Nothing short of an equivalent to the Enlightenment in the Islamic world is necessary, in my opinion. I see nothing but the status quo of smaller regional conflicts in the Middle East as well as sporadic terrorist attacks carried out in the West continuing for the foreseeable future.

How long into the future? I don't know, but the Arab Spring shows us that a breaking point is very near to hand (this half of the century for sure). I can see Western governments getting fed up enough with attacks, refugees, etc that they decide to cut ties with the Saudis and take out ISIS militarily (we're very close to that already), but Muslim populations themselves need to effect the change necessary to more permanently stamp out the extremism in their religion.

Recall that the Enlightenment came to Europe as a reaction against the brutal wars of religion that went on for several centuries in the early modern period, waged by theocratic absolutists. Nationalism, as a sort of replacement, then caused some nasty world wars of its own, but nowadays, Catholics and Protestants in Europe do not murder each other at all, nor anyone who isn't a Christian. The Islamic world is further behind but rapidly catching up, in part because most of the violence we see coming from it is motivated out of extremist interpretations of religion, rather than nationalism, so they seem to have leapfrogged that stage.

On the other hand, it will still not be easy by any means, since unlike Christianity, it is much more difficult to find any seeds of democratic, egalitarian values in Islam. Nietzsche among others rightly points out that Christianity by nature tends towards democracy. It is a religion of the oppressed and the common man in many ways, for two of the New Testament's constant refrains are humility and inclusivity. Islam by contrast is by nature suited to theocracy and despotism, for its scriptures and especially its proscriptions for proper conduct are inherently legalistic and duty orientated, stressing submission, prostration, and blind obedience.

Nothing short of an equivalent to the Enlightenment in the Islamic world is necessary, in my opinion. — Thorongil

Well...

... it might come as a surprise, but we do agree.

What I find odd or let's say missing in the after shock of this event is that no Islamic leader or representative has said anything whatsoever to state that this event was something worthy of condemnation or any sympathy for the victims. Rather, I have heard 3 (selfish) statements from the Islamic community making a claim (defense) that this is not Islam.

Funny that they do this, as so far there seems to be no claim of who did it, much less anything more than circumstantial evidence that the attackers might have been sympathetic to ISIS.

Can't the Islamic leaders for once make a statement of condemnation of such actions and express sympathy for the victims without selfishly first making a defense PR campaign of 'this is not Islam'?

Perhaps it's simply the community leaders who get in front of cameras who seem to pimp the image of 'this is not Islam', but there really needs to be a more pro-active effort and initiative to state, we have a cancer within our ranks and we need to deal with it, instead of a 'stick our heads in the sand' sense of denial of this is not part of us.



Meow!

GREG

Maybe "enlightenment" in the Islamic world is necessary, but we often forget the backwardness of the backward Europeans that somehow convinced themselves of self-deluded holier-than-thou narcissistic grandeur. So easy we forget the likes of Anders Breivik, or the multiple-paged list of American white people that have gone on shooting sprees this year alone, or the rise of the Ukrainian fascists, or Golden Dawn in Greece, or the English Defense League. This is just in the last 5 years alone. You too will believe the West is a bunch of backward people if the media kept blaring the fact of the existence and extensiveness of European fascist groups.

Let's be perfectly clear about all this: if there is backwardness in the Middle East, then the West, including Europeans, are equally to blame for what has been happening there. Let's not forget that it was the Europeans (and I include Americans in this) that tore down that actual politically backed regimes that represented progressive values in the Middle East, or decided to overthrow political regimes that were able to contain the subsequent results of colonialism, including Saddam Hussein's regime, Gaddafi, the arbitrary creation of the state of Israel, which constantly drives a wedge in the middle of Middle Eastern politics, their constant defense of Zionist power in the region, their fight against the only faction representing any form of hope in Syria, the Rojava, American unconditional support of Saudi Arabia as their allies... the list goes on and on, but, somehow, the beacon of enlightenment and wisdom in the world exists solely in the West, if the media rhetoric is to be believed.

Fascists don't just arise in a vacuum, and people don't just become aligned to fascists en masse if there existed previously a built movement that represented some sort of freedom and autonomy for people. Islamo-fascists could only have possibly taken power if the alternative, progressives, socialists, communists, anarchists, people who believe ideals similar to that, weren't brutally massacred and shut down by outside entities, i.e. the West, throughout the past century up until the present century.

Now, the mess the West started is manifesting itself into a regional disaster, and suddenly they are all calling for the Islamic leaders to quell their people. Well, the ones that aren't fascists have repeatedly called for tolerance and peace from their people, but they are speaking to people are already convinced, i.e. the majority of Muslims. But these people offer no alternative from the Western grasp, so, of course people gravitate towards the fascists. Europeans should know this all too well, since the face of world fascism is a European face.

"We are going to lead a war which will be pitiless. When terrorists are capable of committing such atrocities, they must be certain that they are facing a determined France, a united France, a France that is together, and does not let itself be moved." — Francois Hollande

Sigh. Nothing ever went wrong with this reaction to terrorist activity except that ISIS consists of ex-generals from the Iraqi military, members of ISIS come from those families destroyed by the Iraq war, among others. Oh, Europe, you keep digging a deeper hole for humanity.

As I was watching the horror unfold in France, the inevitable 'what would you do?' came to mind. I then think of the debate that takes place with almost every nation and the USA regarding the personal protection that a legal firearm provides. I am not saying that personal firearms would have changed the situation, I just wonder if the knowledge that the audience could be armed, might likely be armed, would have changed the appearance of these events being 'soft targets'.

Let's be perfectly clear about all this: if there is backwardness in the Middle East, then the West, including Europeans, are equally to blame for what has been happening there. Let's not forget that it was the Europeans (and I include Americans in this) that tore down that actual politically backed regimes that represented progressive values in the Middle East, or decided to overthrow political regimes that were able to contain the subsequent results of colonialism, including Saddam Hussein's regime, Gaddafi, the arbitrary creation of the state of Israel, which constantly drives a wedge in the middle of Middle Eastern politics, their constant defense of Zionist power in the region, their fight against the only faction representing any form of hope in Syria, the Rojava, American unconditional support of Saudi Arabia as their allies... the list goes on and on, but, somehow, the beacon of enlightenment and wisdom in the world exists solely in the West, if the media rhetoric is to be believed.

I hear what you are saying in the above quote ALL the time but I don't know if I should trust the people who are saying it for they are the same people who have suggested that Isis is actually being led by the CIA. Absurd right? :s
The people suggesting such an internal decision, to play both sides of this terrorist organization/movement, are they themselves cast out of main stream society as 'preppers' or doomsday believers. While the rest of society functions day after day, oblivious to what hornet nests we are stirring up around the world. I used to pshaw their ideas, I believe we are an honest country and are led by people who truly do want to help others the world over. I don't believe us to be perfect, nor do we always make the right choices.
As France decides how to handle this country altering event, I do hope they are better at satisfying Aristotle's Challenge on Anger because that is where I believe, to a degree that the USA screwed up after 9.11.

Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.

In response to 9.11 we hit the wrong person, even though he was a war criminal, Saddam Hussein didn't have any direct correlation to the events of 9.11 but he was an easy target. The rest of Aristotle's challenge was satisfied but without it ALL being satisfied, the ripple effect of our decisions are still being felt and reacted to.

If I come across as skeptical it is because I am. The loyalty that has been ingrained into Americans is hard wired. To suggest or accept anything that does not follow, can rock the foundation that the 'loyalty' is built on.
Even though you cannot see movement, on my skepticism of my own government, I assure you I have.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/11/14/Arab-states-denounce-Paris-attacks-as-violation-of-human-values-.html

Hopefully, somebody will shed a tear for these too, if they 're not so unworthy — Πετροκότσυφας

I have to admit that this has been a new development in such matters.

Finally there has become more and more an effort for such nations to make a statement against such actions.

What I have not yet seem by any of these nations is an admission that this problem is indeed a problem within Islam and that the Islamic leaders will take action to help rid their faith of this cancer. At least I see some indications that the behavior if no longer ignored, but the pro-active part that needs to be made by these nations fails to be present.

I don't wish to be so cold regarding the bombing in Baghdad, but this is sort of viewed (unfortunately) as a typical day in Baghdad. I hate to say it, but if these nations have taken a silent approach over all the years regarding such a problem within their own state religions, it is a bit much to expect anyone from outside viewing such actions as anything but typical. I hate to say it, but these nations must finally come to grips with understanding that groups like ISIS and such terrorist attacks are a cancer that is from a misinterpretation of Islam and not something that is just 'not Islam'.

I don't wish to trivialize the bombing in Baghdad, but I feel the constant denial of these Islamic states in acknowledging that the problems of these radical terrorist organizations are indeed part of Islam (as a cancer is part of the body infected). Their denial has trivialized such attacks within their borders.

Meow!

GREG

As I was watching the horror unfold in France, the inevitable 'what would you do?' came to mind. I then think of the debate that takes place with almost every nation and the USA regarding the personal protection that a legal firearm provides. I am not saying that personal firearms would have changed the situation, I just wonder if the knowledge that the audience could be armed, might likely be armed, would have changed the appearance of these events being 'soft targets'. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

This would do nothing whatsoever to deter terrorism.

If anything, this would give cause to violent overreactions; thus increasing the chances of people being shot for really no reason other than fear of something that may be terrorism that is not.

I'm sorry Tiff, but looking at all reasonable statistics personal protection is not increased via private firearms. If anything, the statistics show that the opposite is the case.

No, it wouldn't. A terrorist act aims at inflicting fear. You can do that even if you end up killing no one. — Πετροκότσυφας

Indeed!

Remember the anthrax scares?

All one needed to do was scatter a bit of white powder at an airport and it was closed for hours, disturbing so many lives, placing them in state of fear and terror, as well as costing lots of resources.

Killing people is not the point of terrorism. Dead people have no fear and cannot be set into a state of terror. The terrorist terrorizes the living and not the dead.

Meow!

GREG

This would do nothing whatsoever to deter terrorism. — Mayor of Simpleton

I respectfully disagree. The golden time of intervention of such a hostage taking is immediate and with force. I think of what would happen at a concert venue here in the USA, even where firearms are forbidden, those who are security at the venue would be armed and able to respond. In that massive of a crisis, the first to react would be the ones with the best window of opportunity to neutralize the threat. It is a of a lot hell faster than assembling a task force to figure out a way in. Grant you, the USA does the same in assembling task forces where hostages are involved but venues are required to provide security equal to the implied threat.

If anything, this would give cause to violent overreactions; thus increasing the chances of people being shot for really no reason other than fear of something that may be terrorism that is not. — Mayor of Simpleton

I will not deny that what you say is a risk but not enough to discourage a citizen to take personal responsibility for their safety and those around them.

the mess the West started — discoii

Ah yes, what would a thread like this be without the whiny proclamations from faux liberals who blame the West for Islamic terrorism?

Is it the West's fault that Muhammad himself was a military leader, who led the conquest of Mecca and destroyed the indigenous religion and culture of Arabia? Is it the West's fault that Muslims then conquered by military force the Levant, North Africa, Southern Spain, Mesopotamia, Persia, Northern India, and eventually the Byzantine Empire in Anatolia? Is it the West's fault for defending itself at the Battle of Tours and later at the Siege of Vienna when Europe proper was threatened? Is it the West's fault that the Arab Muslim slave trade lasted for almost 1300 years?

I'm sorry to break it to you, but Arab Muslims were colonialists, and vastly more effective and brutal ones at that, long before Westerners. Islam was a theocratic military machine from the start. The West's history of colonialism and slavery pales in comparison, both in terms of severity and length of time, to that of Islam's history. In fact, there couldn't have been a British and American slave trade had it not been for the infrastructure put in place in Africa by conquering Arab Muslims to enable it.

This is not to condone colonialism by anyone, but the implication that Islamic terrorism as well as the hatred towards the West more generally that we see today would not exist if only Europeans didn't embark on a colonial project and if the war in Iraq was handled more competently or never waged at all is absurd. It is all the more absurd when one considers that Muslims are butchering their fellow Muslims in far greater numbers than Westerners. On the same day as the attacks in Paris, there were bombings in Lebanon and Iraq which left dozens dead. Is the West responsible for these attacks too? Do you really imagine that inside the minds of these terrorists, they're thinking, "I hate the West and its colonial legacy so much I'm going to slaughter my fellow Muslim countrymen in droves?"

No, these people have theocratic intentions and could not be more explicit about it. Read their manifestos. They hate the West precisely because it tries thwart these intentions. However much the West bungles such attempts at doing so, it remains in the right as a matter of principle.

Is there an acceptable social strategy for France to become less of a target? — Bitter Crank

Yes, unfortunately there actually is: like not to bomb ISIS in the first place. Simple and as logical as that.

As the late Osama bin Laden himself said: "We didn't attack Sweden and for a reason..."

(Osama bin Laden in Sweden as a teen.)


At first you might think that it isn't a good strategy for ISIS to attack a country like France. Well, it is, actually. Because as President Hollande has said, "France is in war". Hence France has to retaliate and bomb ISIS, it cannot just stand idle. Furthermore, for an organization that has this messianic objective of a creating new Caliphate, infidel France fighting them suits their cause well. They have nothing to lose. Because the likely French reaction will be to bomb ISIS with it's aircraft... but not to create a large ground contingent that is sent to Syria and Iraq to fight the ISIS.

That's the truth.

Yes, unfortunately there actually is: like not to bomb ISIS in the first place. Simple and as logical as that. — ssu

It may be simple, but it's certainly not logical.

Whatever we think of the Arab world, we still need to look at ourselves. Just a couple of weeks ago, as I previously highlighted in the shoutbox, the US bombed a hospital in Kunduz in Afghanistan and mowed down doctors and patients as they tried to escape the burning building. Dozens were killed. According to Medecins Sans Frontiers, the US army had been given the coordinates of the hospital beforehand and the attack was deliberate.

MSF is disgusted by the recent statements coming from some Afghanistan government authorities justifying the attack on its hospital in Kunduz. These statements imply that Afghan and U.S. forces working together decided to raze to the ground a fully functioning hospital – with more than 180 staff and patients inside – because they claim that members of the Taliban were present. This amounts to an admission of a war crime. — Christopher Stokes, General Director of MSF

According to the Pentagon it was "an accident". We will probably never know for sure, but I am personally more inclined to take the word of a group of volunteer doctors than that of the Pentagon. If the attack was deliberate then I don't see any reason why it wouldn't qualify as terrorist in nature (unless we mean to limit the word "terrorist" to simply mean those with more primitive weapons than us). Herein lies the problem; as long as we in the west continue to carry out terrorist attacks on Muslims under the guise of war, it's hard to see how we can hold the moral high ground when we ourselves are attacked. Hollande's comments about being "merciless" and Sarkozy's call for "total war", the results of which will likely lead to more deaths of innocents on both sides, suggest it will be a long time before we learn that lesson.

Whatever we think of the Arab world, we still need to look at ourselves. — Baden

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't.

the US bombed a hospital in Kunduz in Afghanistan and mowed down doctors and patients as they tried to escape the burning building. — Baden

An appalling tragedy to be sure, but then only a select group of people in the Pentagon are to blame, not the US, or the West, or secularism as a whole. Attaching blame to the latter for Islamic terrorism is the tired crock I am objecting to. The West and its values are superior to those of ISIS and like-minded groups. Period.

Hollande's comments about being "merciless" and Sarkozy's call for "total war", the results of which will inevitably involve more deaths of innocents on both sides, suggest it will be a long time before we learn that lesson. — Baden

Innocents will die, true, but ISIS needs to be obliterated. I fail to understand the reasoning that we ought not to destroy ISIS militarily merely because, only in part, they arose in the aftermath of the bungled Iraq War. Even if we are entirely to blame for their appearance, I see no justification for not pursuing their destruction.

And how do we destroy them? The more we kill, the more we create. That's the lesson of the Iraq war. Unless you want to carpet bomb the entire region and kill every man, woman and child there - which would make us no better than ISIS morally - then the exercise is probably futile.

(Incidentally, they don't need a military. All they need is a follower in one of our countries with a gun or with a home-made bomb strapped to them. How do you destroy that capability?)

The more we kill, the more we create. That's the lesson of the Iraq war. — Baden

No it isn't. You're cherry picking one war. If you were alive on the eve of the second world war, you might have said similar things: "the ethos of Prussian militarism and aggression is ineradicable; the more German soldiers we kill, the more we create radical groups like the Nazis. That's the lesson of the first world war." And yet you would have been wrong. There was no insurgency or pockets of Nazi resistance at the end of the war, to the surprise of Allied commanders. No such thing as "Nazi terrorism" arose at all. The Germans were thoroughly finished with war.

ISIS is an organized military force, and indeed even claims to be a state, as their name makes clear. As such, it is perfectly within the Western powers' rights to declare war against this rogue state and destroy it militarily. To think this can only be done by killing every last human being in the region is monumental hyperbole and doesn't even really deserve comment.

I'm cherry picking? So, your claim is that the situation in Nazi Germany pre-WWII is just as analogous to the situation of ISIS in Iraq as that of the forerunners of ISIS in Iraq during the Iraq war is? Really? Don't you think we should stick to analogies that have some relationship to the present realities we are describing in terms of culture, religion, location, military strength, tactics and so on? Look to Afghanistan. Have the Taliban been defeated? How many years have we been bombing them now? What we need in Iraq is a sophisticated and intelligent response to the threat ISIS pose. "Bomb them" is not that response.

It's analogous to the extent that my point is that not all wars create brutal insurgencies by the losers. There are many other wars one could point to as well. I just used a well known one to make it clear.

What we need in Iraq is a sophisticated and intelligent response to the threat ISIS pose — Baden

Like?

And there is more nuance to simply advocating "bombing them." You can't merely assert that this is all we have been doing in Afghanistan and that the "bombing" solution therefore hasn't worked. I can quite easily make the case that we need to "bomb them" better rather than not at all. There were really stupid military mistakes made in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The management in general of both wars was truly inept.

Like? — Thorongil

I don't know and neither do you. The difference between us seems to be that I am the one suggesting we wait until we do know.

And there is more nuance to simply advocating "bombing them." You can't merely assert that this is all we have been doing in Afghanistan and that the "bombing" solution therefore hasn't worked. I can quite easily make the case that we need to "bomb them" better rather than not at all. There were really stupid military mistakes made in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The management of both wars was truly inep — Thorongil

Yes, it was inept, not least because the wars were started for the wrong reasons and without proper planning. It seems to me that you are advocating we repeat the same mistake. I am not in principle against bombing ISIS, but I don't see any evidence it's going to work. Quite the contrary. Every similar attempt in recent years has been a failure. The onus is on those who want to take military action to provide a proper justification for it. The desire for revenge isn't enough, particularly because of the possibility it might end up backfiring and cause more attacks like the recent one in Paris.

I'd say I disagree with everything you wrote in this post. I do not wish to expand, I'll just say that the problem, in my view, is mainly geopolitical, its religious aspect is mostly a symptom. And I'm saying that while I have no problem to admit that the jihadists are part of Islam - or as I have said before, I do not even know what real Islam means. — Πετροκότσυφας

Indeed we disagree at the core of this issue.

Real Islam is not the issue here at all.

Perhaps one can state that the problem is political or geopolitical, but seeing that we are speaking of Islamic States without a separation of church and state how is it at all possible that any political or geopolitical problems would not involve religion (Islam) at it's core?

If the (Islamic) states themselves have no separation of church and state, how is it even possible to consider religion or politics to be a symptom, when by definition it all must be the cause, as they are both the same thing in this context?

As I see it, this claim of it being just political or geopolitical rather than religious is vacuous rhetoric and misleading.

Calling it politics in this context is the very same as calling it religion. It does the problem an injustice to weight it by European standards.

Meow!

GREG

I respectfully disagree. The golden time of intervention of such a hostage taking is immediate and with force. I think of what would happen at a concert venue here in the USA, even where firearms are forbidden, those who are security at the venue would be armed and able to respond. In that massive of a crisis, the first to react would be the ones with the best window of opportunity to neutralize the threat. It is a of a lot hell faster than assembling a task force to figure out a way in. Grant you, the USA does the same in assembling task forces where hostages are involved but venues are required to provide security equal to the implied threat.

I will not deny that what you say is a risk but not enough to discourage a citizen to take personal responsibility for their safety and those around them. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Now you shifted the context Tiff.

There is a difference between qualified security being armed and non-qualified audience members being armed.

The main point is, you simply do not attend a concert and expect an attack by terrorists out of the blue. This sort of attack can happen anywhere at any time, so is the solution to have everyone out of fear armed with firearms in the event that something might happen? To live as such is to gives into the desire to create a life of fear allowing the terrorists to win.

I'm not too sold that the exclusive means of taking personal responsibility is to be armed with firearms. It seems the probability that there are far more times where a terrorist attack will not happen where such carrying around of weapons that can kill would create other far more common bad things.

Meow!

GREG

I don't know and neither do you. The difference between us seems to be that I am suggesting we wait until we do know. — Baden

Meanwhile, sovereign states are threatened and enveloped, innocent civilians massacred, and one of the most brutal regimes in history will solidify power in one of richest oil producing regions on earth, and will work to plot terrorist attacks all over the world, which it is already doing. Yeah, "waiting it out" sounds like a fantastic option - for the callous defeatist who cares nothing for the troubles of others so long as his own livelihood is not threatened.

And as a matter of fact, I do know how we defeat ISIS: we put together an international military coalition and with the help of the Kurds, Iraqis, and the remnants of the secular Syrian rebels, invade the Islamic State and destroy it, along with Assad, who should then be tried for genocide and the use of chemical weapons. The air campaign is not enough; we need trained Western armies and armaments to bolster the paltry efforts of the Kurds and Iraqis. If you don't think a country like the US, which spends more on its military than many other countries' GDPs combined, doesn't have the tools to exact a military defeat on ISIS, then you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Consider that the war in Iraq, for example, really only last about 3 weeks. That's all the time it took to defeat Saddam Hussein's army and topple his regime. What you and most other people object to is the handling of the post-war occupation of the country. This is when the massive corruption, abuse, and mismanagement occurred. The war itself was a piece of cake, and so will it be against ISIS. The problem is what to do in the aftermath.

It seems to me that you are advocating we repeat the same mistake. — Baden

No I'm not. I'm advocating the opposite: that we don't repeat the same mistake. The US military and her allies could not have not learned anything from the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan.

- It's not being a callous defeatist to demand an intelligent strategy in the Middle East for a change. I marched against the Iraq war. If I and others like me had been successful, we wouldn't be in this situation. And believe me, we were labelled callous defeatists by the likes of you then too. But we didn't march because we were callous and didn't care about the troubles of others. We marched because we didn't want to see innocent people getting killed and because we knew the whole endeavour would end in disaster. And we were right. Unlike the people who supported the war, I don't consider myself responsible for the murder and mayhem that has occurred since. What about you, Thorongil? Were you out marching against the war in Iraq or were you one of those who supported it? And if the latter, how are you taking responsibility for your mistake?

It may be simple, but it's certainly not logical. — Thorongil

Being logical doesn't mean something is correct or justified.

A psychopath follows his own twisted logic, yet unfortunately even saying that one understands this twisted logic is usually taken as somehow the person accepts or justifies this awful twisted logic as somehow being correct and accepted. That isn't the case here at all. (The more politically correct way here is typically just to say that one cannot at all understand or fathom the evil actions and blame it all on the people simply being evil. Evil one doesn't have to explain.)

Even if these Jihadists have a nutcase ideology to "make the World a better place with their Caliphate", just like the worst communists had (that had the idea of basically killing the rich and the bourgeoisie), they do follow a logic. So you tell me what country ISIS has attacked, that has had nothing to do with the Middle East, hasn't deployed troops there or hasn't been active supported the war against ISIS (or the IS)?

Don't get me wrong, I think ISIS (or IS) is something that the West ought to fight against (perhaps in some better way than just flying drones and fighters around in the area where ISIS operates) as the whole ideology is hugely detrimental to the people and simply will not work. But this fight will happen with a cost: the IS will fight back with terrorism. That is a fact and it has been proved now. Hence anybody saying that the West should fight IS has to understand that this fight will result in terrorist strikes or at least in attempts of terrorist strikes. War seldom is this one sided thing that doesn't harm at all one side. We just have forgotten this when we can just watch from CNN when the West starts a bombing campaign against some country... and have no fear of any retaliation coming our way. This isn't the same as to say that "It's the West's fault that we have jihadism". No, muslim extremism emerged far more from the inner problems of the Muslim countries themselves, but after the disasterous way Dubya and Obama have waged this war, we have to understand that we are in this mess, and unfortunate things like in Paris will happen.

Logic hasn't got anything to do with right or wrong. Naturally attacking innocent civilians is a crime and I do feel sorry for the families of the victims. France has now gotten two attacks in a brief period, so have to wish them all luck. Naturally right after a terrorist attack it isn't actually correct to have any philosophical, political or analytic discussion of the events as it will seem as something very cold and offending. Yet if you attack and kill French soldiers deployed at some of the various places they are deployed in Africa, that will not get the media attention as a terrorist attack in Paris. Everybody understands that being in the French Foreign Legion is and has been dangerous, one can get killed. Going for a night out in Paris usually shouldn't be deadly.

Anyway, the term that ISIS/IS is behind some terrorist attack is also a bit problematic as it wellcomes any nutcase to make an attack on it's behalf. Once when there are more than one person involved, the link to IS is likely far more obvious.

And as a matter of fact, I do know how we defeat ISIS: we put together an international military coalition and with the help of the Kurds, Iraqis, and the remnants of the secular Syrian rebels, invade the Islamic State and destroy it, along with Assad, who should then be tried for genocide and the use of chemical weapons. — Thorongil

Some thoughts here:

- Who are you talking about when you refer to "we"? The US? The US+France+UK? NATO?
- What international coalition are you talking about?
- Isn't the West actually trying to do that, actually?
- Who are the "Secular Syrian rebels"?
- You totally forget Russia here. If you start attacking Assad, you likely start attacking Russians too. Yeah, great gameplan. And Assad and the Russian's primary objective are those insurgents that the US has aided. The Turks fear the Kurds and bomb them. The Iraqis are with the Iranians. And the Saudis and others support those that are jihadists to you.

Just for starters, in the World there is a thing called "international relations", which are important. And countries usually have their own agendas and objectives, which really don't have to coincide with American objectives at all. And if (or when) you say you don't care, that is the basic fundamental problem just why US policy sucks so much.

It's not being a callous defeatist to demand an intelligent strategy in the Middle East for a change. — Baden

Good, and I advocate the same. I just think that the intelligent strategy can only involve the use of military force in one way or another. Diplomacy by definition will not work with a group like ISIS, which you surely ought to know. So again, the longer we wait, the more bodies will pile up. For the most militarily advanced nations on earth to just sit on their hands while this happens is both ironic and tragic - not to mention in violation of the genocide convention and other international laws.

by the likes of you — Baden

It would be wise not to assume much about me on account of my support for military intervention in the Middle East.

I marched against the Iraq war. — Baden

I doubt you marched against the war. In all probability, you marched against the handling of the post-war occupation.

I don't consider myself responsible for the murder and mayhem that has occurred since. — Baden

I'm not saying you, personally, are. The use of first person singular or plural is meant to refer to the US and the West in general, which should have been obvious.

Were you out marching against the war in Iraq or were you one of those who supported it? — Baden

In all honesty, I was too young to have any coherent, reasoned position on it. But now in retrospect, I do support, or would have supported, the war itself, which, as I have stressed several times now, is distinct from the post-war occupation. The latter I vehemently disagree with.

I doubt you marched against the war. In all probability, you marched against the handling of the post-war occupation. — Thorongil

I. Marched. Against. The. War. Before it started. In London. Can I make it any clearer?

But now in retrospect, I do support, or would have supported, the war itself — Thorongil

You would have supported it and yet you have the audacity to call me callous and uncaring. You should be more circumspect in your personal judgments of people you know little or nothing about.

- Who are you talking about when you refer to "we"? The US? The US+France+UK? NATO?
- What international coalition are you talking about? — ssu

Yeah, more or less.

- Isn't the West actually trying to do that, actually? — ssu

Yeah, but it hasn't adopted a strategy any more robust than simply flying drones and doing a few airstrikes.

- Who are the "Secular Syrian rebels"? — ssu

Well, to my knowledge, there are primarily four groups in Syria: ISIS, Assad's forces, an al-Qaeda like terrorist group (I forget their name), and the Syrian opposition. I call them secular since they are the allies of the secular Western powers and would presumably want to establish democratic rule in Syria when the fighting is over.

- You totally forget Russia here. If you start attacking Assad, you likely start attacking Russians too. — ssu

No, I haven't forgotten them, but I very much doubt Russia would do something drastic. What do you have in mind? Do you honestly think Putin would declare war on Western Europe and the US merely on account of the latter's invasion of ISIS and Assad? The Russian economy is garbage, remember.

I. Marched. Against. The. War. Before it started. In London. Can I make it any clearer? — Baden

It is clear now, but it wasn't prior to this helpful statement.

You would have supported it and yet you have audacity to call me callous and uncaring — Baden

So anyone who supports a war at all is callous and uncaring? By the way, I never called you such things. You would be if you, or anyone, only supports doing nothing as the best option. You seem to have implied that you would be open to military action were proper planning in place. Is that correct?