[Closed] Shooting in Paris; casualties reported. Hope this isn't what it sounds like.

Indeed a worrying time for moderate Muslims. Various commentators suggesting the community should move beyond #NotInMyName postings and arrange a large scale anti terrorist / pro UK/France demonstration in yeh same way we see 10'000's on the streets to protest military intervention. Some very worried German ploticians concerned about further attacks on refugee facilities (there have been a steady stream already prior to the Paris attacks)

@yunki, let's face it the Golan where not going back to Syria anytime in our lifetimes anyway, if ever. Alongside Iran, Syria had been the number one supporter of the Palestinians, that was until they joined the FSA fight against Assad. My understanding of Netanyahu's visit was to finalise details of the compensation / additional support the US has agreed for Israel post the Iranian nuclear deal, I believe this takes the form of an additional $1bn a year for 10 years of military equipment & support. There has been a huge offshore gas find so the Israels are in pretty good shape in terms of fossil fuels at the present time.

let's face it the Golan where not going back to Syria anytime in our lifetimes anyway, if ever.

I am sure you can be even handed here and see both sides like your admirable appeal eh...go on give us some balance..go on lets here it.

So this weekend France bombed some seemingly good-ish quality military targets.

Good ISIS targets seem thin on the ground.

So are bits of ISIS military capacity left untouched in case a western country needs to retaliate for something, or did France bomb nothing of any military value this weekend?

Or was there just less (or no) consideration taken of civilian "collateral damage"? There's 400,000 civilians still trapped in Raqqa.

Good ISIS targets seem thin on the ground.

Am I the only one who sees videos of convoys of ISIS vehicles (Hi-Lux, for some reason) and wishes for the intervention of an A-10 Warthog ?

*thinks*

No.

I wonder if the strenuous efforts that a lot of western Govt. have had recently of stopping people travelling to Syria (the US especially has put massive pressure on Turkey to stop the movement west of the Euphrates) has had the perverse outcome of having young men with extremist views "trapped" in their home countries.

These guys must be ripe for suggestion from IS leaders to stage attacks on civilians, after all they don't need much in the way of training, just give them weaponry, and watch them go...

Despite the outpouring of expressions of community, the Charlie Hebdo murders have provoked and helped some less tolerant elements in France to gain some ground, a recent poll suggested that 30% of the population would support a totalitarian regime if it guaranteed safety, and stopped immigration according to a report I read in Figaro, and that was before the events of this weekend. I think Holland has his work cut out for him, and the revenge bombing is only the start of a French backlash I reckon.

"Why they hate us"

Interesting article well worth a read.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-hate-us-cass-sunstein

I find it really weird that grown men know the actual make and model (or whatever you call it)of vehicles of war,unless its their job to know.

I find it really weird that grown men know the actual make and model (or whatever you call it)of vehicles of war,unless its their job to know.

Possibly, but I saw an item on TV about ISIS predilection for Hi-Lux trucks. Apparently Toyota are not happy with the publicity.

Or was there just less (or no) consideration taken of civilian "collateral damage"? There's 400,000 civilians still trapped in Raqqa.

This was the purpose of the Paris attack. It has been the purpose of all attacks on the West since 9/11.

By provoking "military intervention" in the Middle East, Islamists guarantee themselves a never-ending supply chain of muslims who have been radicalised through having innocent family and friends killed. It's a classic tactic of escalation.

France has responded exactly how ISIS and other radical groups wanted them to respond. It's depressing no Western leaders see this is a trap. More cynically, I'd suggest they use the fear which terrorism breeds to build their own political popularity by sending in the planes.

On Wednesday, we remembered. Dignitaries gathered at the cenotaph, and in homes and shops and offices across the country we sat and quietly remembered those we had lost. We pledged to never forget the lives that had been destroyed - the millions of them in the trenches and gas chambers, the hundreds of thousands of them in endless wars in the desert - and to never repeat the mistakes which had led to such abhorrent tragedy.

"Never forget", we said.

How long is never?

Three days, apparently.

Hollande: "We are going to lead a war which will be pitiless."
Cameron: "We will do whatever we can to help."

Or was there just less (or no) consideration taken of civilian "collateral damage"? There's 400,000 civilians still trapped in Raqqa.

I saw a report somewhere quoting sources in Raqqa hospitals which said no civilians had been brought in injured. That said, ISIS said nobody of theirs was hurt either so take what you will from all that.

France has responded exactly how ISIS and other radical groups wanted them to respond. It's depressing no Western leaders see this is a trap.

Problem is you can't really turn the other cheek. Not only does it show weakness which again will be used as a rallying cry for the extremists, but it is unpalatable to the majority of people who elected you.

Hollande: "We are going to lead a war which will be pitiless."

It really annoys me how a bunch of half-wit criminals can dictate the Foreign Policy of large democracies time and time again and the Western leaders never catch on.

By provoking "military intervention" in the Middle East, Islamists guarantee themselves a never-ending supply chain of muslims who have been radicalised through having innocent family and friends killed. It's a classic tactic of escalation.

And the resulting propaganda radicalises young disenfranchised muslims, feeding a narrative of alienation and persecution, in Bradford, and the suburbs of Paris, Hamburg, and Madrid.

We really do have to be a bit smarter about this

Problem is you can't really turn the other cheek.

We did against the IRA. Just called them criminals and carried on as much as possible though they weren't there.

When someone commits an atrocity to provoke you into changing policy the only sane response is to not change your policy.

I saw an item on TV about ISIS predilection for Hi-Lux trucks

well known fact that the lefty broadcasters made their sales pitch through Top Gear. #notarealhamster

I'd guess there are a lot in the Republican community who would say that the British government didn't turn the other cheek until quite late in the day

We did against the IRA. Just called them criminals and carried on as much as possible though they weren't there.

True, although we did ultimately give them what they wanted.

If we were to use the same approach with radical Islam, we would have to forego support of Israel. If the west stopped supporting Israel, the attacks would stop. I think that is the only credible route we can take. Israel is a nuclear power and can defend itself.

Sarkozy has chipped in with saying it should be a crime to view radical Islam sites in the same way as viewing child porn sites. Hollande has indulged in some bombing that one wonders why it was still left to be done if it was so important and Marine... .

It would be nice if my glorious leaders could be "assignés à résidence", fitted with a "bracelet électronique" and gagged for the time it takes for them to realise that making new enemies isn't helpful when you haven't got the means to deal with those you've already made.

I'm not sure this is about Isreal. As I understand it ISIS need 'Rome' to attack them at Dabiq to fulfill the Prophesy they're spouting.

The US and it's allies are "Rome" so beheading innocent people on Camera and committing this last atrocity are aimed at getting the West to go to war with them.

That's what they want. A physical Caliphate and their apocalyptic war.

The nearest thing to a victory we can achieve is to support their many opponents in the background and leave them isolated.

In a few years Sunnis in the region will realize they are just another failed government who show no sign of making people prosperous.

If we attack them we make them look like defenders of Arabs against the West. Which is the narrative they want.

I agree the core of the Jihadist movement is motivated by an apocalyptic vision of a showdown with the West.

But the wider support which Islamists have been able to garner from the Arab world including countries like Saudi Arabia rests entirely on the West's support for Israel. The West has imported the Arab-Israeli conflict and it is taking place by extension in the cities of Europe.

France has responded exactly how ISIS and other radical groups wanted them to respond. It's depressing no Western leaders see this is a trap. More cynically, I'd suggest they use the fear which terrorism breeds to build their own political popularity by sending in the planes.

I think you're right and that both sides are willing to play the same game - for different reasons. For US and UK, it's a policy of perpetual warfare.

Ticks lots of boxes. Shows leaders to be strong. Maintains investment in military industry. Provides dead and injured soldiers to idolise. Fosters patriotism. Justifies removal of freedoms. Generally keeps society fearful and more manageable.

France has responded exactly how ISIS and other radical groups wanted them to respond. It's depressing no Western leaders see this is a trap. More cynically, I'd suggest they use the fear which terrorism breeds to build their own political popularity by sending in the planes.

Damn if they do, damn if they don't. The leader must be seen to do something.

Or they can apply cold war style making people disappear ... without publicity.

interesting article mudmuncher, thanks for posting the link

Quite right Copa.

The political atmosphere is all too reminiscent of the aftermath of 9/11.

An article written by Peter Hitchens (I recognise he isn't too popular on here) called for calm and consideration rather than reprisals. It's received hundreds of downvotes.

As Yogi Berra put it, it's deja vu all over again.

We did against the IRA. Just called them criminals and carried on as much as possible though they weren't there.
True, although we did ultimately give them what they wanted.

If we were to use the same approach with radical Islam, we would have to forego support of Israel. If the west stopped supporting Israel, the attacks would stop. I think that is the only credible route we can take. Israel is a nuclear power and can defend itself.

The thing is that you could negotiate with the IRA as they had a clearly stated set of goals. The only goal, if you could call it that, you see with this lot, is the complete subjugation of everyone and everything to their philosophy. So what negotiating position do you take when thats your starting point?

You can't negotiate with fascists, because the whole point of fascism is the absolute refusal to recognise any other philosophy than your own as legitimate.

Do they look like they want to sit down and discuss compromise any time soon?

Do they look like they want to sit down and discuss compromise any time soon?

The core of the Islamist movement doesn't, as you say they are hellbent on destruction for its own sake.

But the powers which are funding these guys, not least Saudi Arabia, would pull the plug if the West took a different line on Israel. Europe has effectively imported the Arab-Israeli conflict into its own cities.

atlaz

Problem is you can't really turn the other cheek. Not only does it show weakness which again will be used as a rallying cry for the extremists, but it is unpalatable to the majority of people who elected you.

How can anyone say that with a straight face when you've bombed the shit out of the middleast for generations?

atlaz

I'd guess there are a lot in the Republican community who would say that the British government didn't turn the other cheek until quite late in the day

And every volunteer killed in shoot to kill policies by the security forces created 10 more in their place. Every innocent catholic illegally interned, illegally detained, assaulted, insulted, murdered...all contributed to the ranks of the IRA.

But the powers which are funding these guys, not least Saudi Arabia, would pull the plug if the West took a different line on Israel.

you talk shit my friend and anyone that believes what you say or has your pathetic thoughts talk shit.

What happened in Paris happens in Israel on a daily basis with stabbing etc but you Islam loving idiots wont/don't see it...

Its the same war whether its in Israel Africa Europe Australia they want anyone that doesn't share their view wiped off the planet and you lot with your loving views I'm sure will be spared...

But the powers which are funding these guys, not least Saudi Arabia, would pull the plug if the West took a different line on Israel.

Sorry fella, but that really is hopelessly naive. While I'm no fan of our unquestioning support for Israel (in fact I think its ridiculous), that would be seen as the first victory in an ongoing war, and they'd just march towards the next one. These people are idealogical zealots, who's only goal is the complete subjugation of everyone to their ideology. One of the stated aims of that is the destruction of Israel. So if we all stop supporting Israel, what do you think would happen next?

binners

So if we all stop supporting Israel, what do you think would happen next?

Nuclear military super power Israel would suddenly be defenseless? Would their tanks and helicopters and fighter jets suddenly rust and decay? Would they run out of missiles to drop on innocent civilians?

Nice to see solidarity in participation of the 1min silence...

Remember Islam is a religion of peace...

stupid comment is stupid, etc etc...

Nuclear military super power Israel would suddenly be defenseless? Would their tanks and helicopters and fighter jets suddenly rust and decay? Would they run out of missiles to drop on innocent civilians?

Look at the whole track record of western interference in the middle east over the last few decades. If it teaches us anything,its that we have absolutely no ****ing idea what will happen when we try to achieve something by any particular action.

The only constants are

a) It never ever works out remotely as we thought it would
b) Its always about ten times worse than our initial assessment of what the worst case scenario would look like

So I haven't the remotest idea what would happen if the west withdrew its support for Israel, but ones things for sure, neither do I want to find out what that might look like. Because I think we can say with some degree of certainty is that it wouldn't end well

One of the stated aims of that is the destruction of Israel. So if we all stop supporting Israel, what do you think would happen next?

Israel is a nuclear power with the most sophisticated defense system around. It can protect itself.

The grievance which ISIS and other radical groups exploit is Israel. If you attempt to address that grievance, then you take away the main recruiting tool of use to radical Islamists. You can also put a wedge in between it and the wider Arab world.

As I said, radical Islamism has a core of fanatics, but like any revolutionary group, it is dependent on outside sources of support and funding. I'm not saying radical Islamism will stop being a force any time soon, but it's a far wiser policy than continuing to bomb and invade the Middle East.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/syria-same-20151116103884

Nails it.

binners

So I haven't the remotest idea what would happen if the west withdrew its support for Israel, but ones things for sure, neither do I want to find out what that might look like, because I think we can say with some degree of certainty is that it wouldn't end well

Condemning Israel's actions isn't the same as standing idly by and watching another holocaust unfold. Western indifference to Israels genocidal approach to self defense just emboldens Israel and enrages their neighbours and makes western powers look even more transparently hypocritical, just one more thing to help radicalise young muslims.

you talk shit my friend and anyone that believes what you say or has your pathetic thoughts talk shit.

In this case unfitgeezer, I think it's fairly obvious you are the one talking shit (twice, in one sentence!).

Suggesting the West tries to find a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict does not make one an "Islam loving idiot".

As it happens, I'm often in Israel, and support it's existence. But many Israelis recognise the situation can't go on like this. I've also travelled in the Arab world and it doesn't take long to pick up on the fact that Israel is a major grievance (it does not follow that most Muslims want it destroyed, they just want a different approach).

Suggesting the West tries to find a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict does not make one an "Islam loving idiot".

i was talking about some of the posters on here.

Does anyone outside of IS really understand what their end game is? I've seen lots over the past couple of years but it somehow doesn't ring true or contradicts itself at times.

Read an article at the weekend (linked to elsewhere on this forum now) that made me sit back & think a lot more than the usual stuff metered out by the press & western gov'ts: [url= http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ ]What ISIS Really Want[/url]

Not sure what I believe (or don't) anymore but doubt that any 'concession' made to them will change their intensions nor actions.

Possibly, but I saw an item on TV about ISIS predilection for Hi-Lux trucks. Apparently Toyota are not happy with the publicity.

They UK Army used to refer to them as the 'Toyota Taliban' in Afganistan - "The go where you like, do what you like, take what you like truck"

But the powers which are funding these guys, not least Saudi Arabia, would pull the plug if the West took a different line on Israel.

Hard to know what IS wants and, let us not forget in the heat of the current crisis, they are merely the latest enemy of the West.

There is no doubt US (and Allies including UK and France) foreign policy, especially in Iraq in 2003 created the perfect conditions for radicalisation, but the picture is very complex.

Good article here: http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/

Trying Blair as a war criminal might be a suitable act of contrition.

What is also clear, but not widely discussed, despite being at the heart of the diaspora, is the opposition of Western laws, values and freedoms by even 'non extreme' sectors of Islam. Principally:
- Women, their equality
- Homosexuals, tolerance of
- Plus other stuff including Alcohol, Pork etc.

What is 'radical' any way?

ISIS is just one of many Islamist movements that have emerged from the politicisation of Islam by writers like Sayyid Qutb earlier in the twentieth century.
Qutb's writing essentially imported ideas of permanent world revolution from Lenin and applied it to Islam. One of my lecturers at university once called Qutb's writings "ecuminically unhelpful" - but he was always prone to understatement.
The point being, radical Islam is an ideology, meaning it crops up again and again until the conditions which allow it to flourish are addressed.
So the West could go in and decimate ISIS, but another radical Islamist group would quickly emerge (like a bacterial, they seem to get more lethal with each new strain).