13/11 Attacks on Paris

[Water Mage]

For rapprochement to begin, first the bad guy needs to be defeated. Thus, your example doesn't apply. If you want to make another option, make one. Let us know when you're done. We, meanwhile, will be solving the problem. Why do I have no right to take a life, regardless of the reason? If someone will blow up the world if I don't kill him first, do I have a right to take his life?

Solving the problem? Really?

You are aware, that solving the problem in they way you are thinking is only going to create even more problems, right?

For example, you may be defending lives of the people of the west, but have ever stop to think about the people of Islam?

Before solving the problem, think about the long-term consequences your solution will have.

I won't deny that I don't have a solution right now, but that doesn't mean I have to give up.

I know I'm gonna find eventually, as long as I don't give up.

And if someone is going to blow the world, you can stop the way he is going to blow the world,l, instead of killing them.

There's always a peaceful solution, if people bothered to look.

[Life]

And yes, killing a killer makes you a killer, after all, if the killer has no right to take a life, you don't either, no mather how good the reason is.

Great. You can just roll over and die then. Because that's what you're suggesting.

[Irysa]

Yannis Koutsomitis ‏@YanniKouts

A second suspected Paris attacker seems to have been registered on Leros island in August ~#Greece police official via @AntennaNews

https://twitter.com/YanniKouts/status/665597237377019905

Source: http://www.antenna.gr/news/Politics/article/428249/dyo-oi-tzixantistes-poy-meso-leroy-eftasan-sto-parisi

EDIT: In terms of actual contribution to the discussion, I'll just say this; people have to sit down and talk eventually to solve problems like this, other solutions are only temporary at best. However, people (or at least, one side) aren't always really willing to talk, and this is one of those times. There is no way to make them more willing to talk (or rather, talk about reasonable demands) without making them realise the futility of their current agenda, and the only way that is achieved is going to be through a long, ardous conflict. Such matters are further complicated when you add religious zeal into it.

Opposing sides will talk eventually. But it won't be for a long time. As Aristotle said, we make war that we may live in peace.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Irysa

[Water Mage]

Great. You can just roll over and die then. Because that's what you're suggesting.

Self-defense is one thing, revenge is another. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "no matter how good the reason is", but rather if have the option to spare a life, but refuses to, that makes you killer.

Again, self-defense is a entirely different thing, sometimes you don't even realize you're killing someone.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Water Mage

[Life]

Self-defense is one thing, revenge is another. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "no matter how good the reason is", but rather if have the option to spare a life, but refuses to, that makes you killer.

Again, self-defense is a entirely different thing, sometimes you don't even realize you're killing someone.

You really don't get it, do you?

These are people that will fight to their last breath because they feel they are martyrs. And their goal is your death. Sounds like absolute self defense to me.

What do you want to do? Educate them? They don't want to be educated because they feel that their way is the right way. They will kill you in the name of Allah and not feel remorse about it because that's what they have been taught.

[blah the Prussian]

Self-defense is one thing, revenge is another. Perhaps I shouldn't have said "no matter how good the reason is", but rather if have the option to spare a life, but refuses to, that makes you killer.

Again, self-defense is a entirely different thing, sometimes you don't even realize you're killing someone.

Do you recognize that this current situation is self defense? I can't see how it can be seen as anything else. To respond to your previous point, a was on ISIS doesn't equate to a war on Islam; on the contrary, it means liberating the countless Muslims living under ISIS. I would consider the vast majority of Muslims in ISIS occupied territory to be more like the Poles, not German civilians. Any Muslim who supports ISIS gets what he deserves when he is killed.

@Yojinbo: The key word here is was. It doesn't matter how good life for Syrians under Assad used to be, the fact is that he is hated by Syrians now. I could debate you on just how shitty of a person Assad is, but it doesn't matter because he isn't staying in power; even Russia has realized that. Also, monarchy is always the answer. Embrace the global monarchist restoration. It is your destiny.

[Luxian]

Solving the problem? Really?
You are aware, that solving the problem in they way you are thinking is only going to create even more problems, right?
For example, you may be defending lives of the people of the west, but have ever stop to think about the people of Islam?
Before solving the problem, think about the long-term consequences your solution will have.

I won't deny that I don't have a solution right now, but that doesn't mean I have to give up.
I know I'm gonna find eventually, as long as I don't give up.

And if someone is going to blow the world, you can stop the way he is going to blow the world,l, instead of killing them.
There's always a peaceful solution, if people bothered to look.

The problem here is that no one wants to look at that "solution" on both sides. The situation is dire because the terrorists will not hear what we have to say, the negotiations almost did never exist. And as for our governement, as I mentioned before, it acts without consideration of the consequences and acts without actual strategy but "Localize the evil guys and kill them" sacrificing French soldier while we know nothing enemy's position, armement, motives or even how they will strike back thus making civilian victims to them.

Right now, in order to defeat ISIS, we need to keep our minds sharp and no stay under shock for too long. True, killing a killer makes you a killer, that fact will not change. But it is also true that up to now, erasing the problem to the core by eliminating it, has been proven very effective.

Of course, no one suggest not to act, but to act wisely. (I didn't intended to quote Flavia but, that phrase somehow applied here)

I remember someone saying something like : Are you ready to trade hundreds or thousands of people in order to save one person ? And what if that person is a terrorist from whatever organisation, who is armed from head to toe with military weapon sending bombs across the world Some might say someone has to take the blame for killing the bad guy, and that fact will precisely make him a hero of commoners who will be glad they won't have to fear for their live. I mean, the majority rightly want those guys dead but everyone is either weak or doesn't won't to soil their hand... I don't ask anyone to kill, but look, those terrorists have gone way too far and they know there is no turning back, that was their resolve. Parley at this point is almost improbable if not impossible. they were ready to kill our people.

The other "pacific" way is capturing that one man however, it will be drastically much more difficult than killing him, this is a fact. And if they ask ransoms and you give them, they will continue to ask...

Again, I will not give in their retaliation circle. That's childish and that won't make us different from them, and I think most people in this thread don't base themselves on such reasoning, but went through an analysis of the situation. But no matter how hard you look at it, there are cases where violence bring peace. "The best defence is a good offence" or "If you want peace, prepare for war", as they say, aren't totally wrong and at crisis time like we must gather our thoughts, and if there really is no other possibility, we are supposed to take action, no matter how cruel it is.

Besides we don't know if their motives of being martyrs is true or if they laugh at our pity towards mass murderers, some even accused medias to be either focusing too much on that pity, or twisting the reality. If that reasoning is true why would they do that ? I don't know but some call it conspiracy. But as you have mentioned, whatever their motives is, it is clear that they attacked first and , thus it is a case of self-defense. Sometimes you have to choose between ethics and facts. And I am in the same siuation as you I don't have the solution, but even if we had it, it's not up to us to take the decisions. The only think I blame our President for in this situation is not that he attacked, but that he attacked without thinking about consequences despite what all that happened in history. Not to mention Charlie Hebdo happened just a few months ago. Even now, I question his political stand.

As for hostages, I heard they were taken down, but I hope that information was incorrect.

[Skynstein]

Also, monarchy is always the answer. Embrace the global monarchist restoration. It is your destiny.

The Western world has moved past monarchy because, among other reasons, it simply isn't seen as a legitimate rule anymore. The current European monarchies only have residual power. Why should we impose it on others? They will think the same as us.

The only government accepted by people is a legitimate government. A monarchy has little effectiveness if it's not viewed as legitimate. In every democratic country in the world the source of power is, ultimately, the people themselves, as they are the ones who appoint representatives and choose who effectively rules the country. That's why they obey the laws.

(of course that's in theory, but it's what creates stability)

[Water Mage]

The problem here is that no one wants to look at that "solution" on both sides. The situation is dire because the terrorists will not hear what we have to say, the negotiations almost did never exist. And as for our governement, as I mentioned before, it acts without consideration of the consequences and acts without actual strategy but "Localize the evil guys and kill them" sacrificing French soldier while we know nothing enemy's position, armement, motives or even how they will strike back thus making civilian victims to them.

Right now, in order to defeat ISIS, we need to keep our minds sharp and no stay under shock for too long. True, killing a killer makes you a killer, that fact will not change. But it is also true that up to now, erasing the problem to the core by eliminating it, has been proven very effective.

Of course, no one suggest not to act, but to act wisely. (I didn't intended to quote Flavia but, that phrase somehow applied here)

I remember someone saying something like : Are you ready to trade hundreds or thousands of people in order to save one person ? And what if that person is a terrorist from whatever organisation, who is armed from head to toe with military weapon sending bombs across the world Some might say someone has to take the blame for killing the bad guy, and that fact will precisely make him a hero of commoners who will be glad they won't have to fear for their live. I mean, the majority rightly want those guys dead but everyone is either weak or doesn't won't to soil their hand... I don't ask anyone to kill, but look, those terrorists have gone way too far and they know there is no turning back, that was their resolve. Parley at this point is almost improbable if not impossible. they were ready to kill our people.

The other "pacific" way is capturing that one man however, it will be drastically much more difficult than killing him, this is a fact. And if they ask ransoms and you give them, they will continue to ask...

Again, I will not give in their retaliation circle. That's childish and that won't make us different from them, and I think most people in this thread don't base themselves on such reasoning, but went through an analysis of the situation. But no matter how hard you look at it, there are cases where violence bring peace. "The best defence is a good offence" or "If you want peace, prepare for war", as they say, aren't totally wrong and at crisis time like we must gather our thoughts, and if there really is no other possibility, we are supposed to take action, no matter how cruel it is.

Besides we don't know if their motives of being martyrs is true or if they laugh at our pity towards mass murderers, some even accused medias to be either focusing too much on that pity, or twisting the reality. If that reasoning is true why would they do that ? I don't know but some call it conspiracy. But as you have mentioned, whatever their motives is, it is clear that they attacked first and , thus it is a case of self-defense. Sometimes you have to choose between ethics and facts. And I am in the same siuation as you I don't have the solution, but even if we had it, it's not up to us to take the decisions. The only think I blame our President for in this situation is not that he attacked, but that he attacked without thinking about consequences despite what all that happened in history. Not to mention Charlie Hebdo happened just a few months ago. Even now, I question his political stand.

As for hostages, I heard they were taken down, but I hope that information was incorrect.

I do understand what you mean, and that's why I don't think that a violent retaliation is the right anwser.

Blah, you may be right about it being an act of self-defense, but have you ever thought about what this act of self-defense will cause?

People from France will suffer, people from Islam will suffer, and many others as well. This act of self-defense may end up killing even more french people than yesterday's incident.

Is it this suffering worth it? Is it really going to stop for good? Do you think this solution will make sure that there will be no more terrorist attacks on France?

Simply put, is sacrificing many lives for a momentary peace worth it?

Edited November 14, 2015 by Water Mage

[blah the Prussian]

I do understand what you mean, and that's why I don't think that a violent retaliation is the right anwser.

Blah, you may be right about it being an act of self-defense, but have you ever thought about what this act of self-defense will cause?

People from France will suffer, people from Islam will suffer, and many others as well. This act of self-defense may end up killing even more french people than yesterday's incident.

Is it this suffering worth it? Is it really going to stop for good? Do you think this solution will make sure that there will be no more terrorist attacks on France?

Simply put, is sacrificing many lives for a momentary peace worth it?

Yes, yes it is worth it. There will always be evil, but that doesn't mean we have to let evil win. The damage done to both the west and the Middle East would be far greater if we leave ISIS be, because they will not let us be. As Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

[Rehab]

A few notes here:

1.) Chances that an agreement between the key players is going to be reached is exactly 0%. ISIL is for the most part a product of KSA and other gulf monarchies like Qatar. Even if the already absurdly unlikely scenario occurs that an agreement between the USA / its european subordinates and Russia can be achieved there is no way that KSA will stop supporting their brothers in faith.

There is no way to find a solution to the whole thing without hurting anybody's feelings. There's a huge clash of interests between NATO-Turkey [want to get rid of Assad and exterminate the kurds] and the gulf monarchies led by KSA [want to get rid of Assad, diminish Iran's influence and install a sunna, islamofascist regime] on the one side and Iran and Russia on the other side. The longer this conflict continues the more obvious it becomes that the USA and their allies are on the losing side against Russia and Iran who are more successful in military terms. And I doubt that this time the USA will be able to rewrite the history books in their favor like they did after WWII.

2.) Who are these "rebels" that people keep talking about in Syria and Iraq? Just because they're neither on Assad's nor on ISIL's side doesn't mean they're any less terrorist organizations than, say, Al-Nursa.

3.) I don't see how a monarchy would be best solution. Syria was doing relatively fine under Assad, terrorism was a non-issue and freedom of religion was granted, at least officially. Womens rights, education, medical care were also on a pretty high standard. I think the better solution would be to abolish the arbitrary borders between Iraq and Syria and rearrange the territories based on religion/ethnicies -> a mostly shia southern Iraq, a sunna middle Iraq/eastern Syria, a free kurdistan in the north of Iraq/Syria territories and a multi-cultural western Syria under Assad's rule.

Multi-cultural western Syria under Assad? Better off? Sorry, what? What?

Okay, fuck it. Spiel.

BLAH BLAH ANCIENT HISTORY BLAH CIRCA TWO THOUSAND AND FREAKING TEN:

Have people really forgotten this much about how Syria got to where it is, and what it was like beforehand? Syria was under trade embargo by the U.S., they were about as friendly with each other as the U.S. and Iran. Assad wasn't even a real president in anything other than name, his dad was Syria's strongman before he was. The racket they were running was practically a monarchy already. The man was not any friend of anything you could call "the west" (loathe as I am to imply a mere alliance with us determines right and wrong). He was just a devil our powers knew.

The shit started flying around the Arab Spring (god, remember that?), when Assad was responding to secular, very much non-radical student protests with deadly, even military force. Protesters shot, gas stations and university campuses in the middle of conducting exams bombed. It was unbelievable. And it failed to do anything other than spread the protests.

Eventually nothing but armed resistance to Assad made any sense at all to anyone with eyes. And for the longest time, that resistance A) was avowedly secular and intended to establish something that actually DID resemble a liberal, secular state by our standards, and B) looked like it was on the precipice of actually winning for so long that during this window of time, you actually could say that your average Syrians didn't want outside intervention. There were even mass desertions from Assad's army and top officials in Assad's government defecting, saying "yeah he's completely unsupportable."

And for what really seemed like such a long time, we were just tacitly supporting them, plus providing some refugee aid and such. Heads of state around the world were calling for him to step down, as it was abundantly clear years ago that there was no way he was either going to wrap things under control himself, much less remotely deserve to stay in power. Hell, some EU members were a good deal more gung-ho to support the, yes, rebels, than Obama. Who was actually very hesitant to get involved. And even he was constantly saying Assad should step down.

Remember anything called the Free Syrian Army? God, what an awful joke it all came to be. Which isn't to say forces fighting Assad and only Assad didn't commmit atrocities, but they just could not compare to the length of his list.

There were religious tensions even in this fighting, to be sure, where Assad belonged to a minority Shia sect, the Alawites, but Assad was fanning those flames, if anything! He was making what I assumed were very obviously bogus claims to defending his people (who he was bombing helter-skelter at the same time, remember) from religious extremism, when the FSA was avowedly secular!

What Assad could claim was air power, and alliances with Iran and Putin. Foreign fighters came in from Iran et al (and Saudi Arabia et al complicated it further, to be something like fair), and Putin at least kept Assad's air force and arms supply on life support all this time. Rebel groups began to actually fragment along ideological lines and break from the FSA, and rebel groups began actually fighting each other. Military support from the west could charitably be called "anemic," and it was a hell of a lot easier to get guns by making nice with radical elements than with us. Assad even "helped" by letting ISIS take territory where it would bring them and other rebel groups he was facing into conflict.

It worked great, obviously.

/SELF-RIGHTEOUS SPIEL

(Every time Syria gets mentioned until you like it)

...Now. A lot of that may be only so much hot air and YOU COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS *flails jowls wildly* now, admittedly. And I might admittedly be able to grind my teeth and imagine some situation where freakin god damn Assad hangs onto some definition of power by the tips of his bloody, gnarled claws, and where it ends up being at least not the worst of some bad options. Like, maybe as an alternative to ISIS actually getting to run a country, for real. But it ever being a desirable, just, or even what I'd be comfortable calling a truly feasible long term solution? Not in a hundred years. He already contributed way more than his fair share towards wrecking all this shit once.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Rehab

[Radiant head]

Everything about this is just horrible. The mass murder itself, as well as the quick, no-hesitation exploitation by war mongering neocons.

[blah the Prussian]

Everything about this is just horrible. The mass murder itself, as well as the quick, no-hesitation exploitation by war mongering neocons.

Ted Cruz has apparently declared that as soon as he is in office he will declare war on Iran. Donald Trump has met his match.

[Water Mage]

Ted Cruz has apparently declared that as soon as he is in office he will declare war on Iran. Donald Trump has met his match.

I have to wonder, are France and USA even on a favorable situation to go war?

Can their economy handle it?

Edited November 14, 2015 by Water Mage

[Life]

I have to wonder, are France and USA even on a favorable situation to go war?

Can their economy handle it?

Are you kidding me? Do you know nothing of American history?

How did America get out of the Great Depression? WORLD WAR FUCKING TWO.

Economies begin to boom during wartime due to labour needed in order to keep war going. Don't give me that shit about Iraq, the economy didn't suffer because of it.

[blah the Prussian]

I have to wonder, are France and USA even on a favorable situation to go war?

Can their economy handle it?

Probably. The US won a war during the Great Depression, after all, and Nazi Germany significantly outmuscled ISIS and Iran. Edited November 14, 2015 by blah2127

[Tamanoir]

...And here in France some are blamming Obama for his lack of initiatives...

I'm not feeling liçke debating about what to do, because we're already gonna have this shitstorm absolutely fucking everywhere.

I don't want to let them win by letting hate and fear submerging us, but that's quite hard. I'm leaving quite far fromParis, but apparently we're one of their primary target, so I fear that my town is gonna be the next (some years ago, they stopped terrorists to blow up tons of people at the Christmas Market. It's a pretty big event, so if you're looking for masssive damage, that would be the perfect place.)

I just have a thought for all the French Muslims that are gonna have once again a fucking hard time, because of a bunch of crazy fanatical shitheads (People ready to blow themselves to destroy as many people as possible ? No sae person can begin to understand those actions.)

Last time I heard the information, we wee at around 130 deaths, and 300 injured (including 100 badly wounded).

We learned about this from my uncle calling us to tell us they're safe (they leave close to one of the place that was attacked...)

2015 is ending as horribly as it began...

[Skynstein]

Are you kidding me? Do you know nothing of American history?

How did America get out of the Great Depression? WORLD WAR FUCKING TWO.

Economies begin to boom during wartime due to labour needed in order to keep war going. Don't give me that shit about Iraq, the economy didn't suffer because of it.

That only happened because the Americans were never really threatened on home soil. Everyone else who took part in WW2 was ruined in the aftermath.

It's very easy for Americans to send in their tankers, F-14s and drones overseas or from their multiple worldwide bases without needing to worry about their population and machine manufacturing plants being under bombing threat, unlike France who is far closer to the Middle East and is under direct attack by the terrorists, having suffered three attacks this year (Charlie Hebdo, the supermarket where a Jew got killed, and this mess from yesterday).

It's also easy to speak big talk when your sworn enemies have basically only fireworks to fight back with while you maul them with state-of-the-art weaponry and forceful colonial expansion, and international law can't stop you because you happen to be friends with the country with the most powerful military in the world.

[dragonlordsd]

Do you recognize that this current situation is self defense? I can't see how it can be seen as anything else. To respond to your previous point, a was on ISIS doesn't equate to a war on Islam; on the contrary, it means liberating the countless Muslims living under ISIS. I would consider the vast majority of Muslims in ISIS occupied territory to be more like the Poles, not German civilians. Any Muslim who supports ISIS gets what he deserves when he is killed.

This is a really good point that a lot of people don't get. ISIS is an islamist extremist group, but they hate other muslims even more than they hate non-muslims. Al Quaeda and ISIS hate each other far more than they hate anyone else. True, both hate the west and commit acts of terrorism against the west, since we are viewed as non-believers. But the two factions view those who claim to be muslims but disagree with them as heretics and traitors.

This is part of the reason that it's hard to deal with ISIS. Plenty of groups hate them, but there's so much in-fighting that they can't work together.

[Tetragrammaton]

Are you kidding me? Do you know nothing of American history?

How did America get out of the Great Depression? WORLD WAR FUCKING TWO.

Economies begin to boom during wartime due to labour needed in order to keep war going. Don't give me that shit about Iraq, the economy didn't suffer because of it.

I'm pretty sure you want to see some atomic bombs blow up over there, man.

@blah: for examples about Germany and Japan, I think they would not stay calm, and turned to the nowadays countries we know without 2 A-bombs blown up in their lands.

Without a big scary bomb, no one would ever care to listen to US.

[Life]

I'm pretty sure you want to see some atomic bombs blow up over there, man.

If an atomic bomb gets dropped on Syria, the nuclear fallout kills me. I'm not suicidal.

[Magical CC]

And yes, killing a killer makes you a killer, after all, if the killer has no right to take a life, you don't either, no mather how good the reason is.

That is if all lives are equal (which we all know that it's not the case, not all lives are equal).

[Blaze The Great]

I'm pretty sure you want to see some atomic bombs blow up over there, man.

@blah: for examples about Germany and Japan, I think they would not stay calm, and turned to the nowadays countries we know without 2 A-bombs blown up in their lands.

Without a big scary bomb, no one would ever care to listen to US.

No one WANTS to see atomic bombs blown up in the Middle East, and we surely don't want an excuse to use weapons of such destructive force, or even less deadly weapons. But when such a grievous offense (and this is far from the first one) has been committed against a powerful Western nation, the rational course of action doesn't seem to be "let's sit around and hope they don't do this again" when ISIS has obviously shown that they are willing to carry out terrible attacks against us. Whether or not military action is the right course is up for debate, although I definitely think that it is, but the point is that we need to take some type of action at this point.

Also, that last sentence makes me wonder if you understand about fear and its relation to power. Having such power is a part of making others listen to you, especially ones that are unwilling to be rational and insist on carrying on violent acts of terrorism.

[ZoesMad]

I don't think there's any justification for nuclear warfare whatsoever as of now. People are still debating whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were needed to win WWII, and that situation was entirely different and directly affected America.

[I.M. Gei]

itt a lot of armchair generals too young to remember shock and awe and how not well it turned out just read machiavelli for the first time

Edited November 15, 2015 by I.M. Gei