[2Cdo]

andyt andyt:

Seems like a stretch to me. I've heard seen much more virulent hate speech directed at Muslims here. None were direct threats, neither is his. But go for it, get the authorities to look at the site. They might not confine themselves to his posts tho.

I agree with andy here.

Roman is just some pathetic little loser living off of pizza pops in his moms basement masturbating to his posts here.

[Winnipegger]

2015 Beirut bombings

Wikipedia Wikipedia:

On 12 November 2015, two suicide bombers detonated explosives in Bourj el-Barajneh, a southern suburb of Beirut, Lebanon, that is inhabited mostly by Shia Muslims and is controlled by Hezbollah. Reports of the number of deaths range from 37 to 41 to 43. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attacks.

I saw a little graphic on Facebook. It claimed 65 people died. Wikipedia cites several news reports, with various numbers. But the point was this attack occurred the day before the Paris attack, and no one noticed.

An individual in the UK who spoofs news reports on the internet said:

Jonathan Pie Jonathan Pie:

"[UK politician] would like to bomb Syria. Unfortunately Russia's got there first, and America's been doing it for ages. He wants to bomb Syria to stop the flow of refugees fleeing all the bombs. He's also hoping it will stop all the increased influence of Islamic extremism. Bombing Syria will of course destroy the one remaining multicultural society in the region, leaving it open to the increased influence of Islamic extremism. To bomb Syria therefor is clearly mental.

Well put. Dropping bombs on people will not stop violence. I strongly support the Liberal promise to withdraw CF-18 fighters. Trudeau promised to fund trainers. Thanos mentioned JTF2. In light of Paris, I would support keeping JTF2 actively engaged, not just training. You see, aerial bombardment will kill civilians, ground troops can be selective. JTF2 can be very selective.

But we need to look at the bigger issue. What's the end game? How do we win? Currently the primary combat is Assad vs ISIS. Are you ready to support Assad to defeat ISIS? That's what Putin is doing.

[Khar]

It's time for some devil's advocate!

$1:

I saw a little graphic on Facebook. It claimed 65 people died. Wikipedia cites several news reports, with various numbers. But the point was this attack occurred the day before the Paris attack, and no one noticed.

Actually, the point is that it happened, and normally many of those decrying our lack of attention to the Beirut bombing wouldn't have ever talked about it or noticed it if not for the Paris attacks. In fact, I think it's a problem that has begun to really plague our system; faux outrage from those who would have perpetuated their own role in continued ignorance of the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, and pretending to hold a "we care about the ME" stance when, in all poignancy, they themselves did not notice anything wrong until the first gunshots rang out in Paris.

Indeed, I'm betting most of the reasons why people even know about Beirut is because of the Paris attacks, which, I remind you, were larger, better coordinated, included shootings, happened in a Western country with a strong security apparatus, in an iconic centre of Western culture and civilization, with more victims in a G7 state at the head of the world stage. The story coming out of Beirut is very different, had different scope, different aims, and at the end of the day, is not a unique occurrence; I'm not exactly hold, but I remember when these attacks happened before, and Beirut is in the middle east. Paris, in Western Europe, with an arsenal of weapons crossing borders, is far more important.

These attempts to compare Beirut to Paris is insulting to Beirut and, often enough, intellectually dishonest. This is just a way for those who read someone else talking about the Beirut attacks not being noticed to act in similar outrage, even though they themselves would never have otherwise paid attention to, sought out information on, or kept up with news of the Beirut attack. It also seems to try to minimize what happened in Paris, or why it matters for for the West, a frankly ridiculous and reductionist view on these two acts of terror.

As members of the distant West, we have a right to react separately to acts that occur within our sphere of interest. It impacts us and our way of life and the beliefs that we hold dear. Terrorist attacks in the Middle East, while something that we should be concerned about, should not be held to the same level of expectation of Western response. An attack on a non-ally (some would point out more of an antagonist in the West's view) is not going to provoke the same unrest, coverage or interest from us. Familiarity is important. Paris is more important than Beirut. France is more important than Lebanon. 132 is more important than 65. Stop comparing and start contrasting. Doing anything else belittles both attacks.

Or all three, if you include the Baghdad ISIS terrorist attack on the same day that the Beirut story seems to have glossed over. I wonder why, and what the excuse is for those who "noticed" the Beirut bombing but didn't notice the Baghdad one?

$1:

Well put. Dropping bombs on people will not stop violence. I strongly support the Liberal promise to withdraw CF-18 fighters. Trudeau promised to fund trainers. Thanos mentioned JTF2. In light of Paris, I would support keeping JTF2 actively engaged, not just training. You see, aerial bombardment will kill civilians, ground troops can be selective. JTF2 can be very selective.

Actually, dropping bombs has stopped violence, many times. Unfortunately, armed insurgency tends not to be stopped by something other than force, because otherwise the armed insurgency gets a monopoly on it. When that insurgency begins using it's abilities to fund and expand it's power into the domestic spheres of other nations, it should be no surprise that the answer for nations is a combination of internal investigation and external nullification of such influences.

I think I have to mention two key principles before moving on to war, based on what happened in Rwanda and what happened in Canada. Rwanda was a great example of a large number of nations recognizing what was happening but, through use of terminology and sidestepping of blame and duty, resulted in a literal genocide occurring while we stood by and watched. ISIS has quickly ascended to that level; while not as rapid, the amount of deaths as a result of ISIS activity is well into the tens of thousands, millions have been displaced, and reports of attempted genocide, child soldiers, and sexual slavery are rampant next to executions almost daily. The question in the last election for everyone was not whether or not this constitutes a crisis but how we are supposed to help out; this time around dozens have countries are taking in refugees. But how long before the question becomes whether or not we should stop them being a refugee in the first place? ISIS and their company are not state actors; and what allies ISIS have are more or less states unwilling to do their part in reducing the growth of them (Turkey, Saudi Arabia). Foreign intervention, especially with Iraq and Syria not really having the power to stop it, is not out of the question in dealing with these genocidal attempts.

In Canada, we have had people born and raised here radicalized as well. It's not longer a question of whether or not radicalization occurs if we invade, but how much it increases. A reminder that, as Delwin pointed out, only 0.0003% of the Muslim population has joined ISIS (and the number isn't that much higher including other terrorist groups), then foreign intervention isn't going to change those numbers much. With nations that exist that do expose their own population and do encourage the growth of hard line, fundamentalist religions (again, pointed to the Gulf region here), there is always going to be an ongoing source of radicalization. Right now, ISIS exists in a region that is literally a fountainhead for such radicalization, a calling card where that effort can be focused. Even if we do not engage them, such radicalization can and will continue, can and will grow, and can and will target Western groups. Remember, the faith that is extolled by these people is one of judgement day, of infidel, and of purity; there is a sacred duty to expel a great many people from their homes around the world, and an aim to cause mayhem around the world regardless of our involvement. Canadian men, women, boys and girls have been radicalized, and memory serves we have our own handful over there fighting for ISIS, and our involvement was limited. Nor, I think, will we ever be able to say that the West has never been involved. Much like Israel and Palestine, past Western influence will be a continual excuse for further actions by radicals in the ME; proactive engagement may be our only powerful answer.

When it comes to war, I think there is a bit of a questionable view that exists in your post. First of all, while air attacks cause civilian causalities, so too do ground troops. Indeed, given how focused our fire can be, if there are civilian casualties usually that means the enemy were using civilians as shields, something that will be a problem for ground troops as well. The difference is that we use heavy weaponry to remove installations from cities as well; if you had ground troops putting themselves at great risk to do the same work, there'd still be civilian casualties at the same level, because you are blowing something up. Regardless, if there is a marginal increase in the amount of civilian harm from the use of aircraft (I'd not be surprised if there is), the question isn't what we can do to stop using aircraft but whether or not such use is proportional, which I'll go into later. However, states have two duties when they are engaged in hostilities; the first is to limit losses among their citizens, and the second is to ensure proportionality among targets.

I don't question whether or not a state has a duty to make use of troops in such a way as to limit harm. There are capacities in which you will need boots on the ground, but when it comes to destructive activity in a largely barren and flat region, using aircraft will always be better. Organizations like ISIS will always engage in assymetric warfare and will depend on weaponry less advanced than the US. Making use of weaponry that can destroy that capacity on the side of the USA or other allies is important for strategic purposes. There is no point in putting troops or less functional strategies for use so as to reduce the chances of harming an enemies military capacity, especially one that has already declared the freedoms and rights of citizens around them in abeyance. It also keeps material far away from the kind of attacks like IEDs that caused so much harm to American and allied forces over the past two decades. We currently rule the skies. If we ruled them more, as Boots pointed out, we can have almost unparalleled dominance. Further, remember that our taste for war in the West is diminished. People who support groups like ISIS usually don't have to see the coffins flowing off of planes or mounds of bodies in the dirt; in a liberal democracy, we get to know each and every time a Canadian dies. Maintaining a war for the West requires greater and greater effort put towards survivability. Frankly, given a state is supposed to protect it's citizens, I think it's really questionable when someone says we should put troops in danger so as to assuage the morality of enemy forces using civilians as shields.

Which brings me to the second point. The purpose of our military's actions isn't to limit civilian casualities, period, but to do so in what is called proportionality. The damage to civilian infrastructure and life must be acceptable when destroying military capacity. Otherwise, our wars would have been fought when a citizen strapped to the chest of every soldier. We would never destroy a city to kill a group of guys firing rockets from the roof of the school. However, if the school is empty and the chance of harming citizens is low, bomb away; those rockets are killing people, and we cannot allow an enemy to fire with impunity and rain death down on people because they are using people as shields. At the end of the day, it legitimizes mass hostage taking. Groups like ISIS like fighting from cities and such because it means we have to go after them in crowded streets. It ties is down because our sense of morality dictates we not engage, and it puts us between a rock and a hard place. How do you fight an enemy that uses civilians as shields? The answer, historically, has always been the same; avoid civilian death where possible, but destruction of the military capacity to cause death is more important. When, such as in the cases of ISIS, that weapon is being used against the local citizenry as well, the use of these weapons is all the more important.

$1:

But we need to look at the bigger issue. What's the end game? How do we win? Currently the primary combat is Assad vs ISIS. Are you ready to support Assad to defeat ISIS? That's what Putin is doing.

Frankly, it's irrelevant to try and frame this as being an ally of Putin; another way of saying this is "are you ready to sacrifice the lives of the Yazidi, the freedom of the Kurds and the safety of the Shia of Iraq to pull out of Iraq?" "Are you ready to stand by and watch and Western citizens join ISIS to slaughter children and rape women?" As an aside, the chief combat is between Assad and anti-government forces; actions by ISIS in Syria, Iraq, and around the world (see: thread title has Paris in it) are outside the scope of what you are trying to fit this thread into, which is where it doesn't belong. Even if what you said is true, the actual question of this thread is "do we want to change the primary combat to be between everyone and ISIS?" Russia also sought peace with Iran, and memory serves you were in support of that; are you comfortable being the ideological ally of Putin?

My answer is that I don't care if Putin is doing the same thing; if it's the right thing, we should do it. If it's not the right thing for us, then we shouldn't.

There is literally no way here that we do not piss of an ally. Frankly, we already piss off allies. The web of them is ridiculous. We are allied with Israel, Turkey, the Kurds, Rebels, the Saudi Arabians, Jordanians, the Iraqi government, our European allies and the USA. Guess how many of those allies hate some other group of our allies?

As for your other questions, that is the only bit I don't have a devil's advocate response to. However, I would say a couple of things about it; this mission would definitely creep into structuring up Iraq again. There would have to be concessions. The current conflict has already reshaped the Middle East, and I think we'd have to seek something other than the border status quo we have sought to achieve with past wars. I think we really do have to rethink trying to keep Iraq in one piece.

There are two ways of looking at this, in my view. Either we caused it/have a duty to respond, and hence an atrocity is occurring because of what we did, one that is only growing in fervour and must be stopped, or we didn't cause this/have not duty to respond but it is a growing threat to local allies and to life abroad, and actions need to be taken to stem the flow of international radicalism by groups like ISIS and Boko Haram.

Either way, I think boots is right; a response would have to be overwhelming for it to be efficacious. More than raids or the odd bombing run, but treating it as an actual war.

The devil's advocate opinion, anyway.

[Canadian_Mind]

So if that's your devils advocate opinion, what's your personal opinion?

[ShepherdsDog]

Make it a challenge....ask him to sum it up in a paragraph or less.

[Canadian_Mind]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Make it a challenge....ask him to sum it up in a paragraph or less.

You know as well as I do that'll never happen. Truthfully I like reading Khar's essays though. I find that whenever things are getting carried away his insightful and very well thought out opinions really bring stability to my own thoughts and feelings.

[BRAH]

Inside the theatre of terror: First picture from inside Bataclan shows aftermath of Jihadi attack as video emerges of the moment gunmen opened fire and terrified musician hid behind his drums

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3319244/Video-reveals-horrific-moment-terrorists-opened-fire-crowd-music-fans-Bataclan-killing-89-people-shows-musician-hiding-drums-escape.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
________________

No Words!

[ShepherdsDog]

Seen enough death and suffering in my life, so I think I'll skip this.

[martin14]

Khar Khar:

Which brings me to the second point. The purpose of our military's actions isn't to limit civilian casualities, period, but to do so in what is called proportionality. The damage to civilian infrastructure and life must be acceptable when destroying military capacity. Otherwise, our wars would have been fought when a citizen strapped to the chest of every soldier. We would never destroy a city to kill a group of guys firing rockets from the roof of the school.

And this, is exactly why, we will lose. The other side isn't worried
about such silly things.

But I am for more worried about the internal problems in Europe that are about
to be kicked off by this.

[Winnipegger]

News said ISIS took credit for the Paris attack. Analysts interviewed on CBC said Western forces including France had escalated attacks on ISIS just before the Paris attack. This is part of a general escalation. There's another point, I'm trying to find the source, but the point was this is a military strategy: attack the enemy's homeland to relieve pressure on the front lines. So ISIS could have done this to relieve pressure on their territory.

This is part of a political movement, terrorist activity. Treating them harshly only results in recruiting more individuals to their cause. We need ground troops, not bombs. Ideally arrest them, rather than slaughter. If we can't capture them alive, then shoot those who shoot back. But not just bombardment. And we need regional troops; foreign troops could cause as much backlash as bombardment.

I disagree with some of the points of Khar's essay. He refuses to acknowledge ISIS as a major force fighting against Assad. I'm not there, I only see through the news. But I have read that many people there hope ISIS will defeat Assad. And for a movement like ISIS to succeed, someone has to support it. Stop and ask why. If you can't understand why people support ISIS, you'll never defeat it. Those forces America has supported in their fight against Assad have obviously not been effective. People who live there, who survived Assad forces dropping barrel bombs on their neighbourhood, will look to anyone who is effective. The fighting has to stop. And ISIS appears to be worse than Assad. And Assad currently controls the government military of Syria. The policy of supporting a third, weak, ineffective force is not going to end this.

You suggest rethinking keeping Iraq in one piece. That is an option. However, the catch there is Kurds living in Turkey. Our ally, Turkey, is desperately afraid that a separate Kurd nation would want territory of Turkey where the ethnic majority is also Kurd. Unless you can firmly establish that as a fact, Turkey will actively fight against that idea. They already bombed PKK.

This is a mess. If this drags out, we'll see continuing escalation. Supporting Syrian rebels against two fronts, Assad and ISS, will not succeed. I'm not a military expert, but even I know you never fight a war on two fronts. That splits your forces, drastically weakening them. We can't fight a prolonged war against both Assad and ISIS. We do have a few options, none of which are pretty.

1) Escalate. This will not resolve anything. Enemy counter attacks are inevitable. So escalating attacks of the current type will only result in escalation against us.
2) Negotiate with ISIS. Considering the beheadings, and reports of various other abuses, this is not palatable. It has been done before. In the Dark Ages, European countries were horrible. Basically thugs ruled. Their descendants became the monarchies of Europe. The Christian church created the principles of Chivalry in an attempt to teach the thugs who ruled some basic ethics, to teach them how to be descent rulers.
3) Support Assad. That means support the current government of Syria. Considering how Assad has behaved, not palatable. But quelling the unrest means people stop dying.
4) Assassinate Assad. This puts a quick end to the struggle against Assad. But who would replace him? Would the new ruler of Syria be descent? Traditionally, assassination results in a ruler who's even worse. Libya turned out badly after Gaddafi was gone. Iraq was worse after Saddam was gone. And this would piss off western European allies. They have a tradition that you don't assassinate a prince. Or someone equivalent to a prince. They're Ok with killing multiple thousands of peasants conscripted as soldiers in a war over some petty squabble between rulers who are first cousins, but you can't kill a prince. Assassinating Assad would really piss off Russia, but more importantly western Europe.

So which unpalatable option do you pick?

[Khar]

Devil's advocate returns!

I did break your post down slightly, but mostly into ideologically succinct sections, and also so I could respond to your four alternatives individually so as to not get things twisted. Sorry, I promise I included the majority, or even all of your post.

$1:

News said ISIS took credit for the Paris attack. Analysts interviewed on CBC said Western forces including France had escalated attacks on ISIS just before the Paris attack. This is part of a general escalation. There's another point, I'm trying to find the source, but the point was this is a military strategy: attack the enemy's homeland to relieve pressure on the front lines. So ISIS could have done this to relieve pressure on their territory.

This is part of a political movement, terrorist activity. Treating them harshly only results in recruiting more individuals to their cause. We need ground troops, not bombs. Ideally arrest them, rather than slaughter. If we can't capture them alive, then shoot those who shoot back. But not just bombardment. And we need regional troops; foreign troops could cause as much backlash as bombardment.

I highly doubt a terrorist attack against a civilian target is the strategy you are talking about in this case. This wasn't an army invading a homeland, France is not going to pull back a horde of jets to fight off the waves of ISIS jets flying over Europe or be lacking in boots on the ground to send back home when it comes to six guys with guns. This was not some "counter-attack," this was terrorism. It's target was purely to assault a civilian populace for political purposes and not armed targets for military purposes. The two cannot be conflated.

Your second section also doesn't make sense. Consider, for example, why we use SWAT teams in cases of bank robberies of hostage taking; because in those situation an armed man or men capable of killing hostages quickly must be neutralized. The police didn't try to tackle any terrorists to the ground for the exact reason that you don't tackle guys spraying automatic weapons fire to the ground, because they are shooting at you. In the case of Paris, four police officers died attempting to neutralize these men. Arrest isn't an option. And this was in a Paris theatre, not in a theatre of war; we should have no expectation of arrests in combat zones. When you can arrest people, sure, do it, but this cannot be claimed as a solution; such a method only works as an adjunct to active military action, not as a replacement or as a mitigation, and only then when alternative subjugation is possible or desirable.

Further, there are clear and obvious strategic reasons why you want to use planes. I used some examples. Boots uses others. There are literally libraries on the topic; otherwise, we wouldn't use them in war. In this case, they are highly mobile, can attack large groups and columns, and don't place our own assets in harms way. It's not likely a column of ISIS troops is going to surrender to a column of allied troops. The following combat puts more troops in harm's way, is not as likely to be effective, and uses more resources. I also think it's ridiculous to not assume combat is their objective aim given their past actions and atrocities. People don't join ISIS thinking "hey, if the going get's tough allied forces will just let me surrender." People join ISIS because they want to fight for the cause against the infidel. Most of the troops are foreign and are there to engage in warfare; going in with an aim from our end otherwise puts are forces in danger and restricts our capabilities. We don't call them combatants just because they have guns and ride in the back of a pick up truck, but because they are riddling people full of bullets. Indeed, given these people can both a) easily surrender but don't and b) have the capacity to easily blend in with civilians such considerations should be secondary and, possibly, even dangerous.

Ground forces play a role here. Claiming planes don't, or cause more harm than is necessary, is untrue. Ground troops will have to engage in the same violence that you state is the problem with the added issue of placing Western forces in harm's way.

$1:

I disagree with some of the points of Khar's essay. He refuses to acknowledge ISIS as a major force fighting against Assad. I'm not there, I only see through the news. But I have read that many people there hope ISIS will defeat Assad. And for a movement like ISIS to succeed, someone has to support it. Stop and ask why. If you can't understand why people support ISIS, you'll never defeat it. Those forces America has supported in their fight against Assad have obviously not been effective. People who live there, who survived Assad forces dropping barrel bombs on their neighbourhood, will look to anyone who is effective. The fighting has to stop. And ISIS appears to be worse than Assad. And Assad currently controls the government military of Syria. The policy of supporting a third, weak, ineffective force is not going to end this.

You suggest rethinking keeping Iraq in one piece. That is an option. However, the catch there is Kurds living in Turkey. Our ally, Turkey, is desperately afraid that a separate Kurd nation would want territory of Turkey where the ethnic majority is also Kurd. Unless you can firmly establish that as a fact, Turkey will actively fight against that idea. They already bombed PKK.

This is a mess. If this drags out, we'll see continuing escalation. Supporting Syrian rebels against two fronts, Assad and ISS, will not succeed. I'm not a military expert, but even I know you never fight a war on two fronts. That splits your forces, drastically weakening them. We can't fight a prolonged war against both Assad and ISIS. We do have a few options, none of which are pretty.

I would think it strange if 100,000 rebel fighters suddenly decided to disappear over the course of a war they've been part of for near a half decade now, compared to the far newer ISIS, and I have read nothing to discount or support either one. From what I know, however, I lend greater weight to anti-government rebel groups being the larger thorn in their side, especially given Russia's choice to bomb predominantly rebel groups over ISIS.

Remember too that part of why the force has been ineffective has been in part, because they must now fight on two fronts, and, in greater part, because Russia has continued a steady shipment of arms and support to government and government aligned forces in Syria. Syria became a proxy conflict and it allowed ISIS to grow. ISIS is the result of negligence and inaction, and their success has been in part because they were not directly balanced by foreign intervention. I'd also like to point out their attempt to eradicate the Yazidi and their advances against the Kurds were all stopped with judicious use of aircraft and drones; they played a tactical advantage in a large plain with no place to hide.

I also think it is important to understand why people have joined ISIS, and here is an excellent article as to why. Literally, before coming here, I read a bevy of articles of people stopping and asking why, and that's one of the longer, more impressive analyses. It's not just because "someone is bombing our roads." If that were true, a great many radicals would have been done in by the locals themselves and ISIS would be several hundred times larger. It's worthwhile to remember that bodies like ISIS can exist and radicalization can occur separate from Western influence and separate from warfare. Many of the people fighting in ISIS are not locals who are fed up, but international citizens who have come in the name of the Islamic State. The reason why this war has caught so much attention among the academics was because it wasn't so much about the locals becoming radicalized due to local conditions, but people from abroad with access to information, communication and not insignificant amounts of money who were willing to come and die for the cause.

Additionally, I'm aware of Turkey and it's problems. Hence why I mentioned them. It's also why I'm not exactly gung-ho at the end and added them both to the "list of allies who hate each other." Personally, I'm increasingly getting behind ignoring Turkey, since they are becoming increasingly fair-weather allies who are a little too willing to have porous borders for ISIS recruits and a little too unwilling to let us fight off ISIS. I'd hope such a solution would see Turkey get concessions elsewhere to stave off further problems, but I doubt it'd be forthcoming. Blargh.

Further, this is not a discussion about "let's arm the allies more" in my view. Pretty clearly the discussion in the thread has been about direct military involvement.

$1:

1) Escalate. This will not resolve anything. Enemy counter attacks are inevitable. So escalating attacks of the current type will only result in escalation against us.

Leave tens of thousands to die, millions to suffering, allow for radicalization of a larger group of people to continue, and provide ISIS the success stories they use for their propaganda stories which has drawn so many youth to their cause, not exactly a great choice in my book.

Indeed, considering the aims of ISIS, it's further attacks that we should be worried about. Expansion of the caliphate is important, and several of our allies are in the way. Paris also points out that they are willing and able to go abroad. ISIS affiliated groups have already been popping up world-wide. It's not a question of counter-attacks but when the next attacks come.

Further, as I posted and as the link I provided shows, there will be some level of radicalization even in peace. As much as we would like it to be otherwise, extreme interpretations of political belief is not rare, and there are sources that provide the capacity to interpret Islam radically online or as a way of life in many countries. It should not be a surprise, for example, how many fighters and how much support for ISIS is derived from the more extreme factions existing politically in the Gulf states.

Finally, as much as they may try to escalate, we have not had a second 9/11, and our escalations have been significantly larger and more successful. We can do better if we do it right. Pointing back to bootlegga's post.

$1:

2) Negotiate with ISIS. Considering the beheadings, and reports of various other abuses, this is not palatable. It has been done before. In the Dark Ages, European countries were horrible. Basically thugs ruled. Their descendants became the monarchies of Europe. The Christian church created the principles of Chivalry in an attempt to teach the thugs who ruled some basic ethics, to teach them how to be descent rulers.

More importantly, the point of ISIS is to create a caliphate based on extreme interpretations of Islam. The specific interpretations being used by ISIS would not allow for such negotiations with heads of state, as those heads of state were voted in, or their representatives, who claim power from a head of state. Such people do not have authority according to ISIS.

$1:

3) Support Assad. That means support the current government of Syria. Considering how Assad has behaved, not palatable. But quelling the unrest means people stop dying.

Assad has committed some pretty egregious crimes against his own citizens, both before and after this war. I would not want to witness a dictator scorned cleaning house, especially one who has made use of chemical warfare, barrel bombs and what have you.

Nor particularly would I want him to expand his influence, nor has he been successful at pushing back ISIS anyway. He also does not want to come to the table, nor is Russia likely to give up one of their allies to greater foreign influence. Again, not so much palatable as much as not an option.

$1:

4) Assassinate Assad. This puts a quick end to the struggle against Assad. But who would replace him? Would the new ruler of Syria be descent? Traditionally, assassination results in a ruler who's even worse. Libya turned out badly after Gaddafi was gone. Iraq was worse after Saddam was gone. And this would piss off western European allies. They have a tradition that you don't assassinate a prince. Or someone equivalent to a prince. They're Ok with killing multiple thousands of peasants conscripted as soldiers in a war over some petty squabble between rulers who are first cousins, but you can't kill a prince. Assassinating Assad would really piss off Russia, but more importantly western Europe.

Which would stop ISIS how? I know these guys yelled about Syria while committing their crimes, but they did so in the context of supporting ISIS. How would removing Assad get rid of ISIS? I would also point out that Assad already has incredibly limited control over his nation to a few areas that essentially supported him and his minority group; he's already been essentially removed from the regions we are discussing here.

$1:

So which unpalatable option do you pick?

That would be the option you declined to include, which is for a concentrated Western attack on ISIS.

Yay devil's advocate.

martin14 martin14:

Khar Khar:

Which brings me to the second point. The purpose of our military's actions isn't to limit civilian casualities, period, but to do so in what is called proportionality. The damage to civilian infrastructure and life must be acceptable when destroying military capacity. Otherwise, our wars would have been fought when a citizen strapped to the chest of every soldier. We would never destroy a city to kill a group of guys firing rockets from the roof of the school.

And this, is exactly why, we will lose. The other side isn't worried
about such silly things.

But I am for more worried about the internal problems in Europe that are about
to be kicked off by this.

Like I said in the next line, if it's deemed acceptable then it would go forward. Proportionality only protects against unnecessary ones. I don't think it's necessary to level a city because of a bunch of guys on a single roof.

Libya was a good example of how one of these campaigns can go from the air support side. Targets outside of cities were handled easily; those within the city with a limit of civilian casualties, but with aims completed none-the-less. The problem with Libya and others is that we ended up not going farther enough. It also doesn't help that we can't really hold states to account any more, because a lot of support for these groups is amorphous and flows randomly around the world rather than from a specific nation.

Just quibbling on all that, really.

I'm worried about the internal problems as well.

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Make it a challenge....ask him to sum it up in a paragraph or less.

You know as well as I do that'll never happen. Truthfully I like reading Khar's essays though. I find that whenever things are getting carried away his insightful and very well thought out opinions really bring stability to my own thoughts and feelings.

Boy howdy, such high praise!

I can give my personal opinion in a single paragraph actually! It's as follows; I don't like my personal opinion because I haven't fleshed it out enough for me to be comfortable having that opinion yet. Too many contradictions in what I've read to really feel firm on a stance, and as a Canadian it's really hard to feel like having a stance one way or another is going to matter much in the grand scheme of things so I haven't put a lot of effort thinking one up.

[DrCaleb]

xerxes xerxes:

$1:

Sure he is. Which part is he right about? 'You can't win a war, so let's be Dhimmis?' Bullshit.

I was thinking more this part:

$1:

This is why the marginalization of Muslims here is exactly what ISIS wants. Because marginalized and disenfranchised young men looking for a place to belong and feel a purpose are the perfect ISIS recruits. And religion and race don't matter to ISIS. They rely on marginalized and discriminated against young men to carry their horror all over the world.

My buddy and I were discussing this last night and he made a good point (at least I thought so):

Let's say we (the West) bomb the piss out of ISIS. What exactly will that accomplish? Sure, we'll kill a good number of them and their things. But does that really affect their menace? Would it stop young people from the West going over to Syria to fight for them? It doesn't help the people from whom ISIS is an actual threat. It's pure catharsis on our part.

Does it make us safer? It won't stop people from self-radicalising on the Internet.

Bombing will not make us safer. Reports are that 10,000 were killed as of this summer. But in the same time period, 25,000 were recruited.

By those statistics, bombing only makes more people to bomb. Like was pointed earlier, common recruiting tactics among groups like Boko Haram or ISIS are to approach the disenfranchised or poor. Bombing only makes more of these people ready to recruit. Target the recruiters, that will be much more effective than bombing.

BRAH BRAH:

Justin still plans to bring in 25,000 Syrian refugees, WTF is wrong with him?

He has the same information that the rest of the world does.

$1:

Since the Chibok kidnapping in April 2014, Boko Haram has increasingly kidnapped teenage boys in northeastern Nigeria and “re-educated” them at Qur’anic schools that are often in Cameroon.[28] Signposts in Arabic language that Boko Haram erected in Cameroonian border towns with ISIL’s rayat al-uqab insignia on them say, “It is a crime and treason not to join jihad.”[29] This is likely Boko Haram’s justification for the forcible conscription and killing of boys (and girls) who refuse.

The militants use untrained boys to acquire intelligence and carry out the first wave of attacks on villages or barracks. When they gain experience, they can be part of the second wave designed to overwhelm the security forces after the first wave weakens their positions and morale.[30] Boys may also be given a quota of how many security officers or “high value targets” they must attack, and risk death at the hands of their commanders if they fail or show “cowardice.”[31]

Boko Haram also appears to be focusing on Cameroon for its non-forcible recruitment of men, possibly because the destruction of villages in Nigeria has alienated youths and caused them to flee to IDP camps outside of Borno or join the anti-Boko Haram Civilian Joint Task Force (JTF) vigilante group. In Cameroon, which until 2014 was spared from large-scale attacks, locals often consider Boko Haram “just another religious group” or “the boys.”[32] According to Cameroonian police, there have been more than 500 new recruits in villages along the border with Nigeria, some of whom were “drugged or manipulated” in training camps.[33] They provide Boko Haram with the ability to use Cameroon as a rear base for attacking Nigeria, to raise money through kidnapping foreigners, and to traffic weapons into Nigeria from Cameroonian border towns.

https://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/boko-har ... had-region

ISIS tactics are no different. Leaving hundreds of thousands of people, like has been done for decades in Kenya and South Sudan, in poverty ridden filthy camps just makes more willing or forced recruits for ISIS and Boko Haram.

Leaving 25,000 people who are trying to flee the conflict in camps only increases the population they will have to draw on.

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

As pointed out, the Syrian passport story has been carried by several msm outlets.

And that passport may have been lost/stolen or faked and left there on purpose - to make the west think twice about getting vulnerable people out of their sphere of influence.

[BartSimpson]

The whining about a 'backlash' against the poor, innocent Muslims has predictably begun.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... on/416070/

[smorgdonkey]

That doesn't really seem like 'whining' to me. It's more like "don't punish everyone because everyone isn't guilty".

[BartSimpson]

smorgdonkey smorgdonkey:

That doesn't really seem like 'whining' to me. It's more like "don't punish everyone because everyone isn't guilty".

The terrorists didn't have any such problems, did they?