Belgian newspapers are now reporting that the home searches of last Sunday (the ones where Belgium started tweeting kittens) prevented a terror attack in Brussels similar in size to the Paris attacks.
The newspapers reporting this are reputable, but they quote 'several well informed anonymous sources' so yeah...
If they were going to do this in Belgium, then pretty much every single country in Europe needs to be on lockdown right now. It might have just been opportunity, what with all their Belgian recruits, but you've got to figure that Germany and England at least were targeted as well.
Just checking back in, is it still true that none of the terrorists were Syrian refugees?
As far as I am aware; unless there's been some news I missed in the last day or two.
Just checking back in, is it still true that none of the terrorists were Syrian refugees?
Two apparently POSED as refugees and used some of the same routes for movement. But they were still not Syrian citizens as I understand it.
karmajay wrote:Just checking back in, is it still true that none of the terrorists were Syrian refugees?
Two apparently POSED as refugees and used some of the same routes for movement. But they were still not Syrian citizens as I understand it.
Yup. All Belgian or French citizens.
Vector wrote:It makes me sad that this couldn't be a safe space to help with grief and share information.
Ditto. I'm very confused by how this thread has kinda devolved in the last day. We shouldn't be sniping at each other like this. I haven't been following the other threads at all but sowing discord is what terrorists thrive on. Don't let the terrorists win by falling into their plans.
Here's the problem: people once again seem to think that this attack came out of the blue, and that the French did nothing to deserve it. This is true for the people who died (who have only a tiny amount of influence on French policy), but it is decidedly not true for the French government. The people who threaten and attack Muslims after events like this are idiots, but they are a reflection of French government policy - policies which have serious consequences for the populations of people in other countries, and which come back to bite French citizens sometimes.
Both the French government and the terrorists are unable to see people as individuals. The government lumps those populations into "radical brown people with guns", and the terrorists lump all French into "brutal white colonial tyrants with bombs". It's not true in either case, but it's how these people operate - on both sides. Where are the websites with the details of the innocent victims in Raqqa? Or is everyone in Raqqa a member of ISIS? Don't the innocents there deserve life, health, and attention as much as the French? Sadly, they won't get it.
That is what people need to come to terms with. And there are people who get it, but are being ignored.
Discord is not the problem. Ignoring the atrocities committed by one side while being aghast at atrocities committed by the other side is making the problem worse, and needs to stop.
shoptroll wrote:Vector wrote:It makes me sad that this couldn't be a safe space to help with grief and share information.
Ditto. I'm very confused by how this thread has kinda devolved in the last day. We shouldn't be sniping at each other like this. I haven't been following the other threads at all but sowing discord is what terrorists thrive on. Don't let the terrorists win by falling into their plans.
Here's the problem: people once again seem to think that this attack came out of the blue, and that the French did nothing to deserve it. This is true for the people who died (who have only a tiny amount of influence on French policy), but it is decidedly not true for the French government. The people who threaten and attack Muslims after events like this are idiots, but they are a reflection of French government policy - policies which have serious consequences for the populations of people in other countries, and which come back to bite French citizens sometimes.
Both the French government and the terrorists are unable to see people as individuals. The government lumps those populations into "radical brown people with guns", and the terrorists lump all French into "brutal white colonial tyrants with bombs". It's not true in either case, but it's how these people operate - on both sides. Where are the websites with the details of the innocent victims in Raqqa? Or is everyone in Raqqa a member of ISIS? Don't the innocents there deserve life, health, and attention as much as the French? Sadly, they won't get it.
That is what people need to come to terms with. And there are people who get it, but are being ignored.
Discord is not the problem. Ignoring the atrocities committed by one side while being aghast at atrocities committed by the other side is making the problem worse, and needs to stop.
Great summary and article, thanks for sharing it. IS is an ideology, a very disperse ideology, and you can't bomb an ideology.
Aetius wrote:shoptroll wrote:Vector wrote:It makes me sad that this couldn't be a safe space to help with grief and share information.
Ditto. I'm very confused by how this thread has kinda devolved in the last day. We shouldn't be sniping at each other like this. I haven't been following the other threads at all but sowing discord is what terrorists thrive on. Don't let the terrorists win by falling into their plans.
Here's the problem: people once again seem to think that this attack came out of the blue, and that the French did nothing to deserve it. This is true for the people who died (who have only a tiny amount of influence on French policy), but it is decidedly not true for the French government. The people who threaten and attack Muslims after events like this are idiots, but they are a reflection of French government policy - policies which have serious consequences for the populations of people in other countries, and which come back to bite French citizens sometimes.
Both the French government and the terrorists are unable to see people as individuals. The government lumps those populations into "radical brown people with guns", and the terrorists lump all French into "brutal white colonial tyrants with bombs". It's not true in either case, but it's how these people operate - on both sides. Where are the websites with the details of the innocent victims in Raqqa? Or is everyone in Raqqa a member of ISIS? Don't the innocents there deserve life, health, and attention as much as the French? Sadly, they won't get it.
That is what people need to come to terms with. And there are people who get it, but are being ignored.
Discord is not the problem. Ignoring the atrocities committed by one side while being aghast at atrocities committed by the other side is making the problem worse, and needs to stop.
Great summary and article, thanks for sharing it. IS is an ideology, a very disperse ideology, and you can't bomb an ideology.
I don't think that effectively sums up what is happening. It's not just an ideology, it's an ideology that uses invading Crusader forces as a basis for their own actions. It makes the caliphate legitimate.
This Atlantic article is probably my 'favorite' on this topic.
Integrity wrote:Aetius wrote:shoptroll wrote:Vector wrote:It makes me sad that this couldn't be a safe space to help with grief and share information.
Ditto. I'm very confused by how this thread has kinda devolved in the last day. We shouldn't be sniping at each other like this. I haven't been following the other threads at all but sowing discord is what terrorists thrive on. Don't let the terrorists win by falling into their plans.
Here's the problem: people once again seem to think that this attack came out of the blue, and that the French did nothing to deserve it. This is true for the people who died (who have only a tiny amount of influence on French policy), but it is decidedly not true for the French government. The people who threaten and attack Muslims after events like this are idiots, but they are a reflection of French government policy - policies which have serious consequences for the populations of people in other countries, and which come back to bite French citizens sometimes.
Both the French government and the terrorists are unable to see people as individuals. The government lumps those populations into "radical brown people with guns", and the terrorists lump all French into "brutal white colonial tyrants with bombs". It's not true in either case, but it's how these people operate - on both sides. Where are the websites with the details of the innocent victims in Raqqa? Or is everyone in Raqqa a member of ISIS? Don't the innocents there deserve life, health, and attention as much as the French? Sadly, they won't get it.
That is what people need to come to terms with. And there are people who get it, but are being ignored.
Discord is not the problem. Ignoring the atrocities committed by one side while being aghast at atrocities committed by the other side is making the problem worse, and needs to stop.
Great summary and article, thanks for sharing it. IS is an ideology, a very disperse ideology, and you can't bomb an ideology.
I don't think that effectively sums up what is happening. It's not just an ideology, it's an ideology that uses invading Crusader forces as a basis for their own actions. It makes the caliphate legitimate.
This Atlantic article is probably my 'favorite' on this topic.
Isn't that exactly what Aetius and the Guardian article are trying to say?
Yes, but I don't think saying "you can't bomb an ideology" is saying enough here. That implies that ISIS is an ideology that will live on with or without bombs, which is not true, the caliphate requires them to be attacked.
People used to say that all the time about terrorism and while it was true there, ISIS is more than terrorists, they're forming a state to bring Armageddon.
Yes, but I don't think saying "you can't bomb an ideology" is saying enough here. That implies that ISIS is an ideology that will live on with or without bombs, which is not true, the caliphate requires them to be attacked.
People used to say that all the time about terrorism and while it was true there, ISIS is more than terrorists, they're forming a state to bring Armageddon.
IS will live on as long as no political solution is reached in these countries. Stopping the bombings will not be enough, but it for sure would be a great start, unless you want to repeat Chechnya on a far larger scale.
And the U.S. deserved 9/11, amirite?
garion333 wrote:Yes, but I don't think saying "you can't bomb an ideology" is saying enough here. That implies that ISIS is an ideology that will live on with or without bombs, which is not true, the caliphate requires them to be attacked.
People used to say that all the time about terrorism and while it was true there, ISIS is more than terrorists, they're forming a state to bring Armageddon.
IS will live on as long as no political solution is reached in these countries. Stopping the bombings will not be enough, but it for sure would be a great start, unless you want to repeat Chechnya on a far larger scale.
I am, unfortunately, coming to much the same conclusion. Our being in bed with the Saudis has made failure inevitable.
French elections: Polls put far right National Front on top
PARIS — Polling agency projections suggest the far right National Front took the lead in the first round of France’s regional elections on Sunday, in a new boost for Marine Le Pen’s anti-immigration strategy and a new blow to President Francois Hollande’s Socialists.The agencies Ifop, OpinionWay and Ipsos based their projections on actual vote count in select constituencies. They projected that the National Front won between 27 and 30 percent support nationwide, followed by former President Nicolas Sarkozy’s Republicans party and the governing Socialists.
The elections Sunday took place in an unusually tense security climate just over three weeks after deadly attacks on Paris — a climate expected to favor conservative and far right candidates.
While National Front had significant support Sunday, it’s unclear whether the party can translate that into victory in the second round of voting on Dec. 13 for leadership of France’s 13 newly drawn regions.
Sarkozy’s Republicans party and its allies were projected to come in second place at around 27 percent.
The Socialists, who currently run nearly all of the country’s regions, are projected to come in a weak third place, with between 22 and 24 percent.
The Paris attacks on Nov. 13 that killed 130 people and a Europe-wide migrant crisis this year have shaken up France’s political landscape.
The National Front is hoping the two-round voting that started Sunday will consolidate political gains she has made in recent years — and strengthen its legitimacy as she prepares to seek the presidency in 2017.
The unpopular Hollande has seen his approval ratings jump since the Paris attacks, as he intensified French airstrikes on Islamic State targets in Syria and Iraq and ordered a state of emergency at home. But his party, which currently runs nearly all of France’s regions, has seen its electoral support shrivel as the government has failed to shrink 10 percent joblessness or invigorate the economy.
Many political leaders are urging apathetic voters to cast ballots as a riposte to fundamentalists targeting democracies from France to the U.S.
First-time voter Eli Hodara, an 18-year-old Paris student, expressed hope that more young people would turn out.
“I think it is important to vote even if one leaves the ballot blank,” Hodara said.
It is the last election before France votes for president in 2017, and a gauge of the country’s political direction.
“It’s an important moment, important for the future of our regions, important also for the future of our country, important with regard to the catastrophic and dramatic events that have hit France,” Le Pen said as she cast her ballot in the northern city of Henin-Beaumont.
The arrival of hundreds of thousands of migrants in Europe and the exploits of IS, which has claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks, have bolstered the discourse of the National Front. It denounces Europe’s open borders, what it calls the “migratory submersion” and what it claims is the corrupting influence of Islam on French civilization.
Le Pen is campaigning to run the northern Nord-Pas-de-Calais-Picardie, which includes the port city of Calais, a flashpoint in Europe’s migrant drama. Polls suggest she could win.
Her young niece, Marion Marechal-Le Pen, appears to be on even stronger footing in her race to lead the southern Provence-Alpes-Cote d’Azur region, including the French Riviera and part of the Alps.
A win for either would be unprecedented in France.
The party was long a pariah, and voters left and right joined together to keep Marine’s father Jean-Marie Le Pen from winning a presidential runoff in 2002. However, Marine Le Pen has worked to undo its image as an anti-Semitic party under father and co-founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen, and has lured in new followers from the left, the traditional right and among young people.
Socialist Prime Minister Manuel Valls and the conservative-leaning national business lobby issued a public appeal this week to stop the National Front’s march toward victory.
Is anyone surprised?
And the U.S. deserved 9/11, amirite?
Deserved? Not in the usual sense of the word, any more than the victims in any terror attack "deserve" it.
"Expected it" would be a more accurate way to put it. The CIA had been tracking Bin Laden for years as one of it's primary worries, but the Bush Administration pushed back and refused to take action until about a week before 9/11. (More evidence has come out lately to support this analysis, and it will continue to accumulate; I don't think Bush's reputation will survive it for too many decades.) And remember, when Clinton tried twice earlier to take out Bin Laden, he was excoriated by Republicans for it. That does not create an atmosphere in which a President is likely to risk controversial actions in foreign countries (remember when we were *cautious* about military actions in foreign lands? Yeah...).
Now, there's a sense in which we "provoked" it, and many people seem to render that as "deserved", on the basis that if you mess with people, they mess back. But that's not deserved in the sense that it's usually meant, where people "get what they deserve", because those victims were on the whole civilians uninvolved in the actual actions. And yet as a *country*, while we don't *feel* we "deserved" it, we certainly approved politicians whose policies created enemies who brought this to us.
I get that it's hard to accept that we've done bad things, as a nation, and that prompts people to do bad things to us, but it's a reality we need to accept, or we're going to be North America's Israel. Just without it's natural restraint...
I'm not sure IS is interested in settling a debt of wrongs perpetrated by the west. Their motivations are preserving and expanding the caliphate while provoking the "armies of Rome" to meet them in apocalyptic battle.
Yes, the US and the west in general could and should pursue more just policies with everyone everywhere. But when it comes to ISIS (ISIL, ect) what strategy could possibly work other than containment and chipping away at the legitimacy of IS leadership?
I'm not sure IS is interested in settling a debt of wrongs perpetrated by the west. Their motivations are preserving and expanding the caliphate while provoking the "armies of Rome" to meet them in apocalyptic battle.
The thing is that this is one of the main reasons which created the environment in which IS could flourish.
This guy is a great example of the IS mentality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUjH...
Yes, the US and the west in general could and should pursue more just policies with everyone everywhere. But when it comes to ISIS (ISIL, ect) what strategy could possibly work other than containment and chipping away at the legitimacy of IS leadership?
So what policies do you suggest to achieve this?
So what policies do you suggest to achieve this?
Actually, my statement was rhetorical. We're currently engaged in a bombing campaign that hopes to achieve containment by using force to prevent the concentration of ISIL forces to limit expansion, elimination of vehicles and infrastructure that contribute to IS income sources, and (as much as possible) restrict the influx of converts coming into IS controlled areas. This all seems to be happening right now, with varying degrees of effectiveness. But is this truly the best of the bad options available to deal with this problem?
Edit: clipped quoted content
Xeknos wrote:And the U.S. deserved 9/11, amirite?
Deserved? Not in the usual sense of the word, any more than the victims in any terror attack "deserve" it.
"Expected it" would be a more accurate way to put it. The CIA had been tracking Bin Laden for years as one of it's primary worries, but the Bush Administration pushed back and refused to take action until about a week before 9/11. (More evidence has come out lately to support this analysis, and it will continue to accumulate; I don't think Bush's reputation will survive it for too many decades.) And remember, when Clinton tried twice earlier to take out Bin Laden, he was excoriated by Republicans for it. That does not create an atmosphere in which a President is likely to risk controversial actions in foreign countries (remember when we were *cautious* about military actions in foreign lands? Yeah...).
Now, there's a sense in which we "provoked" it, and many people seem to render that as "deserved", on the basis that if you mess with people, they mess back. But that's not deserved in the sense that it's usually meant, where people "get what they deserve", because those victims were on the whole civilians uninvolved in the actual actions. And yet as a *country*, while we don't *feel* we "deserved" it, we certainly approved politicians whose policies created enemies who brought this to us.
I get that it's hard to accept that we've done bad things, as a nation, and that prompts people to do bad things to us, but it's a reality we need to accept, or we're going to be North America's Israel. Just without it's natural restraint...
No, that makes sense. The evidence that we saw 9/11 coming is actually pretty staggering. Admittedly I was being snarky, but it can be hard to separate a country "deserving" something vs. the innocent people who usually end up suffering for it.
No, that makes sense. The evidence that we saw 9/11 coming is actually pretty staggering. Admittedly I was being snarky, but it can be hard to separate a country "deserving" something vs. the innocent people who usually end up suffering for it.
It's sure a politically hot thing to say as evidenced by your snark. I don't think there's any other way to say it, though. The people in the Twin Towers didn't deserve to die. Of course. But should Americans be shocked when they're the victims of a terrorist attack? I don't think so. We vote in the politicians who send over the bombs that rain death on hospitals and weddings. We support dictators that brutally repress people. We shouldn't be shocked when that comes back and bites us.
Xeknos wrote:No, that makes sense. The evidence that we saw 9/11 coming is actually pretty staggering. Admittedly I was being snarky, but it can be hard to separate a country "deserving" something vs. the innocent people who usually end up suffering for it.
It's sure a politically hot thing to say as evidenced by your snark. I don't think there's any other way to say it, though. The people in the Twin Towers didn't deserve to die. Of course. But should Americans be shocked when they're the victims of a terrorist attack? I don't think so. We vote in the politicians who send over the bombs that rain death on hospitals and weddings. We support dictators that brutally repress people. We shouldn't be shocked when that comes back and bites us.
The irony being that so much of the story of the Twin Towers is some rich kid suffering from Affluenza who was just fine with whatever kind of terrible thing we wanted to do to people half a world away when it was consistent with his fundamentalist vision.
What's shocking is how little stuff comes back and 'bites' us in the sense that it's the people who would be just fine with our support for dictatorships if, you know, they got to be the dictator.
We are witnessing the early days of appeasement and containment. ISIL has clearly stated their goals. Unconditional war is inevitable.
History is repeating itself. Look at the run up to WWII. There was a lot of hand wringing about how Germany was treated after WWI and how the victors created the problem. The issue with this thinking it is that ignored Germany's stated goals. Half of Europe was wrecked before reality set in.
Is the red line really Turkey?
We are witnessing the early days of appeasement and containment. ISIL has clearly stated their goals. Unconditional war is inevitable.
History is repeating itself. Look at the run up to WWII. There was a lot of hand wringing about how Germany was treated after WWI and how the victors created the problem. The issue with this thinking it is that ignored Germany's stated goals. Half of Europe was wrecked before reality set in.
Is the red line really Turkey?
What, precisely, do you see as appeasement in respect to DAESH? Please be as specific as you can be as the details here are extremely important.
Do you consider the humane treatment and acceptance of Syrian refugees to be appeasement of a terrorist group that wishes to exterminate them?
Do you consider the failure to categorize nearly 1/4 of the world's population (23.4% or 1.6B at last count) as dangerous and potential terrorists as appeasement?
Do you consider demanding an end to the kind of hate speech directed at patriotic and law abiding Americans like Tayyib Rashid to be appeasement?
Do you think that pointing out the hypocrisy of barfly "patriotism" is appeasement?
If your answer to any of the above is "yes", you and I have a fundamental difference of principle and are not likely to agree on what it means to be American.
If your answer to any of the above is "yes", you and I have a fundamental difference of principle and are not likely to agree on what it means to be American.
I welcome the refugees. I stand opposed to those who want to do us harm (please don't put words in my mouth. I mean this statement very specifically).
I was speaking on the strategic level, not the political level.
Paleocon, I am sorry if I missed it, but what is your desired policy to deal with ISIL?
I'd still be interested in hearing a response to
What, precisely, do you see as appeasement in respect to DAESH?
So what is the appeasement you are concerned about? You ignored that part.
Paleocon wrote:If your answer to any of the above is "yes", you and I have a fundamental difference of principle and are not likely to agree on what it means to be American.
I welcome the refugees. I stand opposed to those who want to do us harm (please don't put words in my mouth. I mean this statement very specifically).
I was speaking on the strategic level, not the political level.
So air strikes are appeasing Daesh? Because I don't think I'm the only one who hasn't seen what you're so specific about. Please spell it out for us.
Please spell trout for us.
T-R-O-U-T. Trout.
The irony being that so much of the story of the Twin Towers is some rich kid suffering from Affluenza who was just fine with whatever kind of terrible thing we wanted to do to people half a world away when it was consistent with his fundamentalist vision.
It's true that there were banks and trading firms in the towers, but I think people often forget or simply aren't aware that they were also a massive tourist location and travel hub. There was a shopping mall underneath the towers, two major subway stops, and the area was mobbed with tourists by mid-morning every day. On my daily walk through there to work I'd watch the kids from the local daycare center on their morning tour through the mall underneath the towers, pick my way through unloaded buses full of people with cameras, past the guys playing chess and backgammon in the tiny park across the street and the block-long line of folks waiting for the Best Falafel in the World, and on another block to my own building.
This is the human cost of a large scale attack. Not a financial system, which wasn't impacted at all. Not even just a bunch people who happened to be really good at making money. But mostly normal people working average jobs in the building pushing paper, cleaning bathrooms, and making sandwiches, along with a ton of little kids, tourists, and people who just happened to board the wrong subway train that morning.
So it's true that so much of the popular story of the twin towers is about a bunch of rich white guys. But the story people need to hear is about everyone else, as those are the people that made up the bulk of lives lost that day. And sure I get that the reason for the attack was to make a point, and the nature of terrorism is that any amount of collateral damage is justified so long as the message is communicated, but sometimes I wonder how many of the attackers realize that what they're striking at isn't some shining symbol of a thing they hate, but rather a giant box full of average people just trying to make a life for themselves.
I think the Paris situation was even worse in some respects. Because the attackers in that case were just going for body count. Not anyone in particular. Just people. In the hopes that somebody important would be so outraged that the political agenda would shift in a way that furthered their divisive cause. They were literally trying to generate hatred. Striking at a landmark I can kind of understand. It's an abstract statement. But mass murder as simply a means to an end? It's refreshing to see that France hasn't yet proposed its own equivalent of the PATRIOT act or something similarly ridiculous. And here we in the US stereotypically mock the French as being a bunch of wimps.
complexmath, sorry, I was unclear: when I said a rich kid suffering from Affluenza, I meant bin Laden; didn't mean the people he murdered at all, rich and poor and everyone else.
Pages