Armageddon In Paris

[dualstow]

It does some like just yesterday (It's been 2 years) that many of us were saying ISIS is none of our business and it's not "coming to our town" and nothing to worry about.
Now, we've already had two attacks in Paris alone.
Next stop, Times Square?
I'm glad we're better at thwarting attacks than France is, but how do you stop every single attempt?

[moda0306]

It does some like just yesterday (It's been 2 years) that many of us were saying ISIS is none of our business and it's not "coming to our town" and nothing to worry about.
Now, we've already had two attacks in Paris alone.
Next stop, Times Square?
I'm glad we're better at thwarting attacks than France is, but how do you stop every single attempt?

Please link us to what "many of us" were actually saying. I don't think anyone thinks Isis to not a threat at all, nor that they couldn't possibly "Come to our town."  Of course they are "our business" to a degree.  The question is whether they are a catastrophic threat to the safety of our country (or Europe) worthy of engaging in permanent war with.

Application of soft power or sanctions is far, far different than a state of permanent war.

[ochotona]

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.

These kinds of attacks don't work well in concealed carry states!

[dualstow]

It does some like just yesterday (It's been 2 years) that many of us were saying ISIS is none of our business and it's not "coming to our town" and nothing to worry about.
Now, we've already had two attacks in Paris alone.
Next stop, Times Square?
I'm glad we're better at thwarting attacks than France is, but how do you stop every single attempt?

Please link us to what "many of us" were actually saying. I don't think anyone thinks Isis to not a threat at all, nor that they couldn't possibly "Come to our town."
~

I like how, in the process of calling me on quotes, you changed "are not" to "couldn't possibly." At least you wisely left that part out of the quotes.But anyway, here's the first example of what I was thinking of. Took about 6 seconds to find.

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... ghborhood/

I'm not going to comb through all the ISIS search results, just to show that my memory of two years ago is more accurate than yours from one post ago, Moda. But, if you want to look for yourself, I seem to remember such turns of phrase as "burn themselves out" or "will burn itself out."

And let me be clear: I did not mean for my post above to sound like an "I told you so." The same people who said that ISIS was not a big threat to the West are members that I consider to be friends, here. Hell, I may have even been one of them! That's why I said many of us and not "many of you." I'm just saying that it is rather startling, what strides ISIS has made since we first heard of them. At least, to me it's startling.

[moda0306]

It does some like just yesterday (It's been 2 years) that many of us were saying ISIS is none of our business and it's not "coming to our town" and nothing to worry about.
Now, we've already had two attacks in Paris alone.
Next stop, Times Square?
I'm glad we're better at thwarting attacks than France is, but how do you stop every single attempt?

Please link us to what "many of us" were actually saying. I don't think anyone thinks Isis to not a threat at all, nor that they couldn't possibly "Come to our town."
~

I like how, in the process of calling me on quotes, you changed "are not" to "couldn't possibly." At least you wisely left that part out of the quotes.But anyway, here's the first example of what I was thinking of. Took about 6 seconds to find.

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... ghborhood/

I'm not going to comb through all the ISIS search results, just to show that my memory of two years ago is more accurate than yours from one post ago, Moda. But, if you want to look for yourself, I seem to remember such turns of phrase as "burn themselves out" or "will burn itself out."

And let me be clear: I did not mean for my post above to sound like an "I told you so." The same people who said that ISIS was not a big threat to the West are members that I consider to be friends, here. Hell, I may have even been one of them! That's why I said many of us and not "many of you." I'm just saying that it is rather startling, what strides ISIS has made since we first heard of them. At least, to me it's startling.

Sorry for misquoting you. I wasn't trying to engage in hyperbole.

That link really shows no hard opinions on the matter.

The most dovish thing I think I've seen on this board about ISIS is that they are not a catastrophic threat to the US and we shouldn't use them as an excuse to engage in permanent war. I don't think I've seen anything more extreme than that.

[dualstow]

Hey, I'm all for dovishness when the horse isn't already out of the barn.

Took a break from my soupmaking and found a quote from my beloved Jan Van (Goldmember avatar)

At some point Isis will self implode, you heard it here first!

http://gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/ot ... y-isis/72/
Let's hope it's sooner rather than later, Jan. 

[dualstow]

Elsewhere-

(Clacy) Someone, somewhere has to stand up to these barbarians.  The US certainly can't do it alone, but there is NO WAY they can be defeated without the US's leadership (as well as money/weapons/etc).

By the way, Clacy nailed it more than anyone else on this forum. Early and often.

fnord, who is far and away the most helpful math guy on the forum, replied. And fnord, I envy you your pacifism, but looking back...I don't know. As bad as Iraq was, maybe turning away is not an option.

(fnord)Why is the US leadership required? Why do we need to defeat them?

Let's say they setup a crazy, behead-happy theocracy in western Iraq and eastern Syria, mostly composed of Sunnis.  Why is this our problem?  The US is running massive deficits.  Saudi Arabia has a budget surplus of tens to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Why not let Saudi Arabia deal with them?  Germany has had budget surpluses recently in the billions - why not let them deal with it?  Both countries are much closer to Syria/Iraq than we are.

Why should we bankrupt our country further and impose massive debt on our children to try to force the population in the area in question to live under an oppressive government we pick rather than one they pick?

For the record, I agreed in several places about how Saudi Arabia should really step up. The only problem is that they don't do enough.

Edit: fixed quote tags.

[Fred]

Maybe if we stick our heads in the sand they'll like us and they won't come here?

If the choice is either to stick our heads in the sand or respond to this attack the way we did to the 9/11 attacks, I will take the first option.

Especially if this is the result of waging war on Isis...

http://www.fox8live.com/story/30428985/ ... ew-orleans

[Pointedstick]

What we need to stop is the invade the world/invite the world insanity. One or the other, preferably both. But for Christ's sake, if we're going to bomb or attack a region of the world, we can't let their refugees into our country! Those are people who are going to be bitter and angry, avoid assimilating, and be a drain on the economy, and their kids will become gang members or domestic terrorists.

When it comes to ISIS, I think the USA has less to worry about then Europe because of the geographic distance, but it's clear that these lunatics want to blue us up too, they just haven't figured out a wood way yet. I propose a total ban on all immigration and visa issuance to Muslims and Arabs until ISIS is dead and gone, and a ramping up of concealed carry laws throughout the country, with federal pre-emption of gun-free zones. If the terrorists want to try a Mumbai/Paris-style attack here, let them eat bullets.

[dualstow]

I propose a total ban on all immigration and visa issuance to Muslims and Arabs until ISIS is dead and gone,

It must suck to be a Muslim fleeing Assad, only to find yourself unwanted by a large group of people in your new homeland because of the actions of a few from your old homeland. But, the world is (still) unfair. This is the cruel reality we're living in.

[Pointedstick]

Long-term, I think it would be in the west's interests to help the middle-eastern states stabilize and become nicer places to live so the substantial number of people living there don't turn to terrorism and flee their oppressive governments, civil wars, or political violence. Easier said than done, obviously.

[Libertarian666]

Long-term, I think it would be in the west's interests to help the middle-eastern states stabilize and become nicer places to live so the substantial number of people living there don't turn to terrorism and flee their oppressive governments, civil wars, or political violence. Easier said than done, obviously.

Sure, but an obvious first step is for the US military to get out of there and stay out.

[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.