Attacks in Paris Stadium, concert hall

Oh sorry, I didn't realize you are a combat veteran. Oh hang on a mo, you aren't. Just a reminder, the victims are dead or maimed, the experts are safe. Everybody else is in peril, and even you know thats true. Actually, victims, experts and all the rest don't get a vote you moron.

PC article. Facts are facts, the murderers yelling AllahuAkbar, detonating suicide vests,....what- you should think this Islamic attack was just a teenage drive by shooting? It was another despicable Islamic terror attack, plain and simple. There are over 120 Muslim terror groups ( and growing) from Abu Sayef in the Phillipines to ISIS in Syria to Boko Harem in Nigeria....failing to see Islam radicalizing across the globe is just plain stupid and naive. I don't see Russians traveling the globe chopping off heads, using car bombs in markets, and employing suicide bombers in stadiums. Islam breeds terrorists, plain and simple....and for your information, this Dr. Roberts makes his living claiming everything is a " false flag" operation,another nut job.

Olivier5 wrote: "BTW, are all sollipsists as keen as you are to second-guess the cops? Just because you are inventing your world doesn't mean you can re-invent mine."

The press releases and interview statements I've seen have mostly been from politicians and media talking heads, not cops. But in any case, most cops know no more about ISIS than the average individual.

"While most recognized IS specialists agree that the group’s strategic priorities are local and that almost all of its resources go into operations in Syria and Iraq, many media reports have spoken of alleged “IS plots” or “IS-linked plots” in the West over the past year."

". . . The problem with terms such as “IS-connected”, “–related” or “-linked” is that they can misrepresent the degree to which IS as an organization is implicated. Fifteen years of al-Qaida-influenced terrorism in Europe have taught us that the patterns of interaction between flagship terrorist organizations in the “East” and militants in the West can be very complex indeed. By the mid-2000s, it was clear to most observers that 9/11-style missions, in which the top al-Qaida leadership grooms an attack team and sends it to the West, were rare, and that many plots involved people with a more remote connection to al-Qaida cadres."

". . . the majority of IS-related plots belong in the lower end of the spectrum of organizational involvement (see Table 1). We found no plots of type 1 (training and top-level directives), and only two cases of type 2 (training and mid-level directives). By contrast, we found 17 cases of type 6 (no contact whatsoever) and five of type 5 (remote contact without directives)."

http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/440/html

Olivier 5 wrote: "Okay, so their explosive belts didn't work to your satisfaction. It could have been much worse. So what?"

So it's important to understand just who is responsible and what the dynamic is, in order to craft the most effective response, instead of a knee-jerk reaction. An international military response that permanently changes (or eradicates) the lives of countless civilians, as well as those of our own troops and citizens, may not be the wisest policy. In fact, it is almost guaranteed to increase the incidence and virulence of terrorist attacks in the West without eliminating either Islamic militants or Islamic militancy from the region or the world.

It's scarcely a question of my satisfaction. What I am dissatisfied with is not the amateurish quality of the operation, but the gullibility and hype of a media machine determined to maximize the sensationalistic potential of a story to increase viewer ratings, despite the profound and long-lasting influence that may have on domestic and foreign policy.

So ISIS and such had a very high standard for their terror attacks and they are not behind the Paris attacks as whose do not meet those standards?

Even those they cheerfully taken full credit along with the Russian airliner bombing ?

Is that what you are trying to sell???????

War is horrible and it has been horrible for as long as it has been waged, however there is no evidence that the horror of past wars have prevented any thereafter.

We are a warring species. I wish it was otherwise, but it is not.

Every attempt to reveal the horrors of war have been futile in terms of preventing war.

So, if we are going to continue to go to war (and we are) it makes a whole lot more sense to develop weapons that can limit the number of overall casualties, even if they look like a video game on TV, than ridiculously calling for more slaughter because you somehow think (despite all evidence to the contrary) that it will put an end to war. If WWI couldn't do that, nothing will.

Well you may disagree, but I would suggest you have a "hawkish" view on ISIS.

Eh beth and osso only have a hawkish view when it comes to drones.

We have been going to war for our entire history, and the fact that any one side will suffer casualties hasn't stopped us.

Drones do not inflict widespread mindless carnage, quite the opposite, and they very appropriately target the people who want to start wars.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

"They've attacked Australia, Bali, Canada and Spain. What are the commonalities among those nations?"

Support for the U.S. led invasion of Iraq and similar actions.

"An audio-cassette purportedly carrying a recorded voice message from Osama Bin Laden stated that the Bali bombings were in direct retaliation for support of the United States' war on terror."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings

"The public seemed convinced that the Madrid Bombings were a result of the Aznar government’s alignment with the U.S. and its invasion of Iraq... The official investigation by the Spanish judiciary found that the attacks were directed by an al-Qaeda-inspired terrorist cell, although no direct al-Qaeda participation has been established."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings

I should note that the Spanish government's conclusions as to the parties responsible, are controversial.

I don't suppose I have to document the involvement of Canada and Australia in coalition military actions in the Middle East, including the invasion of Iraq.

I'm typing this on a balky cellphone. It might take me a while to reply to your longer remarks and arguments.

Correct. But the last battle on American soil was the Battle of Wounded Knee in 1890 (I think)

So?

Americans didn't lose their lives in WWI and WWII?

I have indeed supported ground troops against ISIS from day one, always saw them as super dangerous. Irrespective of the Paris attacks. This is no knee-jerk reaction.

I have lived and worked with Afghan Islamists in my youth, some pretty extreme, but never ever seen anyone as rabid, as well organized and as rich as ISIS. Give me the Talibans any day.

I can't speak for Osso but wouldn't call her a hawk. That's a very long strech.

I didn't mean that.

I just think - especially after I've met people who had had a war around their home three times during their live - that many here in Europe are "tired" of it.

I agree with that. It's a bit facile to send others to their death when they are nobody to you, not your son or daughter.

oralloy wrote: "I think Iraqi/Syrian Sunnis would be willing to have a non-radical, non-IS state."

Suppose this to be the case. Is the public at large fighting the Syrian civil war, or are militant rebel groups? Are the militant rebel groups mostly secular or mostly religious? Are the most numerous, experienced, well-equipped and militarily successful militant rebel groups religiously moderate and supportive of western liberal values, or dedicated to the establishment of an Islamic theocracy?

Will a war-weary Syrian public take up arms in response to a gradual erosion of rights and gradual imposition of Sharia law, as planned by the more pragmatic al-Nusra (in contrast to ISIS)? Or will they support the "temporary" rule by military authorities, as a watchdog against counterrevolution by the Assad regime, with promises of elections that are postponed indefinitely, never occur, or are subverted through fraud and intimidation?

Iran's revolution began as a coalition movement dominated by liberals and leftists. It ended with disaffected liberals opting out of the government in protest, and armed Islamic militias taking control and implementing a block-watch system of informants to arrest democratic (and other) conspirators before they could effectively organize and act.

oralloy: "...if we carve large sections of Syria and Iraq into independent states, the civil war will be confined to a smaller area in the future."

Again, where will the legal authority for the carving of sovereign governments come from? Will the Shiite government of Iraq and the Iranians go along with this in the long-term? In Syria, quite aside from Assad or his successors, the Russians, the Iranians, and Hezbollah, eventually this grand military coalition will have to withdraw. Will this imposed balkanization remain stable, or will militant groups eager to see their vision ("free" or "Islamic" depending) resume the hostilities we interrupted, as they did after we left Iraq?

How many times do western governments and publics have to invade, establish "democratic" governing bodies, withdraw after bloody and prolonged conflict, watch as the process repeats itself, and commit themselves to the same failed strategies yet again? I'll hold the football and you kick it, Charlie Brown. I blame the jingoistic television media for failing to provide institutional memory and for reflexively forgetting caution after the latest terrorist outrage to occur. Over and over again.

You haven't read me, apparently. My primary political view, view from both my brain and stomach, is that I hate bombs of any kind, for a lot of reasons. I have been vocal on this at a2k for many years. That is more than being about any party or group.

I didn't know about ehBeth's takes before, but we may be similar.

I do think the world needs to stand up, and I am particularly happy to have seen that video by that french muslim (the video has english captions) that Olivier posted yesterday. How the world stands up, I'm listening about. Especially muslims talking as he did.

I am not a total pollyanna, but I know from a million years of reading how people feel in wartime and about wartime, how hate builds, but also corruption right along side heroism, or in the neighborhood of it. You want to see a drone with a bomb float in your sky too? You also might not like the (probably a) guy at the desk many miles away.

On the matter of my views on the US excursions of much of my lifetime, I was opposed to most and said so at the time, pre internet or not. This one needs attention.

I pretty much worry more about fear and shunning and overreaction, that is, overbludgeoning, most.

I agree with your post in the main, but differ that it is bad to prefer hand to hand combat, a closer kind of war. To me that's a metaphor - mostly a wish - for not wanting to have killing fields all over the globe by other means. Not to mention a large part of the world's economy tied to all that, paying for it, doing well from it.
Even IS does that.
Sucky to the max.

It's too late to walk back the weapons' existence, from hydrogen bombs to whatever is the latest.
The matter comes down to changing hearts and minds, an even harder proposition.

Who loves bombs other than madmen?

I would hope so, but we'll see. It really hasn't that long since the last war in Western Europe.

oralloy wrote: "Drone strikes are conducted WITH the permission of the government of the country in which they occur."

Not according to the Pakistani government (where the overwhelming majority of such strikes have occurred):

"The attacks by unmanned US aircraft have been a critical source of tension in the relationship between the countries and came up amid wide-ranging talks between the leaders in Washington.

They are also deeply unpopular with the Pakistani public, and Pakistan has consistently stated that they violate its sovereignty.

The Pakistani government has responded to the report by repeating its opposition to US drone strikes.

"Whatever understandings there may or may not have been in the past, the present government has been very clear regarding its policy on the issue," the Pakistani foreign ministry said in a statement.

"We regard such strikes as violation of our sovereignty as well as international law," it said, adding that they were also counterproductive."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-24649840

The Syrians aren't crazy with joy over our violation of their airspace and sovereignty either. Other governments have complained. Even our puppet rulers complain publicly. There was a big kerfuffle not long ago when the Afghan Prime Minister opposed military actions by the Obama administration. I can document this or you can Google it, your choice.

oralloy: "And as lawful acts of war, drone strikes would be legal even if we did carry them out without permission."

International legal bodies disagree with you. The United Nations says that the drone strikes "clearly run afoul of the laws of war and of international human rights treaties."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/03/08/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-drone-debate-in-one-faq/

You don't need to be a lawyer, just use common sense. What if a foreign country bombed the U.S. based leadership or expatriate members of a group they didn't like. Do you suppose their unilateral declaration of war against terrorism would count for much?

oralloy: "Drones usually employ weapons with a very small blast radius."

I'm going to continue this in a second reply lest I lose the text I've already composed.

I didn't say your reaction was knee jerk. You have been more vocal about it since the Paris attacks which doesn't necessarily mean anything.

I don't believe eh Beth or osso are Hawks, I was being facetious relative to their comments (ill advised in my opinion) that hand to hand combat is preferable to "chicken ****" drones.