I think that to have an expectation of defeating ISIS is to set an unobtainable goal. The ISIS reach is into the homes and phones of people around the world. If the enemy lay within each country, how do you defeat them?
There is a romance, slick and cool factor that is attracting these kids to find purpose within the ranks of ISIS. It is very similar to the gang codes of inner cities or out here in the West with the Hell's Angels and the Dirty Dozen where the initiation often involves taking out another from the rival gang.

I'll take that as a "no", at least to the first question.

The problem is that there is a bunch of bloodthirsty genocidal dickheads with power and territory who plan to kill millions of people in the Middle East and destroy any traces there of secular values, freedom for women, reason and the diversity of cultural heritage, democracy, dissent, and religious difference, and who are sometimes willing to take that war overseas, making this not just a problem for the Middle East. If people in the West, who benefit from the freedoms that ISIS is trying to eradicate, do not show solidarity with those in the Middle East who are fighting them or who are too scared to fight them, then they are morally bankrupt.

You might want to read the article instead of imposing your readymade cartoon narratives on to what I'm saying. I'm not making it about us and them, if by that you mean Westerners against Muslims. It is you and Benkei who are doing that. They (ISIS) hate not only ordinary Westerners for their freedoms--and they explicitly do; just read their statements claiming responsibility--but anyone in the Middle East who is more free than their pure brand of Islam allows, e.g., the Kurds with their sexual equality, the Alawites with their syncretism, the Lebanese with their cosmopolitanism, etc. And really any Muslim in the Middle East and throughout the world who doesn't abide by their strict version of Sharia law, which is nearly all of them.

I'll take that as a "no", at least to the first question. — jamalrob

I did read it, I just don't find it very interesting or very relevant to the Paris attacks.

The problem is that there is a bunch of dicks with power and territory who plan to kill millions of people in the Middle East and destroy any traces there of secular values, freedom for women, reason and the diversity of cultural heritage, democracy, dissent, and religious difference, and who are sometimes willing to take that war overseas, making this not just a problem for the Middle East. If people in the West, who benefit from the freedoms that ISIS is trying to eradicate, do not show solidarity with those in the Middle East who are fighting them, then they are morally bankrupt. — jamalrob

You're privy to their plans? You know what they want to accomplish? Do you believe they directed the attacks in Paris?

I don't know their plans. I suspect they'd be happy to hold and control and set up a Caliphate and there might or might not be an affiliation with IS. Suffice is to say that the attackers have been living in France or Belgium for quite some time, some of them have travelled to Syria to fight - which means they were radicalised in France well before getting into contact with IS - others never did travel there.

In other words, I think you're grossly overestimating IS and their influence on radicalisation but I do think there is rather broad support for their ideas and broadening as a consequence of our recent actions.

Also, the "Western man's burden" apparently is to show solidarity with people by bombing the shit out of their countries. You're under this naïve romantic notion that war can be clean. That we can "take their territory" in a vacuum where ordinary people don't suffer. You apparently lack the imagination as I wouldn't wish the reality on you by saying you should experience it.

I'm not even certain they want our support. You blindly assume that Western values are wanted there. There are more ways to social justice than Western democracy and imposing Western-style institutions. Imposing our values, our narrative of modernity isn't working and we need to open ourselves up to solutions that are specific to the area. Whatever intervention on our side, even if it were successful in eliminating IS, would be oppression in itself and therefore not solve the underlying problem.

So again, what do you see as the problem? I want you to spell it out.

I'm not even certain they want our support. You blindly assume that Western values are wanted there. There are more ways to social justice than Western democracy and imposing Western-style institutions. Imposing our values, our narrative of modernity isn't working and we need to open ourselves up to solutions that are specific to the area. Whatever intervention on our side, even if it were successful in eliminating IS, would be oppression in itself and therefore not solve the underlying problem. — Benkei

Frankly Benkei, this is rancid. I mentioned "secular values, freedom for women, reason and the diversity of cultural heritage, democracy, dissent, and religious difference". Are you suggesting that these are just our values? This reveals, more than anything I have said, a patronizing and essentializing "us and them" attitude to people in the Middle East. Are Kurdish women equal to men because this was imposed on them by the West? Did the Iranian people build an innovative music scene in the 1970s because they were agents of Western Imperialism? Did the people in Tahrir square demonstrate in favour of democracy because they were told to do it by the CIA? Are the women in the Middle East who bravely campaign for women's rights merely imposing an alien culture on a naturally barbaric people? Have Shias and Sunnis lived in peace together for many decades in many places only because they were brainwashed by Americans?

I did not call those values Western. You did, and that two-faced imperialism underlies everything you say. They are values that are up for grabs for anyone who wants to grab them, and people around the world have grabbed them and continue to want them. They are universal.

You're privy to their plans? You know what they want to accomplish? — Benkei

What I said about them is based on what they have said they want to do and what they say motivates their actions, which are in turn consistent with those motivations. Maybe you should read Wood's article again.

It's funny you mention the Kurds, jamalrob, because the West has generally historically been against the Kurds gaining power in the region, going so far as to call the PKK a "terrorist organization". Well, this isn't the first time they have supported the wrong people. And this is precisely why ISIS exists today (aka. Western imperialism), precisely why Paris got attacked, precisely why all these good Middle Easterners are being massacred.

The West may claim to have superior values to ISIS, but their leaders most certainly do not, and there is a plethora of evidence to support this claim (including the fact that the existence of ISIS is due to Western imperialism).

Yes, I pretty much agree, except for the "precisely why Paris got attacked" bit.

There is a romance, slick and cool factor that is attracting these kids to find purpose within the ranks of ISIS. It is very similar to the gang codes of inner cities or out here in the West with the Hell's Angels and the Dirty Dozen where the initiation often involves taking out another from the rival gang. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I think there is a lot of truth in this. I don't know what can be done about it.

Frankly Benkei, this is rancid. I mentioned "secular values, freedom for women, reason and the diversity of cultural heritage, democracy, dissent, and religious difference". Are you suggesting that these are just our values? — jamalrob

I'm not just suggesting it. I'm telling you that these are most certainly very particular to our tradition and culture and therefore not necessarily shared. Ask people in former colonies what exactly "democracy" has brought them. Not much if not most of the things they hate and blame on the West.

This reveals, more than anything I have said, a patronizing and essentializing "us and them" attitude to people in the Middle East.

If you say so. I wasn't aware this thread is now about my character while you continually dodge one simple question. What is the problem.

Are Kurdish women equal to men because this was imposed on them by the West?

I think they are. I wouldn't claim to know what that means in their culture though nor whether they aspire to "Western" equality in the first place.

Did the Iranian people build an innovative pop and funk scene in the 1970s because they were agents of Western Imperialism? Did the people in Tahrir square demonstrate in favour of democracy because they were told to do it by the CIA? Are the women in the Middle East who bravely campaign for women's rights merely imposing an alien culture on a naturally barbaric people? Have Shias and Sunnis lived in peace together for many decades in many places only because they were brainwashed by Americans?

Pffff... this is rather laughable. There's a difference between people taking away from other cultures what they like and making it their own and propping up or installing dictators to enforce Western style capitalism. Or to replace traditional processes with Western-style democracies and institutions (Afghanistan and Iraq, most former colonies) when it clearly doesn't work.

I did not call those values Western.

Having studied international law it's quite clear where these values came from. Apparently, you just bought "universal rights" hook, line and sinker.

You did, and that two-faced imperialism underlies everything you say. They are values that are up for grabs for anyone who wants to grab them, and people around the world have grabbed them and continue to want them. They are universal.

Please continue with the judgments; makes this discussion so much more interesting to me. These values are not universal. They're a fucking luxury. Take a look around you in the world if you will. I wish they were universal. And it's very Western of you to think they are universal or that they should be so.

Has it ever occured to you that some people just might come to a different hierarchy of values and rights than we did in the West and still consider the end result just? It's not set in stone and just the shift in how rights are recognised, which trump which, in the past 60 years in the West itself should have informed you of this.

Finally, what is the problem according to you? You still haven't answered.

PS: I agree, by the way, I'm not very consistent when I on the one hand want to dismiss the us-them dichotomy (I don't think it's helpful) and on the other hand find myself forced to use it to make certain points clear.

I answered the question you keep saying I haven't answered:

The problem is that there is a bunch of dicks with power and territory who plan to kill millions of people in the Middle East and destroy any traces there of secular values, freedom for women, reason and the diversity of cultural heritage, democracy, dissent, and religious difference, and who are sometimes willing to take that war overseas, making this not just a problem for the Middle East. If people in the West, who benefit from the freedoms that ISIS is trying to eradicate, do not show solidarity with those in the Middle East who are fighting them, then they are morally bankrupt. — jamalrob

Otherwise your post is so confused I wouldn't know where to start.

Otherwise your post is so confused I wouldn't know where to start. — jamalrob

If you're done throwing a tantrum? How do you expect to have a discussion if you ridicule another person's positions or continually judge their positions. It's isn't a schoolyard where whoever shouts the loudest is the one people listen to. It's too easy to simply dismiss it and say it's confused.

What exactly is confused about my post?

I answered the question you keep saying I haven't answered:

The problem is that there is a bunch of dicks with power and territory who plan to kill millions of people in the Middle East and destroy any traces there of secular values, freedom for women, reason and the diversity of cultural heritage, democracy, dissent, and religious difference, and who are sometimes willing to take that war overseas, making this not just a problem for the Middle East. If people in the West, who benefit from the freedoms that ISIS is trying to eradicate, do not show solidarity with those in the Middle East who are fighting them, then they are morally bankrupt. — jamalrob — jamalrob

Jamalrob, perhaps you don't see the excessive simplicity you argue for. What you describe above is the typical "Islamo-Fascists that hate our freedoms" -jargon back from the Dubya days. But then you make there in between the accusation of the moral bankruptcy in the West of those who don't show solidarity to those "in the Middle East who are fighting them".

OK, show then your moral support and solidarity to Hezbollah and Iran and Shiite militias loyal to it, the Assad regime and the Al Nusra front for starters then. Or even Putin, for that matter (as some of the targets Russians have bombed have indeed been ISIS targets).

(Lets show solidarity to these guys!)


Furthermore, if you say that the reason to attack ISIS is because the territory it holds is crucial to it, then please say just who comes to replace them? An answer "I dunno, somebody will have to sort that out" isn't a proper answer. First and foremost, anyone arguing for attacking ISIS has to have some kind of gameplan what to do then. The problem here is that the West doesn't have that. And just ranting about how evil ISIS is and demanding military action isn't at all enough here, even if it seems to be enough for the greater public. Because there has to be some political solution, some actual discussion what really should be done there and not just an emotional response of bombing some targets after a terrorist strike.

By the way, most Kurds are extremely conservative regarding women (which is reflected to their homophobia as well), it's mostly the Ocalan branch of Kurds that are pro-women and it was precisely this pervasive gender conservatism that turned Ocalan to feminism in the first place. — Πετροκότσυφας

This is a good point. I did not mean to suggest that women had gained emancipation throughout Kurdish society.

Jamalrob, perhaps you don't see the excessive simplicity you argue for. What you describe above is the typical "Islamo-Fascists that hate our freedoms" -jargon back from the Dubya days. — ssu

No, I described what ISIS are doing and what their motivations are. Again, it is frustrating to discuss this with people who want to think I'm saying something I am not. Do not try to fit everything into your ready-made templates.

I find it amusing that jamalrob and I are accused of repeating neo-conservative memes for daring to suggest that we should pay at least cursory attention to what ISIS is actually doing and saying. Obviously we have broken the silence imposed on us by the post-modern quietism that - at least in academic circles - passes for the left today. ISIS this morning promised more attacks in the West, particularly in those countries involved in the air-strikes. Meanwhile Benkei - or so it seems to me - is demanding clear and incontrovertible evidence of command and control by ISIS before we dare to bring them into a discussion of the attack in Paris.

No, I described what ISIS are doing and what their motivations are. Again, it is frustrating to discuss this with people who want to think I'm saying something I am not. Do not try to fit everything into your ready-made templates — jamalrob

Fine. But perhaps you would answer to the question I asked later.

I think nobody here nobody has any objections about that the ISIS or IS is made of extremist zealots that have this messianic message. That's a message like the US is committed to fight terrorism in the "War on Terror". That's the reason some Boko Haram in another continent says it's part of the IS.

The real thing is what to do here. If you demand that they should be attacked, just what is your gameplan? Just bombing possible IS fighters is enough? Because it really feels that it's enough.

Afghanistan was treated in exactly the similar way and hence the war continues. The idea that you just get rid off the bad guys... whoever they are and not have the slightest care what your actions otherwise do or what the underlying dilemmas in the region are is the problem here. That's the thing you aren't answering.

Meanwhile Benkei - or so it seems to me - is demanding clear and incontrovertible evidence of command and control by ISIS before we dare to bring them into a discussion of the attack in Paris. — Photographer

Really? That's what you take away?

The idea that this is somehow centrally planned by IS, can be tossed in the bin. It's an issue of radicalisation. The idea this can be resolved by doing something over there (bombing) instead of over here just baffles me, which is why for the life of me I cannot imagine why IS needs to be brought into this. They're largely separate problems.

And so far the war on terror hasn't gotten us much. I have no doubt we can flatten the area but I have zero confidence that it will stop their appeal to new recruits here and over there. So the solution isn't a solution and therefore you and jamalrob don't seem to understand the actual problem.

I'm really not sure about what the West should do, and I entered this discussion not to argue for Western intervention but to criticize the views of Western leftish liberals, which I believe contribute to a political, intellectual and moral climate that increasingly makes it more likely that similar terrorist attacks will take place, or at least makes it more difficult to fight against the most ambitious and viciously reactionary movement the world has seen for a long time. In other words, I think the Western left-liberal Islamophilic denigration of Enlightenment values is opening the space for fundamentalism and radicalization; it is the other side of the coin of the right-wing xenophobes.

That said, I think I would support photographer's proposals, despite having opposed all Western intervention for the past few decades:

1. Declare war on the caliphate and treat citizens who have dealings with it under the good old statutes of treason, etc..

2. As the caliphate depends on holding territory, give maximum aid to alternative claimants to the territories they have a legitimate claim to and can control.

3. Selectively destroy munitions, military infrastructure, administrative centers etc. as we would do with any conventional enemy.

4. Above all avoid any rash changes in foreign policy. I see no need to change our policies on Syria, for instance. Assad needs to go, the refugees need help. — photographer

yet, Western leftist proposals aren't implemented at all so how can they contribute to radicalisation? Just by talking about it?

Just by talking about it? — Benkei

Yes, because there is a battle of ideas.

maybe you should read up a bit on how the process of radicalisation works. The EU has commissioned several studies in this respect and they're a worthwhile read. If I have time I'll look some links up later this week.

I can tell you already: these people have rejected your type of narrative about democracy and universal values because they see time and again it's just words and not acted on.

Sanctity of life? Only if you're western. Equality? Al animals are equal but some are more equal than others. Non-discrimination? Only if you're western. Prosperity? Only if you're western. Democracy? Begets corruption. Your narrative is simply not true for the majority of people in this world so why bother repeating it? It has already been utterly rejected by them due to our praxis.

The successful (from our point of view) competing narrative will be something similar to Islamism but without the violence where it concerns radicalisation as they have already distanced themselves from their own societies and what you refer to as Enlightenment values.

And just the narrative isn't enough, it's how they relate to the state and official institutions as well. And if I see 40+% unemployment and poverty within the banlieus and the Bruxelles' district we have one of the more important other conditions often necessary for radicalisation.

Again, I literally do not know where to begin. What are you talking about?

Your narrative — Benkei

What narrative?

This is interesting, from anthropologist Scott Atran:

Mindless terrorists? The truth about Isis is much worse

It's easy to point the finger at France for policies that lead to radicalization. But I don't see how that bears on the question as to how we should deal with ISIS.

To this recent attack. I'm one of those "pansy liberals" who thinks the only good reaction to what happend in Paris is absolutely no reaction. — Benkei

Suggesting "absolutely no reaction" to a terrorist action in which 129 (+/-) were killed, about 100 were critically wounded, and 200+ more sustained serious to moderate injuries (mostly from gunfire) and x number of near-by eye-witnesses were traumatized, is just not creditable. It doesn't make any difference whether such actions are in Paris, Nairobi, Madrid, London, Beirut, Bagdad, Mumbai, or Timbuktu. "Absolutely no reaction" would never be an appropriate or sensible reaction.

The public policy we follow does need to be based on careful distinctions:

Terrorism isn't an accident (a train derailing); it isn't gang activity (fighting over turf); it isn't ordinary criminal behavior (knocking off a convenience store); it isn't subversive political activity (changing the government by covert political means); it isn't rioting (spontaneous outbursts); it isn't a game of political uproar.

Terrorism is a unique kind of intrusion (state sponsored or not) which is aimed at people who are not responsible for one's grievances. Terrorism is a specialty of guerrilla war; it is a powerful lever in the hands of the relatively powerless. A handful of operators can do a tremendous amount of damage.

Whether an open door policy for a flood of refugee/migrants is a good idea or not is a tangential issue. So also is the question of religion and terrorism: Tangential, but not irrelevant. The long history of Europe and the Middle East is tangential. Yes, we could go back to the Crusades, or to the conquest by Islam in the first place. But... let's not. More recent history will do.

Yes, it is true that that the colonial British, French, and Americans et al have all had a hand in creating the 20th century mess of the Middle East and Northern Africa. I was opposed to the war on Iraq and Afghanistan (and I said so at the time that if Iraq or Afghanistan were a mess, the USA definitely did not have sufficient expertise to straight it all out. And nobody else does either.) Plus, it has been stated US policy since WWII to control oil in the Middle East.

Do the actions of the UK, US, France, et al justify whatever happens next? I suppose one could say we had it coming. Everybody has some sort of unpleasant recompense coming. THERE ARE NO VIRTUOUS STATES. Not Saudi Arabia, not Iran, not Syria, not Israel, not Belgium, not Germany, not US, UK, Russia, or anybody else.

Appropriate responses for social disruptions. Who has an interest in the well-being of the Islamic State, outside of small circles of friends? It is likely that destroying their extremist enterprise will leave the world better off, particularly the world of those who live near by.

Are you suggesting that pointing fingers of responsibility at one another does not thwart the attacks of barbarians? ;)
How do you rationalize with people who advertise the desire for fresh American blood?

Don't get me wrong Tiff: I'm a flaming liberal and the ghettoization of Muslims in much of Europe makes me very angry. But we don't really have that in Canada and the U.S. and still some small percentage of Muslim youth are radicalized here.

To use a bad medical analogy, if an external pathogen triggers a devastating auto-immune effect, you don't usually ignore the pathogen and simply focus on the immune system. Sure the French are imperfect - and don't get me started on the mischief that Dubya caused in Iraq - but they have been attacked and ISIS is claiming responsibility. Should they invoke Article 5 - and I think they should - every NATO state is bound to support them.

These attacks will force world governments to be more concerned about their security, more secretive and push us more towards a totalitarian form of society which we will accept willingly. It will create intense hatred of not just ISIS but of all Muslim people. Today 10 states here in the US have refused to accept a quota of refugees. One of the goals of ISIS is to radicalize Muslim populations everywhere. To make them make a choice, so no "grey" stance is possible, and they may achieve this goal.

We have bombed the piss out of ISIS for the last 12 months, but it has only grown in size. They want us to react strongly to their actions, they want to die as a 'heroes', martyrs to their cause. We have tried in the past to blast populations into the "stone age", only to see them crawl out of their 'caves' renewed, with their renewed resilience drawing new blood to their cause.

I think boots on the ground is the only way to defeat them and I think these boots must be Muslim led. Not any coalition, but a coalition of Muslims nations willing to fight to take back their honor. If this kind of coalition is possible, it should receive world wide support.

ISIS is not a state, they don't even recognize that as a concept, they don't want to negotiate, that is against their unbelievably traditional ideology.

They want to fight, to die, to go to heaven.

This is nothing more than cheap politics - it's actually 12 Republican governors now. We're taking 25,000 by the end of the year in Canada: Obama's only talking about 10,000 over 12 months. Soon the Republicans will be talking about building a wall on your northern border.