld’s brilliant book The Transformation of War, published in 1991, the state is now losing that monopoly. All over the world, state armed forces designed, trained, and equipped to fight each other are instead fighting non-state opponents in what I call Fourth Generation war. All over the world, state armed forces are losing.

An American national-security policy designed for an era of this new style of war would have two aspects: security overseas and security at home. Both would look very different from current policy.

Security overseas means avoiding entanglement in Fourth Generation wars.
    ...
We need a militia that ideally includes all male American citizens. In a world where the state no longer has a monopoly on war, we must return to a pre-state world where every able male is a warrior. The Latin word “populus” originally meant “army.”

Unlike our colonial militias, however, these new militiamen would have neither weapons nor organization. Rather, they would take a pledge that whenever they encounter a “lone shooter,” they will stop him using whatever they have at hand: throwing rocks or chairs, tackling him, beating him unconscious, running over him with their car. If they happen to be armed, fine; if not, they attack anyway.

This summer saw an example of such a militia in action on a train in France, where three young Americans, an airman, a National Guardsman, and a civilian, along with two European men, assaulted and stopped an Islamist “lone shooter.” They acted as American men would pledge themselves to act in the new national militia.

Would some of those swarming a shooter get killed? Probably. As the men on the train said, “We figured we were going to die anyway.”

Liberty requires courage. The national-security state, in which the government tells civilians to hide under the bed while professionals take care of them, demands citizens trade their liberties for false promises of security. The state cannot fulfill that promise against “lone shooters.”

I can't disagree with any of that.

[clacy]

Intervention, non-intervention, it makes no difference.

There is a problem out there and it will have to be dealt with one way or another. There are no good options that wouldn't ultimately involve lots of bloodshed and destruction.

[Mountaineer]

The world is not a fair place, never has been, never will be no matter how much we would like it to be so.  Each individual needs to decide "would I rather live under western commonly held values (mainly Judeo-Christian based) or Islamic commonly held values, or no commonly held values (anarchy), or something else?"  Which is more just and which is more evil, recognizing nothing is perfect?  Once you answer that question, then support those in the elected or appointed positions in the country you choose to live in.  The elected/appointed officials may not always be right, but we should be spending our energies on fighting (however you wish to define that) the external enemy rather than picking at each other for past mistakes that we can do nothing about.  In my opinion, once we decide we are "at war" with another entity that wishes to do us harm, do whatever it takes to defeat them - totally - then forgive those "collateral damages" who are left and rebuild.  I believe if one examines history, the "partial" attempts at winning a war were rarely, if ever, successful.

... M

[dualstow]

4. We are now hearing the same claims that we need to intervene to "make things better in the Middle East"

From the point of view of France, with its citizens being shot and blown up, would taking action still be called "intervening?" And, would it necessarily be about imporoving things in the Middle East or just at home?

[Pointedstick]

Yeah. I am totally on board with the thesis that we largely created ISIS. But so what? Now that we've created it, it's here, and it's not just gonna go away. I did not support the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, but they happened, and now their consequences need to be dealt with.

And just to play devil's advocate, if ISIS wanted to neutralize our advantage of armed civilians, all they would have to do is set off suicide bombs instead of shoot people. CCW-holders can't exactly stop that threat. Little can, really. If we find ourselves on that road, we're gonna be learning a lot of lessons from Israel and we're probably going to be happy that Trump is the president and he built a bunch of big beautiful walls.

[Libertarian666]

This is a long article from back in March of this year.  It's worth a read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... =SFTwitter

I agree with those pointing out that the rise of ISIS is a direct consequence of the Bush admin's terrible choice to invade Iraq.  I also agree that ISIS is not a force that will live and let live.  It will now have to be defeated.  Fortunately, ISIS is making some formidable enemies, so I would hope that France or Russia will take on the task of destroying every last one of them. 

And as PS has pointed out, if they come over here, they'll face some return fire.

Maybe this is why the liberal media doesn't seem to be too upset by the caliphate?

"The Islamic State may have medieval-style punishments for moral crimes (lashes for boozing or fornication, stoning for adultery), but its social-welfare program is, at least in some aspects, progressive to a degree that would please an MSNBC pundit. "

(from the Atlantic article linked above)

[Libertarian666]

"And yet the risks of escalation are enormous. The biggest proponent of an American invasion is the Islamic State itself. The provocative videos, in which a black-hooded executioner addresses President Obama by name, are clearly made to draw America into the fight. An invasion would be a huge propaganda victory for jihadists worldwide: irrespective of whether they have given baya’a to the caliph, they all believe that the United States wants to embark on a modern-day Crusade and kill Muslims. Yet another invasion and occupation would confirm that suspicion, and bolster recruitment. Add the incompetence of our previous efforts as occupiers, and we have reason for reluctance. The rise of ISIS, after all, happened only because our previous occupation created space for Zarqawi and his followers. Who knows the consequences of another botched job?"

Also from the Atlantic article.

[dualstow]

I like PS's idea of return fire, but if it's tourists in Times Square- scratch that, if it's NYC, period, which it very likely will be, who will have a firearm to fight back, save for the police?

And, I don't want to get all "they hate our freedoms", but this thread seems somewhat unbalanced with its singular focus on our misadventures in Iraq. There are unemployed, disenfranchised Algerians, Tunisians, etc.,  lots of them, in France, Belgium, etc. They are ripe for joining ISIS. Yes, they may say they're predicating this on the U.S. invasions, but isn't the current situation of these individuals in Europe equally significant? They have to be unhappy to be recruited and radicalized in the first place, don't they? Most of them?

[I Shrugged]

Yes, I was mocking the idea that ISIS was going to come here to the US.  It is quite possible I will be proven wrong.  My reason for posting that was that I saw the usual neocon hawks using ISIS as their reason of the moment to gin up support for more US warfare in Iraq.  It surely must gall them that for all of the treasure, death, and destruction, we created a situation far worse than what existed before we invaded.  Said invasion and war being totally the legacy of neocon hawks.  ISIS is the most noteworthy example of the Iraq war, and neocons, gone wrong.

Now, ISIS is making my objection a lot less relevant.  We're going to have to deal them.  But I hope I live long enough to at some point hear a neocon admit they screwed up the world but good.

[Libertarian666]

Yes, I was mocking the idea that ISIS was going to come here to the US.  It is quite possible I will be proven wrong.  My reason for posting that was that I saw the usual neocon hawks using ISIS as their reason of the moment to gin up support for more US warfare in Iraq.  It surely must gall them that for all of the treasure, death, and destruction, we created a situation far worse than what existed before we invaded.  Said invasion and war being totally the legacy of neocon hawks.  ISIS is the most noteworthy example of the Iraq war, and neocons, gone wrong.

Now, ISIS is making my objection a lot less relevant.  We're going to have to deal them.  But I hope I live long enough to at some point hear a neocon admit they screwed up the world but good.

Why would they do that? The military-industrial complex is doing very well from the permanent war, and the neocons get to accelerate the police state here. Win-win!

[dualstow]

Robert McNamara gave a mea culpa. Anything's possible.

[WiseOne]

I like PS's idea of return fire, but if it's tourists in Times Square- scratch that, if it's NYC, period, which it very likely will be, who will have a firearm to fight back, save for the police?

I'd be willing to place bets that ISIS is planning a Paris-style attack in NYC right this very minute.  I hope there aren't any forum members living in the high density touristy areas that will likely be targeted, like Times Square, Rockefeller Center, and Ground Zero.

PS's post is probably the first one that actively made me wonder if it wouldn't actually be a terrible idea to try to negotiate NYC's byzantine and expensive gun laws.  I think the gun permit costs over $300 and requires in person police interviews, and I don't know if concealed carry is permitted.

Remember that scene from the first Indiana Jones movie where this terrifying looking, black-swathed expert swordsman comes up, demonstrates his prowess, assumes an attack stance, and then I.J. pulls a little revolver out of his pocket, fires one shot, shakes his head and walks away?

[dualstow]

Remember that scene from the first Indiana Jones movie where this terrifying looking, black-swathed expert swordsman comes up, demonstrates his prowess, assumes an attack stance, and then I.J. pulls a little revolver out of his pocket, fires one shot, shakes his head and walks away?

I read somewhere that Harrison Ford did that spontaneously because he was genuinely tired, and that Spielberg was delighted. :-)
EDIT: wiki says he had dysentery, poor guy.

[Pointedstick]

A CCW permit in NYC is unfortunately virtually impossible to get if you're not rich or a celebrity, but it is technically possible. I think Donald Trump has one, as well as a bunch more of NYC's rich and powerful. Not sure the effort would be worth it for a regular person, frankly. Mathjak could probably tell you more. You'd probably be better off spending your time and money getting a legal edged weapon or spray, and purchasing training to use them effectively. Improvised weapons could work too; anything is better than letting yourself be slaughtered without putting up a fight.

If you are interested in changing this sad state of affairs I suggest joining the NRA, NYSRPA, and the Second Amendment Foundation. Those would be the relevant, effective, and legit organizations that actually get things done.