I have read all the links posted here, and I have tried to be fair in reading them. Once again I feel that calls to either go on the offensive or no are not quite warranted. The most I could commit to would be to militarily support people who are already on the ground fighting that battle against QSIS. There are too many agendas in play to be able to safely say much more, even in light of these various articles. Even htough I wouldn't move there I am clearly sympathetic towards the plight of the Kurds [from our perspective, the PKK and the YPG are fine], and would think that utilizing them -- by giving them military support -- might be the best bet. But that may not actually collapse QSIS, who may find themselves contended with some land -- in the end.

Especially from where I sit... I just don't feel comfortable committing much in the way of military endorsements. There's too much noise, and I am not personally familiar with the situation, enough so that I don't think it right to commit. If I've learned anything in my involvement with politics it's that being personally involved really sheds light on the situation, and since I am not -- and I don't have access to people I know I can trust with respect to the situation -- I remain skeptical, overall.

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

Even though it was cream cheese by comparison, quite a few young Americans were attracted to various leftist organizations and radical loony groups in the 1960s. The old-line communists called it "infantile adventurism". As you note, young people like the slick (or not so slick) cool factor. So did I, back in the stone ages. Adventure! "Let's see just how far out we can get!"

A few Somali youth have left Minneapolis for Syria, much to the horror of their parents. It hasn't worked out well for them. But, given their cold, upper midwestern cultural milieu, Syria is hot.

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

I think they [Kurdish women] 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. — Benkei

I bet Kurdish women who are equal to men, even if it was imposed on them by Western Imperialists, would be reluctant to give up their equal status. I bet Hindu women in India who have been gang raped and beaten to death because the appeared to be gaining personal sovereignty, would disagree with you. I would guess Chinese women who have gained rights under the Chinese Communist Party would be reluctant to go back to the days when their feet were still getting bound (a century or so ago).

The Afghan women who had lived relatively public and interesting lives before the Taliban took over parts of Afghanistan, didn't seem to be thrilled to be put back into their burkas and were sort of expected to stay 'barefoot and pregnant' again.

The women in sub-saharan Africa who are gaining control over their fertility and education for themselves and their children don't seem to resent western aid imperialist's efforts on their behalf.

Men and women everywhere generally like to have options in life if that is at all possible, whether they are Moslem, Hindu, Communist, Christian, Animist, fundamentalist Protestant in Central America, or what have you.

Universal Rights are universally a good thing, whether the reactionary local yokels like it or not.

The Paris attacks are portrayed as an assault on the values of the west. In fact, the hopes and philosophies we cherish are global — jamalrob

Western imperialist rubbish, obviously. (Not to me)

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

Gee whiz! If all they want is to die and go to heaven, don't they realize we would be more than happy to arrange their demise?

So, why doesn't France invade America too, for bombing a hospital just days before the Paris incident? This is double standard nonsense people are spouting here. The reaction to American atrocities is: oh, please stop. But they never stop. Yet when brown people do it, you are so quick to support dropping freedom from the skies! Come on now, go sign that invade America petition.

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. — ssu

When I criticized Western liberals for failing to show solidarity with those who are fighting ISIS, I had in mind not only those who are actually fighting them but also those who are too scared to fight them and those who are suffering at their hand. I had in mind the Muslims of Europe who struggle to challenge the Islamists in their midst; the Kurds, who have mostly been unsupported by the Western left (as an example take the UK National Union of Students voting against a motion to condemn ISIS and support the Kurds, because it would be "Islamophobic"); and the Sunnis of Iraq who refused to swear allegiance to ISIS or who have been forced to live under its regime; and especially now, the significantly pro-French people of Raqqa in Syria, where ISIS is being targeted by the French air strikes. Against the reports posted by the anti-ISIS campaigners of Raqqa, European leftists are eager to spread pro-ISIS fabrications about civilian deaths. I urge you to read the Twitter feed to get an idea of what's been going on in the territories where ISIS holds power.

Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently is a campaign launched by a group of non-violent activists in Raqqa to expose the atrocities committed by The regime of Bashar Al-Assad and terrorist extremist group ” the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria ISIS toward the civilian populations if the city. We shed light on the overlooking of these atrocities by all parties. We are a nonpartisan and independent news page. — raqqa-sl.com

Against this, @Benkei says: "You blindly assume that Western values are wanted there".

But no, I'm not a fan of Hezbollah, the Iranian regime, or Assad.

And one has to be either simply ignorant or in possession of a broken moral compass to say this:

So, why doesn't France invade America too, for bombing a hospital just days before the Paris incident? This is double standard nonsense people are spouting here. The reaction to American atrocities is: oh, please stop. But they never stop. Yet when brown people do it, you are so quick to support dropping freedom from the skies! Come on now, go sign that invade America petition. — discoii

It might make the discussion less acrimonious if we look at the findings of anthropologist Scott Atran, who has investigated radicalization. Aside from all the stuff I vociferously disagree with in what you've said @Benkei, you did have some interesting things to say about radicalization. Scott Atran suggests three conditions necessary to prevent the radicalization of the young:

1. The first condition: Offer youth something that makes them dream of a life of significance through struggle and sacrifice in comradeship.

2. The second condition: Offer youth a positive personal dream, with a concrete chance of realization.

3. A third condition: Offer youth the chance to create their own local initiatives.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-atran/violent-extremism-social-science_b_7142604.html

ISIS is winning in this area because it has a supreme confidence and idealism that is currently lacking amongst the liberal defenders of cultural diversity, freedom of speech, democracy, equality for women and gay people. That lack of confidence, if not outright scepticism and equivocation, is very apparent in this thread.

Perhaps the entire approach to the problem has a fundamental flaw?

Why is there even the mention of invading another country or nation?

Why is that even consider a viable option? :s

As far as I can tell these leader of the caliphate do not represent a particular country or nation. They represent countries and nations that are as mythical as Narnia or Pandora. These lands exist in their (delusional and disturbed) minds.

The blame game is getting (fucking) old.

Who gave them support? :-d

EVERYONE!

Indeed if we trace back the supports to their cause for caliphate, nearly every country and nation (East, West, North or South) will probably have some sort of hand in this support (whether intentional or unintentional), so maybe it is time to stop play the blame game and go after the individuals.

------------------------------------------------------------

Here's another question that maybe the (generalized) West needs to ask itself:

Why are youth from the (generalized) West even considering joining such an organization as ISIS or whatever the next new kid of terror on the block happens to be in vogue?

What is missing or present in this current (generalized) Western society that causes this to even be a consideration?

I mean specifics and not just a bunch of generalized rhetoric of boo these (vague) values and boo these handful of leaders.

-------------------------------------------------------------

My personal perspective is that the attack on ISIS that will be the most effective and might do the most to dull their progress will be the attack by Anonymous. Their attack is aimed at the individuals and not countries that have 'supported' them (which would be every country) or nations where they come from or have been last seem to have inhabited.

In terms of values and notions of truth...

... I also view this circumstance to be the best evidence to show how idealism and literalism are flawed and cruel systems in both the 'east' and the 'west'...

... but as this debate is not about philosophy, but rather use and abuse of politics and religion as pimped by self-justified megalomaniacs and followed by his/her cult via personality**, be they in Syrian or the USA... I suppose were back to the 'petty penis measuring contest'. Introducing any philosophy would be an act of castration.

Maybe they should make this a new world anti-national anthem?



"Closer To Fine"


I'm trying to tell you something about my life
Maybe give me insight between black and white
The best thing you've ever done for me
Is to help me take my life less seriously, it's only life after all
Well darkness has a hunger that's insatiable
And lightness has a call that's hard to hear
I wrap my fear around me like a blanket
I sailed my ship of safety till I sank it, I'm crawling on your shore.

I went to the doctor, I went to the mountains
I looked to the children, I drank from the fountain
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine.

I went to see the doctor of philosophy
With a poster of Rasputin and a beard down to his knee
He never did marry or see a B-grade movie
He graded my performance, he said he could see through me
I spent four years prostrate to the higher mind, got my paper
And I was free.

I went to the doctor, I went to the mountains
I looked to the children, I drank from the fountain
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine.

I stopped by the bar at 3 a.m.
To seek solace in a bottle or possibly a friend
I woke up with a headache like my head against a board
Twice as cloudy as I'd been the night before
I went in seeking clarity.

I went to the doctor, I went to the mountains
I looked to the children, I drank from the fountain
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine.

I went to the doctor, I went to the mountains
I looked to the children, I drank from the fountain
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine.

We go to the bible, we go through the workout
We read up on revival and we stand up for the lookout
There's more than one answer to these questions
pointing me in a crooked line
The less I seek my source for some definitive
The closer I am to fine
The closer I am to fine
The closer I am to fine

--------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway...

... this is what I except to have to deal with in 4 weeks when I fly to Washington DC leaving my rather safe and secure home with my Islamic neighbors who are just as shocked over the circumstances and they themselves have a new fear to deal with... the witch hunts... I just have to turn on the TV and I can smell the smoke of stupidity mixed with the sweat of fear:



"Hunting For Witches"


I was sitting, on the roof of my house
With a shotgun
And a six pack of beers, six pack of beers, six pack of beers.
The newscaster says, "The enemy is among us"
As bombs explode on the 30 bus,
Kill your middle class indecision,
Now is not the time for liberal thought,

So I go hunting for witches
I go hunting for witches
Heads are going to roll
I go hunting for..

90's,Optimistic as a teen.
Now its terror
airplanes crash into towers, into towers, into towers.

The Daily Mail says the enemies among us,
Taking our women and taking our jobs,
All reasonable thought is being drowned out by the non-stop baying, baying, baying for blood

So I go hunting for witches
I go hunting for witches
Heads are going to roll..
I was an ordinary man with ordinary desires
I watched TV, it informed me
I was an ordinary man with ordinary desires
There must be accountability
Disparate and misinformed
Fear will keep us all in place

So I go hunting for witches
I go hunting for witches
Heads are going to roll

I was an ordinary man with ordinary desires
I watched TV, it informed me
I was an ordinary man with ordinary desires
There must be accountability
Disparate and misinformed
Fear will keep us all in place


Maybe it's me, but I consider FOX NEWS to be a radical terrorist organization as much as ISIS.

Then again, I'm not really from anywhere anymore, but I do like this Austrian Laws:

Article 283

The Austrian Criminal Code contains provisions aimed at combating racism and intolerance.
These include Section 283 (para. 1) - which punishes incitement to hostile action against a
church or religious community established in the country or a group determined by their
affiliation to such a church or religious community, or to a race, nation, ethnic group or state -
and Section 283 (para. 2) - which punishes publicly agitating against such a group or insulting or
disparaging it in a manner violating human dignity.5

With effect from 1 January 2012, the scope of the offence of hate speech defined under section
283 of the Criminal Code had been expanded. Section 283, paragraph 1, characterized advocacy
of or incitement to violence against a church, a religious society or any group defined in terms of
race, skin color, language, religion, belief, nationality, descent, national or ethnic origin, sex,
disability, age or sexual orientation, or against a member of any such group, where the
incitement was expressly motivated by membership of the group, as an offence punishable with
imprisonment for up to 2 years.6


Meow!

GREG

** "Cult Of Personality"


Look in my eyes, what do you see?
The cult of personality
I know your anger, I know your dreams
I've been everything you want to be

I'm the cult of personality
Like Mussolini and Kennedy
I'm the cult of personality
The cult of personality
The cult of personality

Neon lights, Nobel Prize
When a mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You won't have to follow me
Only you can set me free

I sell the things you need to be
I'm the smiling face on your TV
I'm the cult of personality
I exploit you, still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three

I'm the cult of personality
Like Joseph Stalin and Gandhi
I'm the cult of personality
The cult of personality
The cult of personality

Neon lights, a Nobel Prize
When a leader speaks, that leader dies
You won't have to follow me
Only you can set you free

You gave me fortune
You gave me fame
You gave me power in your God's name
I'm every person you need to be
I'm the cult of personality




Sorry all the 'POP' references, but this problem is a part of the culture... the POP culture.

Maybe that is the better location to seek out a solution and than impersonal and abstruse ranting of political and religious rhetoric? ;)

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. — jamalrob

So Benkei is the problem. Or people like him.

Well, let's just think about another time when the way terrorism was handled was different and the outcome of that.

On February 26, 1993, a truck bomb was detonated under the Twin Towers with the intent that the northern tower would knock the south tower too. They didn't fall. Had it worked, about 20 000 people would have died (as the towers wouldn't had the time at all to evacuate as in 9/11). Now only 6 were killed and over 1000 were injured. No war wasn't declared, no country invaded. The strike was dealt as a police matter: The New York police lead the investigations and caught the terrorists, some of whom were from the same family as the the 9/11 attackers (hence Al Qaeda was a really small community). The FBI later caught (with the Pakistan officials assisting) the lead perpetrators in Pakistan. The terrorists were convicted by the ordinary way in the US judicial system and now sit in a prison inside the US.

Now the real question: During the time between 1993-2001, how much of the present problems we had with Muslims and Islamic jihadism? How much fear there was out about Muslim extremism? How many trains were stopped because a Sikh with a turban just happened to travel in them? Was the muslim community viewed as a problem? Because those times the Al Qaeda did desperately want to get noticed, get America to attack it. And there were the bombings of US Embassies.

Really, the main objective for these terrorists is to get the West to attack Muslim countries. This is basically the way that terrorists think. Nonstate terrorists that aren't a part of some real war in some country see themselves as a vanguard, somebody who have to get the struggle underway. They very well understand that their actions, the terrorist strikes, have a response from the government. And they hope that this response will go in their favour. Think for example about the Red Army Faction in Germany. These people, starting as the Baader-Meinhoff gang, saw West Germany as still basically a Nazi state. Hence with their actions, they wanted to awake the proletariat, make the real "Red Army" from Germany to emerge and fight this Nazi State called West Germany. At it's height, the terrorist organization had 14 active members. They really would have been thrilled if West Germany would have declared a state of war. But they got only the police looking for them and a special border guard unit to be formed (which also was formed because of the Munich massacre). The Bundeswehr wasn't mobilized to fight them. But they, the under twenty people or so, would surely have liked that. That was the old way to fight terrorism, the European way: through police and the justice system.

Hence when after some people from Belgium (right?) have made a terrorist strike, your answer is to bomb more in the Middle East and say that the problem are people like Benkei. I don't think the attitude of Benkei is the problem here. What has gotten us to trouble is the "get the murderous jihadists at all costs!", the Jack Bauer mentality, the occupation of countries and bombing campaigns in various countries that focus on getting some individual perpetrators that has done this mess (alongside the Iraqi occupation). I mean really, what really did Afghanistan and Iraq have to do with a bunch of Saudi nationals? Because somehow, we actually were going after the same terrorists prior to 9/11 and the Middle East didn't explode and costly wars didn't happen. Yes, perhaps then Dubya didn't care enough about the fight, but Clinton surely had noted the problem.

Because now we haven't cared the sh*t about what happens to the countries when we have gone to these countries and started our War on Terror. And now the Middle-East has now blown up. ISIS wasn't formed because a successfull terrorist strike in 2001, ISIS happened because of the occupation of Iraq. If any nutcase where ever can claim to be part of IS, get "the official IS merchandise" from the net and make his terrorist attack on the name of IS, is really the best answer then bomb the Middle East more? So my point is this: the way we have gone on with this War-on-Terror is itself the reason we are failing. There are other ways to combat terrorism than it has done by Dubya and Obama.

It would be similar as if (when) a guy in South Dakota or somewhere thinks he's gotten enough of paying taxes and declares himself a new country independent of the US, the response wouldn't be to have the police handle and the court handle this case, but to call in the USAF and take him out with guided weapon shot from a drone... to "send a message that the US doesn't tolerate this kind of behaviour". Yeah, that would really sink in correctly to militia-people and the prepper-comunity. That really would make Tiff here trust her government more. But that's the reality we are doing, because the governments here have done the bombing campaigns to please the crowd demanding revenge in their own countries and not caring about the backlash it will have in the targeted countries.

I guess someone with your arguments would naturally claim to be the arbiter of all things moral. It's no wonder you have no qualms with Westerners bombing hospitals in the Middle East. All you need to do is dress up the terrorists in American military uniforms, grant them world hegemonic status, paint their skin white, give them red, white, and blue flags, fancy weapons technology, and now massacring children is the act of the self-appointed moral saviors of world.

But we could keep doing this or you could suggest what we should do with the American terrorists that bombed the hospital.

you have no qualms with Westerners bombing hospitals — discoii

Where do you get this from? Don't take my refusal to engage with your post as an endorsement of the American military's bombing of a hospital.

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. — Cavacava

Yet if we really want Muslim nations to commit here, we simply have to treat them as real allies, not handle them as our own proxies or mercenaries that we can issue orders.

And that means that actually we have to accept their objectives also. And here lies our real problem. Now as ISIS is a Sunni problem, then Sunni states should take care off it. This is a part of the Sunni/Shia conflict. Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, the GCC, those actors should get to be committed to work together. We should start then treating them as equals in this war as the bear the brunt of this war. Have them the mandate of the UN. With the UN mandate, you could get the Iranians, Syria and Russia to be in this. Heck, the UN has forgotten it can go to war. First thing would to get at least a cease-fire agreement and some peace agreement in Syria. Then have the UN lead war against ISIS. Have then the Sunni areas in Iraq a peacekeeping force, because I wouldn't trust the Shiite regime in Iraq to be capable of handling the area at least yet.

I don't really know why you're treating me as the foil for your lengthy criticisms of the War on Terror. Is it because I endorsed photo's proposals? I am unsure about what will work, and how far bombing can be used without making the situation worse, although it seems to me indispensable at the moment, if used carefully. In any case, Cavacava's proposal is pretty much in line with how I have always envisioned the defeat of ISIS.

As for the cause, I think it's a combination of things, and I wouldn't want to put the blame for the success of ISIS entirely on Benkei's shoulders. You're right that the Western intervention has been in many ways counterproductive, has eroded trust in the West among the people of the region, alienated many ordinary non-fundamentalist Muslims, and left a power vacuum that led to the rise of ISIS. But the question is why this sort of outcome. Why ISIS? Whence the international appeal of this kind of organization? And it's here that I think you have to look at the lack of alternatives, both the lack of secular alternatives in the Middle East--which discoii has already described--and the lack of strong liberal voices in the West arguing for values opposed to those of ISIS, i.e., the reluctance to stand up for the principles that used to be fundamental among liberals and the left. And this goes back to my post above about radicalization.

I am unsure about what will work, and how far bombing can be used without making the situation worse, although it seems to me indispensable at the moment, if used carefully — jamalrob

You don't know what to do and, unfortunately, the governments doing things don't know what to do either. But they're still doing them because like you they feel the need to do something. That's understandable but it's a very questionable ethical position. Much more effective would be to make an argument that showed how such actions would cause more good than harm, and that argument needs to address the political complexities that posters like @Benkei and @ssu have raised rather than just gloss over them. I don't see that being done here. I see the aspiration that ISIS be punished for what they did and that's an aspiration we all share but a retributive form of justice isn't enough here. If immediate military punishment of ISIS is more likely to cause more attacks like the one in Paris then it's probably not the best option. I don't know for sure that that is the case but as things stand right now I personally would not want to risk that kind of outcome just to kill some madmen for whom death is little more than a path to paradise.

Just want to add too that what unites us on this thread is far more important than what divides us. No doubt all of us would like to see the end of ISIS, and no doubt all of us appreciate the fact that we don't live in the nightmare they have created in the Middle East and the one they want to spread across the world. Sickening stuff keeps happening here and over there and I think that's thrown us all off kilter. I think the most useful approach now would be to put our heads together and ask the difficult question as to what really would work not only to defeat ISIS militarily but to remove the fuel that fires these types of movements (as you're touching on in your second paragraph above). Continuing to bang our heads against each other because of our different political views isn't going to get us very far.

I don't really know why you're treating me as the foil for your lengthy criticisms of the War on Terror. — jamalrob

Sorry if I give that kind of impression, that wasn't what I intended.

Why ISIS? Whence the international appeal of this kind of organization? And it's here that I think you have to look at the lack of alternatives, both the lack of secular alternatives in the Middle East--which discoii has already described--and the lack of strong liberal voices in the West arguing for values opposed to those of ISIS, i.e., the reluctance to stand up for the values that used to be fundamental among liberals and the left. And this goes back to my post above about radicalization. — jamalrob

When moderates cannot give what people want, radical elements take over. And you're correct that there isn't an alternative. Actually, there isn't much of any kind of alternative to let's say the Sunni minority in Iraq... especially when it's shown that the Shiite regime has nothing to offer them.

And when the defence of a country dissolves into voluntary factions, the "resistance" or "insurgency" is usually taken over by radicals, who usually are the most effective, most highly moralized and don't adapt to the new rulers. For instance during German occupation of France the most effective if not the prominent resistance group were the communists and their FTP. Yet as a political party in France the communists have been a minority.

So yes, it's about the will to fight. And if your aim is to recreate a historical new Caliphate, and hence those fighting for it will be "a grand part of the glorious history of Islam", someone can fall for that crap easily.

It might make the discussion less acrimonious if we look at the findings of the anthropologist Scott Atran, who has investigated radicalization. Aside from all the stuff I vociferously disagree with in what you've said Benkei, you did have some interesting things to say about radicalization. Scott Atran suggests three conditions necessary to prevent the radicalization of the young:

1. The first condition: Offer youth something that makes them dream of a life of significance through struggle and sacrifice in comradeship.

2. The second condition: Offer youth a positive personal dream, with a concrete chance of realization.

3. A third condition: Offer youth the chance to create their own local initiatives.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-atran/violent-extremism-social-science_b_7142604.html

ISIS is winning in this area because it has a supreme confidence and idealism that is currently lacking amongst the liberal defenders of cultural diversity, freedom of speech, democracy, equality for women and gay people. That lack of confidence, if not outright scepticism and equivocation, is very apparent in this thread. — jamalrob

I think two things need to be distinguished here. It's not that I'm against cultural diversity, freedom of speech, democracy and equality, I simply have established that we (the West, US, the Netherlands, whatever) claim to be for these values but do not uphold them in practice. The reality is that these values only exists in our minds and is a story we tell ourselves but in the real world they really don't exist. Women are unequal, immigrants are overrepresented in prisons and impoverished. Your life, if you're a Syrian, Iraqi or Afghan, is not worth as much as that of an American when all is said and done.

Simply repeating the story and saying "I really believe in this" will buy you squat with regards to radicalisation. Those values haven't brought the majority of people in this world what "we" claim it should bring them and that is what I see as moral bankruptcy of the West. We don't have the moral highground. We only have that if we compare the stories but not if we look at what is happening in the world.

So this is why this narrative fails because it is incomplete. We believe in these values and want to pursue them but as a society we are hopelessly failing here and abroad.

I sincerely believe (and I'm not the only one if recent research is anything to go by) we're not being attacked because we believe in those values but because we fail to fulfil the very promises we make. Moreover, Western interventions trying to implement (at gunpoint) these values have failed over and over, which is why I advocate a total absence of military intervention.

Scott Atran raises a few points but other writers will claim (and I agree with them) that it's hardly complete because it fails, among others, to identify socio-economic circumstances that almost always accompany radicalisation. Well, he identifies it but he doesn't consider it a condition.

How did you know NicK is from South Dakota?? :-$

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. — Bitter Crank

Well, I did propose some reaction, e.g. police action.

Sometimes, if you want something to stop, you should just ignore it.

My reasons are as follows:

- The reaction France's political establishment shows now is that terrorist attacks work, which might inspire others;
- Although there is an (ideological) link between IS and the attackers, at most IS has guided this by saying "go forth and perform a terrorist attack", leaving decisions to these radicalised youths. The link is, in my view, to tenuous and in any case doesn't deal with the real problem (which in my view is radicalisation here and abroad);
- So far, military intervention has brought us more problems;
- Attacking IS does not solve radicalisation in France (it might even contribute);
- Attacking IS might be useless if recruits will join faster than we can kill them;
- Attacking IS will be useless if we're not committed to boots on the ground;
- Attacking IS will be useless if we don't have a plan for the power vacuum that comes into existence and that doesn't involve imposing Western style and statist institutions in a tribal environment;
- Money is better spent combatting radicalisation in France itself.

Just want to add too that what unites us on this thread is far more important than what divides us. No doubt all of us would like to see the end of ISIS, and no doubt all of us appreciate the fact that we don't live in the nightmare they have created in the Middle East and the one they want to spread across the world. Sickening stuff keeps happening here and over there and I think that's thrown us all off kilter. — Baden

Well said.

Of course the nub of the problem is that we'll only see the end of ISIS by destroying it. One thing we know for sure: terrorist attacks which rely on radicalized residents of our countries will inevitably make it more difficult (if not impossible) politically to alleviate the conditions of radicalization.

ISIS is winning in this area because it has a supreme confidence and idealism that is currently lacking amongst the liberal defenders of cultural diversity, freedom of speech, democracy, equality for women and gay people. That lack of confidence, if not outright scepticism and equivocation, is very apparent in this thread. — jamalrob

Hrmm, I wouldn't say that this is the case. I have no problem standing by my commitments. But the whole affair is so reminiscent of 9/11 -- it's not like Saddam Hussein was a leader for a free world, or anything. But, all the same, the amount of murder that has arisen out of toppling his regime far outweighs the number of deaths on 9/11.

What I see is a really similar response as 9/11 -- feeling hurt and needing to lash out against an enemy and "show them" what happens when you mess with us. But, by this time, supposing we use that old standard of justice "an eye for an eye", I wouldn't be surprised if the number of innocents killed in Paris are roughly equal. However, a full on war would far outweigh that equality of killing. And, given the success of both Afghanistan and Iraq, it may not actually end or even result in the ending of QSIS. One article from the Atlantic is not enough to determine if that is a sound policy, I think.

Perhaps you've forgotten Moliere, but Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush undoubtedly unleashed as much chaos as bin Laden did.

Oh, I remember. Afghanistan, arguably, also had nothing to do with 9/11 considering how the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are organized. But how would an assault on QSIS differ from those invasions in their outcomes? Weren't these invasions, as far as the people of the U.S. and their allies are concerned, really motivated by revenge more than anything?

Well, I think perhaps my call for a declaration of war is potentially misleading. I'm trying to get past just these types of ad hoc invasions. We need a far more measured response against a visible foe here, concluding with a peace agreement that - among other things - establishes Kurdistan, disposes with Assad, etc.. What we really need to step back from is the permanent state of emergency and ad hoc administrative governance that has been undermining our democracies since 9/11.

Because the last time we declared a new country in the middle of fuck all it went so well... >:O

I agree with that. But I don't see how bombing leads to that. It seems to me that this is more of the same -- and that the people who suffer most due to this are the innocent in both parts of the world who would be better off without yet another war.

You don't think what you've called for is the same as the 9/11 response? It strikes me as similar.

FWIW, this popped up in my twitter feed today and I thought it appropriate: http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2343-isis-attacks-targeting-innocent-people-by-hamid-dabashi -- isn't there some truth to what he says there? (it links back to this story: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/11/je-suis-muslim-151114163033918.html which I'm still in the middle of reading)

Should we really be the world police in the first place? Isn't that what we're actually pushing in saying we should defeat ISIL/QSIS/ISIS? Or what am I missing, then? I can certainly see how my own experience with the invasion of Iraq could be clouding my understanding. What are you proposing, precisely, that differs from the U.S.'s reaction to 9/11?

Yeahrp. A lot of this conflict, though it would be oversimplifying to say that there's a direct causal connection, can be traced back to colonialism and the imposition of the state in these regions.

Kurdistan is a de facto state.

The Turks will agree to it when hell freezes over because they don't want the PKK to have sanctuary on the other side of the border. But who knows.