OT: Paris 13/11

[Oscar]

I worked AC/DC's Dodger Stadium concert on September 28. I had some downtime near the end of the show, so I walked into the house to watch the final encore with one of my close friends who was with friends in seats near the front. He was getting married a few days later -- this was my 'salute' to the closing days of his bachelorhood, as the band played For Those About To Rock (We Salute You). Standing next to him was Jesse Hughes, leader of the Eagles of Death Metal. A mutual friend, as is the whole band. Same circle of friends & acquaintances in the neighborhood. This hits way too close to home.

I hope Western Europe wakes up. I hope moderate Muslims rise up. I hope President Obama 'evolves' his incoherent foreign policy. It's all too real now.

[Lionel Tacchini]

On 14.11.2015 19:49, Oscar wrote:
> I hope Western Europe wakes up. I hope moderate Muslims rise up. I
> hope President Obama 'evolves' his incoherent foreign policy. It's
> all too real now.

I'm not holding my breath. There will be more blood.
--
Lionel Tacchini

[Marc P.]

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 10:50:02 AM UTC-8, Oscar wrote:
> I worked AC/DC's Dodger Stadium concert on September 28. I had some downtime near the end of the show, so I walked into the house to watch the final encore with one of my close friends who was with friends in seats near the front. He was getting married a few days later -- this was my 'salute' to the closing days of his bachelorhood, as the band played For Those About To Rock (We Salute You). Standing next to him was Jesse Hughes, leader of the Eagles of Death Metal. A mutual friend, as is the whole band. Same circle of friends & acquaintances in the neighborhood. This hits way too close to home.
>
> I hope Western Europe wakes up. I hope moderate Muslims rise up. I hope President Obama 'evolves' his incoherent foreign policy. It's all too real now.

Yes, voices on the right, in and out of this newsgroup, will no doubt have some constructive observations.
Ted Cruz, with his indiscriminate bombing recommendation yesterday, is off to a fine start.
Marc

[Oscar]

President Obama sat for an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's Good Morning America yesterday. Stephanopoulos asked Obama if ISIS was gaining in strength.

"I don't think they're gaining strength," Obama responded. "What is true is that from the start, our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them. They have not gained ground in Iraq, and in Syria they'll come in, they'll leave, but you don't see this systemic march by ISIL across the terrain.

"What we have not yet been able to do is to completely decapitate their command and control structures. We've made some progress in trying to reduce the flow of foreign fighters and part our goal has to be to recruit more effective Sunni partners in Iraq to really go on offense rather than simply engage in defense."

[Bob Harper]

Marc, would you agree with M. Hollande that this was an act of war? It
was not a 'crime' whose perpetrators must be 'brought to justice', but
an act of war, to which the only sufficient response is the destruction
of the perpetrators It is past time to choose whether the West will live
or die.

Bob Harper

[Oscar]

Full text of statement by Sen. Ted Cruz:

https://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-america-must-stand-with-our-allies-against-the-scourge-of-radical-islamic-terrorism/

<< America must stand with our allies against the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism

HOUSTON -- Presidential candidate Ted Cruz issued the following statement in response to the terrorist attacks in Paris:

"America must stand with our allies against the scourge of radical Islamic terrorism. This is an evil that does not discriminate between French, German or American, Christian, Muslim or Jew, soldier, football player, or concert goer. Their only goal is to murder those who do not submit to their vicious, totalitarian ideology. Our deepest condolences go out to our French allies, and I know the government of the United States stands by to offer any assistance necessary.

"We must now face the facts. Between the downing of the Russian jet over Egypt and this massive coordinated attack on Paris, we are seeing an unmistakable escalation of ISIS' ambitions and the scale of their terrorist attacks outside Syria and Iraq. Even as chaos rages in Paris, we need to take immediate, commonsense steps to preserve our own safety. We need to consult closely with our NATO allies who may be targeted for additional attacks. We need to immediately declare a halt to any plans to bring refugees that may have been infiltrated by ISIS to the United States. We need to redouble our efforts to prevent ISIS agents from penetrating our nation by other means.

"Such steps, however, are defensive reactions to an enemy that will continue to try to attack us until they succeed once again. We must immediately recognize that our enemy is not 'violent extremism.' It is the radical Islamism that has declared jihad against the west. It will not be appeased by outreach or declarations of tolerance. It will not be deterred by targeted airstrikes with zero tolerance for civilian casualties, when the terrorists have such utter disregard for innocent life. We must make it crystal clear that affiliation with ISIS and related terrorist groups brings with it the undying enmity of America--that it is, in effect, signing your own death warrant." >>

[Lionel Tacchini]

On 14.11.2015 20:50, Bob Harper wrote:
> Marc, would you agree with M. Hollande that this was an act of war?

I should be the first time I agree with him since he was elected 3 and a
half years ago.

--
Lionel Tacchini

[Herman]

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 8:50:21 PM UTC+1, Bob Harper wrote:


> Marc, would you agree with M. Hollande that this was an act of war? It
> was not a 'crime' whose perpetrators must be 'brought to justice', but
> an act of war, to which the only sufficient response is the destruction
> of the perpetrators It is past time to choose whether the West will live
> or die.
>
> Bob Harper

Useless verbiage.

Go mind your own business.

[Oscar]

Before you shout down Mr. Harper, maybe you should have reminded Obama to mind his own business before he decided to invade Lybia, depose Qaddafi, call for the ouster of Mubarek, assassinate UBL, surge in Afghanistan, draw red lines in Syria, issue a call to "degrade and destroy" ISIS, and finally, before he decided on Thursday to send a drone into Iraq to blow up Jihadi John the beheader.

[Marc P.]

Sure, but how are the perpetrators going to be destroyed? An all-out military response, directed where? 9/11 (which I lived through in NYC) was similarly an "act of war," but the US Iraq invasion that followed was a catastrophe.

Marc

[Ricardo Jimenez]

ISIS damage to the US seems to be (so far) much less than what has
been done against Russia and France. Is the reason the picked on
France yesterday that they have a much larger number of recruits
within France because of the large population of North African origin,
rather than something ideological?

[mhax...@gmail.com]

With ISIS we are reaping what W. ("mission accomplished") sowed. He created ISIS. Heckuva job, George!

[Frank Berger]

Was the part about "indescriminant bombing" left out?
Another statement maybe?

[Bozo]

>On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 1:18:04 PM UTC-6, Oscar wrote:
> President Obama sat for an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's Good >Morning America yesterday.

The West has , at best , feckless leadership everywhere.

We have learned nothing from Chamberlain's, 1938, " peace in our time."

Where are the moderate Islamists ? Are there any ? Is the Koran another "Mein Kampf " ?

What do the great Internet gurus, Apple,Gates,Zuckerberg,Twitter, et al , think of what they have wrought which clearly facilitate these tragedies ?

Harper is right , kill or be killed. I recall the Wallace / Gen. LeMay campaign ( 1968 ? ), "Bombs Away With Curtis LeMay " .

We need a concerted World effort, and huge, multi-national boots on the ground,a new D-Day and new Crusades.

[Lionel Tacchini]

On 15.11.2015 00:35, mhax...@gmail.com wrote:
> With ISIS we are reaping what W. ("mission accomplished") sowed. He
> created ISIS. Heckuva job, George!
>

Teasing a mad dog is unwise, all right, but the problem is with having
the dog in the first place.
--
Lionel Tacchini

[Lionel Tacchini]

On 15.11.2015 01:27, Bozo wrote:
> What do the great Internet gurus, Apple,Gates,Zuckerberg,Twitter, et
> al , think of what they have wrought which clearly facilitate these
> tragedies ?

Don't be silly. This is like putting the blame for war on those who
built the roads armies are walking on.
--
Lionel Tacchini

[Bob Harper]

You may not be interested in this war, Herman, but it is interested in
you. Minding our own business--in the sense I take you to mean it--is no
longer an option.

Bob Harper

[Bob Harper]

To be sure, it ended in disaster, but that was not foreordained. The
mistakes made after the successful invasion and deposition of Saddam,
culminating with the rush for the exits--to fulfill a campaign
promise!--have brought us to this pass.

Bob Harper

[Marc P.]

Sorry, I'm more in the "Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are war criminals" camp. No connection to 9/11, no WMDs, no exit strategy, "we'll be greeted as liberators," "Mission Accomplished," what could go wrong?

Marc

[Frank Berger]

None of which make them war criminals.

> Marc
>

[Herman]

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 1:27:25 AM UTC+1, Bozo wrote:

>
> The West has , at best , feckless leadership everywhere.
>
> We have learned nothing from Chamberlain's, 1938, " peace in our time."
>
> Where are the moderate Islamists ? Are there any ? Is the Koran another "Mein Kampf " ?
>
> What do the great Internet gurus, Apple,Gates,Zuckerberg,Twitter, et al , think of what they have wrought which clearly facilitate these tragedies ?
>
> Harper is right , kill or be killed. I recall the Wallace / Gen. LeMay campaign ( 1968 ? ), "Bombs Away With Curtis LeMay " .
>
> We need a concerted World effort, and huge, multi-national boots on the ground,a new D-Day and new Crusades.

Go have some more cheap wine and check out youtube for more Chopin. You understand literally nothing of what's going on, and why should you, safely ensconced deep in Iowa?

There is no such thing as a "war on terror", just as there is no "war on drugs" or trying to squash a guerilla war in Afghanistan. The only thing that will happen if you do that is thousands more dead, hundreds of thousands - and since you or Harper wouldn't be one of them, you basically don't care. You just want to see some exciting bombing on tv.

[Herman]

It's a hell of a lot closer to my home than yours, and that is why you are calling for all-out conflict, because for you it's just entertainment.

[Lionel Tacchini]

On 15.11.2015 09:16, Herman wrote:
> You just want to see some exciting bombing on tv.

Will it be live?

--
Lionel Tacchini - all excited already

[Lionel Tacchini]

On 15.11.2015 09:17, Herman wrote:
> It's a hell of a lot closer to my home than yours, and that is why
> you are calling for all-out conflict, because for you it's just
> entertainment.

Keep feeding crocodiles in hope they'll eat you last. They'll breed.
You'll die.
--
Lionel Tacchini

[Bozo]

>On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 2:16:34 AM UTC-6, Herman wrote:
>. You understand literally nothing of what's going on, and why should you, safely ensconced deep in Iowa?

One of my sons served 9 months as a battle captain 2012-2013 at a US Army forward operating base in Afghanistan, awarded a Bronze Star. That's a hell of a lot closer to my home than yours.

[Bozo]

>On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 6:27:25 PM UTC-6, Bozo wrote:

A Muslim view :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995913/Terrorists-are-defining-Islam.-We-Muslims-must-react.html

[Herman]

and still you want more war?

[Frank Berger]

All we need now is several hundred million more Muslims to
sign on to this way of thinking and to do something about
it. Not in my lifetime, I'm afraid.

[Norman Schwartz]

Probably yes, a war to end all wars, at least for the immediate time. Who
declared war on who? If anyone declares war on you, are you just supposed to
turn the other cheek? (the cheek on your face). I believe the current enemy
wants for the destruction of all mankind (based on a religious belief). IMO
they must be destroyed, and by whatever it takes which has the least amount
of collateral damage, before they succeed. IMO the beheadings alone were
sufficient cause to wipe them off the planet. Having not done what was
required, we've come to this, quelle surprise.

[Roland van Gaalen]

[I recommend reading & rereading the following all the way to the end before commenting. / RvG]
--------------------------
LINK
http://grahamefuller.com/isis-the-hour-has-struck/#.VkiurHGmXQA.twitter

ISIS- The Hour Has Struck

Graham E. Fuller (grahamefuller.com)

14 November 2015

ISIS, with its horrific attack on purely civilian targets in Paris, has established new realities about its nature, capabilities and intentions. The need for its elimination can now no longer be in doubt. It is not that Parisian lives are more important than others, but Paris changes the game.

ISIS has proven to be a serial game changer over the past 18 months since it first came to significant public attention in establishing its so called "Islamic state" athwart the desert border regions of Syria and Iraq. Its hideously choreographed media events and grisly executions were specifically designed to create shock and awe. But it operated locally.

It has now overturned the analyses of most observers, including myself, who tended to view it as primarily regionally and territorially-focused, intent on (non-viable) state-building, Caliphate formation, targeting regional enemies rather than operating on a broader world stage. Now recent bombings in Beirut, the destruction of a Russian airliner midair, and the vicious attacks in Paris have now raised level of threat to new heights.

What is yet unclear is how much the Paris action was the brainchild of a centralized command structure operating out of the ISIS capital in Syria, or an action by local "franchise" organizations or "wild-cat" operations inspired by ISIS to act locally.

Whatever the case, these series of events now call out for broader and deeper international action. ISIS must be eliminated.

I reach this view with much mixed feeling. Over the years I have grown increasingly convinced that western military interventions and wars to "fix" the Middle East have not only failed, but have vastly exacerbated nearly all regional situations. Washington has at the end of the day, in effect, "lost" every one of its recent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and elsewhere. The West has been as much the problem as the solution.

We must remember that there would be no ISIS today if the US had not invaded and destroyed Iraq's leadership, government, ruling institutions, elites, army, infrastructure and social order.

We must remember that history in the Middle East did not begin with 9/11. Rather 9/11 was already the culmination of years of previous western policies of interventions and political manipulations.

We cannot proceed to take more vigorous "action" now without having these two propositions engraved on our foreheads. But some action must now be taken--even though nothing in our past actions offers much ground for reassurance.

But by now ISIS is the single deepest source of immediate Middle East strategic disorder, with global implications. Not Iraq, not Iran, not Syria, not Libya, not Yemen, not Lebanon, not Somalia --or any of those other "optional wars" launched by Washington and its allies--ever presented the same deeply destabilizing global potential as does ISIS today.

-ISIS promotes and perpetuates the narrative of "Islam versus the West"--a heroic and ungrounded myth--although it is bait to which many in the West regularly rise.

-ISIS implements savage sectarian division, an ideology promoted chiefly by Saudi Arabia, that now spills over into conflicts in Yemen, Bahrain, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. It is not inherently the fundamental problem of the Middle East--unless it is made to be so.

-ISIS is not a real state, despite its aspirations; it never will be a viable state, and must not be treated as one.

-ISIS now demonstrates both the intent and the ability to extend its violence, its "retribution," well outside its desert arena.

-ISIS distracts from and radicalizes all other state-to-state regional problems.

-ISIS operations whip up Islamophobia and threatens the security of Muslims living outside the Middle East.

If ever there was a case for genuine, I repeat, genuine international action in the Middle East, this is it. But if Washington or Riyadh continue to interpret Syria primarily as as a proxy battleground against Iran, or against Russia, then genuine international action will surely fail; agreement on Syria's end state will never be achieved.

The elimination of ISIS requires every significant stake-holder to be present: UN, US, EU, Canada, Russia, Iran, Kurds, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, Qatar, Egypt and others. China, aspiring to a major world role, cannot sit this one out either. This convocation requires real heft and clout to impose some rough plan of action. Above all, the UN must head up future operations involving the indispensable future ground operations. If ever an neutral face was essential, this is it.

The essential goal is the destruction of ISIS as an organization possessing territory, infrastructure, command structure, and administrative control. But it is not a genuine state, either territorially, ethnically, geopolitically, economically, historically, even religiously. It may be turning to international terrorism--as did al-Qaeda-- as it sees its future on the ground fading.

The present territory held by ISIS must revert to the state on whose territory it has operated. Yes, that means, for now, Syria's Asad regime.

Over many decades Asad's Syria was simply one more unpleasant regional state, but far from the worst. Even then, however, the US always sought to covertly overthrow him. But Asad took on his truly vicious and ruthless character in his reactions to the domestic uprisings against him beginning in the Arab Spring in 2011. Yet even today Syrians are divided over who represents the greater threat, Asad or his enemies. Whatever the discussion, by now the blood on Asad's hands symbolically demand early forfeiture of his leadership--the details of transition to be negotiated.

Ironically the enormity of the ISIS/ al-Qaeda alternative to Asad had lately sparked some western hesitation in pursuing his overthrow, but now, through its massacres in Paris, ISIS may now have dealt Asad the death blow. Because only a genuine and convincing coalition with overwhelming authority will have the clout to eliminate ISIS and to tell Asad that he personally is finished, that some kind of international supervision is required to bring about a new order in Syria.

That new order will inevitably create regional winners and losers which will immensely complicate the creation of any international consensus. But given the rising challenge and chaos some hierarchy of goals can gradually be hammered out.

-First, ISIS must be eliminated as a territorial entity.

-The UN must maintain the operational and legal leadership of the operation--not the US, or "the West" or NATO that spark volatile reaction.

-Disarm militias and restore order. Order is the bed-rock of any further progress.

-The Syrian state itself must not be dismantled á la Washington's folly in occupied Iraq--whose disastrous repercussions are still with us. No de-Ba'thification of Syria as a program.

-Establish the framework for gradual national elections. Yes, Iran, this means that minority 'Alawi rule over the country will not survive national elections; regional authorities could be created and the 'Alawis and others could administer their own regions. Anyway, Iranian-Syrian relations have always rested on far more than these dubious sectarian ties.

Are there problems and complications with this scenario? Of course. I myself can think of as many problems in this scheme right now as any other reader. There's much more to be said. But we have to start somewhere. A Rubicon has been crossed.

Graham E. Fuller is a former senior CIA official, author of numerous books on the Muslim World; his latest book is "Breaking Faith: A novel of espionage and an American's crisis of conscience in Pakistan." (Amazon, Kindle) grahamefuller.com

[Marc P.]

Sorry, I left out torture, which does.

Marc

[Frank Berger]

Conceivably, but most people who throw around the term
because of other stuff. And because they can.

[Herman]

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 5:59:52 PM UTC+1, Norman Schwartz wrote:

> Herman wrote:


> > and still you want more war?
>
> Probably yes, a war to end all wars, at least for the immediate time.

well, then you're on ISIS's side. They would love more war, that's what they're doing these attacks for.

To provoke the West to open a lot of fronts in the Middle East and spend another another ten years in the meat grinder. ISIS doesn't care how many Arabs die. It'll only make their numbers grow.

[Bob Harper]

On 11/14/15 10:35 PM, Marc P. wrote:
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 9:58:13 PM UTC-8, Bob Harper

> wrote:(Snip)

>> To be sure, it ended in disaster, but that was not foreordained.
>> The mistakes made after the successful invasion and deposition of
>> Saddam, culminating with the rush for the exits--to fulfill a
>> campaign promise!--have brought us to this pass.
>
> Sorry, I'm more in the "Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are war criminals" camp.

That's clear, though nothing below qualifies as a 'war crime'. Errors?
Blunders? Perhaps. But 'war crimes'? No.

Bob Harper

[Bob Harper]

Given that there is no front, 'closer' is a term without much meaning today.

Bob Harper

[Bob Harper]

Very well put. I hope he has protection and that I do not read of his
assassination in a future issue.

Bob Harper

[Bozo]

Another moderate Muslim view ( or perhaps "minority view " more accurate ? ) from the former Pakistani ambassador :

From the end of the article :

"The fundamentalist interpretation of Islam is not a common mode of thinking for most Muslims, especially in recent times. But it is clearly driving the political agenda in Muslim countries. Not all Muslim modernisers are willing to confront the anti-Western and anti-Semitic beliefs that feed the Islamist narrative. The Islamists are dominating the discourse within the Muslim world by murdering secularists and forcing many of them to leave their countries.
With over 1.4 billion Muslims around the globe, the swelling of the fundamentalist ranks poses serious problems. If only 1 per cent of the world's Muslims accepts this uncompromising theology, and 10 per cent of that 1-per cent decide to commit themselves to a radical agenda, we are looking at a one million strong recruitment pool for groups such as al-Qaeda, IS and whatever comes next. Only a concerted ideological campaign against medieval Islamist ideology, like the one that discredited and contained communism, could turn the tide."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11996879/Islams-civil-war-between-medievalists-and-modernisers.html

Of course , the communists were not sending monsters to murder Westerners , even after Reagan said , "...take down that wall". But then, we had Reagan as President.

[Frank Berger]

I'm sure you know that the communists murdered over 90
million people according to many estimates. Murder by
terror and murder by other means seems to be pretty
meaningless technical distinction.

[Tony]

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 7:23:03 PM UTC+2, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> [I recommend reading & rereading the following all the way to the end before commenting. / RvG]

I started, but stopped three sentences in when I read, 'Paris changes the game.' Lazy and poor writing. He may have some good ideas, I don't know, but life's just too short to endure such feeble mannerisms.

[Oscar]

Barack Obama sent his 38 year-old Master of Fine Arts degree-holding lackey (AKA 'Deputy National Security Advisor') Ben Rhodes -- his brother runs CBS News -- to talk to all of the Sunday morning talk shows today. Here is a transcript of his talking points, which were uniformly delivered on all of the shows, as told to NBC's Chuck Todd on Meet the Press.

Note that the messenger is not a senior military official respected by colleagues around the world, nor is he a respected member of Obama's senior administration (ou est le Secretary of State??). No the world got Ben friggin' Rhodes, a deputy advisor/spinmeister/company man. At least the real Natonal Security Advisor, Susan Rice, was set forth to deliver the talking points after Benghazi attacks on 9/11/12, and not her Boy Friday.


CHUCK TODD:

Let me start with French President Hollande called this an act of war. Does the president concur that this was an act of war, and does that change America's footing?

BEN RHODES:

We absolutely agree that this was an act of war. And our hearts go out to the people of Paris who suffered this terrible attack. The fact is, Chuck, we've been at war with ISIL for some time. Over more than a year now we've conducted thousands of airstrikes. We provide arms to forces who are fighting them on the ground. But this is gonna be a long-term campaign to disrupt and ultimately defeat ISIL. And we're going to have to continue to redouble our efforts in partnership with allies like France.

CHUCK TODD:

You know, a year ago, President Obama said, "ISIS was something that could not be contained." And in an interview earlier this week, just days before these attacks, he said, "ISIS had been contained." Can you say that they have been contained in Iraq and Syria when they've escalated to potentially three terrorist attacks in the last ten days, with the Russian airliner, Beirut, and now Paris? That is not a contained organization.

BEN RHODES:

Well, Chuck, the president was referring very specifically to the question of ISIL's geographic expansion in Iraq and Syria. They had been on the march in both Iraq and Syria for some time. But starting a year ago, we were able to halt that expansion.

And we've actually been able to push back and reclaim territory from ISIL in both Iraq and Syria, including most recently in an operation with our Kurdish allies on the ground in Iraq, where they were able to take the strategic town of Sinjar, cutting off one of the key supply lines between the capital for ISIL, Raqqa in Syria, and Mosul, which has been a principal base of operations for ISIL in Iraq. So we have been able to apply pressure, take back territory, but at the same time, of course, we are seeing ISIL aimed to project power beyond the borders of Iraq and Syria most tragically in the attacks in Paris.

CHUCK TODD:

What is it that you guys have gotten wrong in underestimating ISIS?

BEN RHODES:

Well, Chuck, I think we very clearly understand the threat from ISIL. And the fact of the matter is, when we launched our air campaign in Iraq and then Syria, the president was very clear that this would be a long-term effort. This is a different type of terrorist enemy that aims to hold territory, that is drawing thousands of recruits.

And that's why we've been in this effort launching again thousands of airstrikes, recently targeting ISIL leadership, including Jihadi John in Syria, the leader of ISIL in Libya. We're in this for the long haul. We're very clear-eyed about the threat that we face. And that's why we have a coalition of 65 countries with us in this effort, many of whom are here in Turkey at the G20, who the president will be seeing in the next two days.

CHUCK TODD:

Do you believe the strategy the president is implementing is working? Cause to a lot of people, Democrats and Republicans, there's not enough of a sense of urgency, it doesn't seem to be working, and if anything, ISIS looks like they're more ambitious than ever.

BEN RHODES:

Well, Chuck, clearly there's going to have to be an intensification of our efforts. And what we've been able to do is look at what has worked in the application of the strategy, what hasn't. What we see working as being able to get equipment on directly to fighters on the ground, like the Kurds in Northern Iraq, like the forces we partnered with in Northern Syria, and what we're doing here at the G20 in part is seeking to gain additional contributions from some of our coalition partners, so that we're able to bring more force to bear on that effort.

CHUCK TODD:

Are you prepared for France to invoke Article Five of the NATO Charter? An attack on one is an attack on all?

BEN RHODES:

That's a decision for the French to make. What we've made clear to the French is we will be shoulder to shoulder with them in this response. They're in our military campaign in Iraq and Syria already. Clearly they want to energize their efforts.

There's a French two-star general who is stationed at Centcom to help that coordination go forward. And we're confident that in the coming days and weeks, working with the French, we'll be able to intensify our strikes against ISIL in both Syria and Iraq to make clear that there's no safe haven for these terrorists.

[Bob Harper]

What drivel! Makes me want to puke.

Bob Harper

[Oscar]

A truly disgusting performance to watch on television, Bob. And there is more to come: it appears Obama has tapped Rhodes to be spokesman at G20, too, on all things ISIS/Syria/Paris. Note below how Rhodes calls what is plainly a War of Civilizations a "challenge", like it's a SAT test question.

The latest from The New York Times:

<< Yet the highly emotional statements from France -- in which Mr. Hollande promised to be "merciless" and the prime minister, Manuel Valls, vowed to "annihilate the enemies of the republic" -- appeared to do little to fundamentally change how Mr. Obama or his national security team views the high costs of significantly widening the role of the United States military in Iraq and Syria.

While Mr. Obama was already moving to intensify bombing and the targeting of Islamic State leaders, he still does not appear ready to question the underlying, incremental approach.

Senior national security advisers said the president remained steadfastly opposed to a large-scale ground operation in Iraq and Syria. And even as he met with world leaders, aides insisted that the Americans had not underestimated the ability of the Islamic State to project its terror beyond that region.

In briefings with reporters in Turkey and in a series of back-to-back appearances on Sunday morning television programs, Benjamin J. Rhodes, the president's deputy national security adviser, said the United States would work with France and other allies to "intensify their efforts" against the Islamic State -- but only within limits.

"We don't believe U.S. troops are the answer to the problem," Mr. Rhodes told reporters at the Group of 20 meetings here. "The further introduction of U.S. troops to fully re-engage in ground combat in the Middle East is not the way to deal with this challenge."

Mr. Obama's arrival at the G-20 summit meeting Sunday morning forced him and his advisers to spend the day carefully balancing two competing interests: their desire to support France at an extraordinarily difficult moment, while standing firm in their defense of Mr. Obama's basic strategy for waging war against terrorists. >>

[Bozo]

>On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 3:36:46 PM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:

> I'm sure you know that the communists murdered over 90
> million people according to many estimates.

Yes, but one question today is whether there ever will be a Muslim equivilent of Gorbachev.

[Roland van Gaalen]

On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 11:35:10 PM UTC+1, Tony wrote:
> On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 7:23:03 PM UTC+2, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> > [I recommend reading & rereading the following all the way to the end before commenting. / RvG]

> > LINK
http://grahamefuller.com/isis-the-hour-has-struck/#.VkiurHGmXQA.twitter

>
> I started, but stopped three sentences in when I read, 'Paris changes the game.' Lazy and poor
> writing. He may have some good ideas, I don't know, but life's just too short to endure such
> feeble mannerisms.

I expected a dismissive if not hostile response.
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam

[Bozo]

>On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 11:23:03 AM UTC-6, Roland van Gaalen wrote:

> The elimination of ISIS requires every significant stake-holder to be present: >UN, US, EU, Canada, Russia, Iran, Kurds, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, Qatar, >Egypt and others. China, aspiring to a major world role, cannot sit this one out >either. This convocation requires real heft and clout to impose some rough plan >of action. Above all, the UN must head up future operations involving the >indispensable future ground operations. If ever an neutral face was essential, >this is it.

As noted at the end of my 11/14 post here.

[Bob Harper]

That really is THE question. Is Islam reformable, or at least is it
possible for it to reject and marginalize the crazies so that they are
no longer capable of posing a threat to civilized society? The ball is
in their court. I hope so, for the sake of all of us.

Bob Harper

[Herman]

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 6:13:33 AM UTC+1, Bob Harper wrote:


> >
> That really is THE question. Is Islam reformable, or at least is it
> possible for it to reject and marginalize the crazies so that they are
> no longer capable of posing a threat to civilized society? The ball is
> in their court. I hope so, for the sake of all of us.
>
> Bob Harper

So I guess you're for US gun control after all

[Oscar]

[Raymond Hall]

> ISIS, with its horrific attack on purely civilian targets in Paris, has established new realities about its nature, capabilities and intentions. The need for its elimination can now no longer be in doubt. It is not that Parisian lives are more important than others, but Paris changes the game.

I also pretty much stopped reading after the last comment. Nobody has learned anything. They haven't even started.

Ray Hall, Taree

[Raymond Hall]

> ISIS, with its horrific attack on purely civilian targets in Paris, has established new realities about its nature, capabilities and intentions. The need for its elimination can now no longer be in doubt. It is not that Parisian lives are more important than others, but Paris changes the game.

I stopped taking any notice after the last statement, because it is abundantly clear that nobody has learned anything.

Ray Hall, Taree

[Roland van Gaalen]

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 8:24:37 AM UTC+1, Raymond Hall wrote:
> > ISIS, with its horrific attack on purely civilian targets in Paris, has established new realities about its nature, capabilities and intentions. The need for its elimination can now no longer be in doubt. It is not that Parisian lives are more important than others, but Paris changes the game.
>
> I also pretty much stopped reading after the last comment. Nobody has learned anything. They haven't even started.
>

???

[Roland van Gaalen]

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 8:28:36 AM UTC+1, Raymond Hall wrote:

>
> ... it is abundantly clear that nobody has learned anything.

As you wrote, you haven't read the article.

[Bob Harper]

???

Bob Harper

[Tony]

If the guy's going to write in a hackneyed way using stupid colloquial cliches, it's more likely than not that his ideas are the same.

[Roland van Gaalen]

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 3:47:01 PM UTC+1, Tony wrote:
> On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 4:43:27 AM UTC+2, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 11:35:10 PM UTC+1, Tony wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 7:23:03 PM UTC+2, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> > > > [I recommend reading & rereading the following all the way to the end before commenting. / RvG]
> > > > LINK
> > http://grahamefuller.com/isis-the-hour-has-struck/#.VkiurHGmXQA.twitter
> >
> > >
> > > I started, but stopped three sentences in when I read, 'Paris changes the game.' Lazy and poor
> > > writing. He may have some good ideas, I don't know, but life's just too short to endure such
> > > feeble mannerisms.
> >
> > I expected a dismissive if not hostile response.
>

> If the guy's going to write in a hackneyed way using stupid colloquial cliches,
> it's more likely than not that his ideas are the same.

If you say so.

[O]

In article <0d773025-43ce-4907...@googlegroups.com>,

"We must remember that there would be no ISIS today if the US had not
invaded and destroyed Iraq¹s leadership, government, ruling
institutions, elites, army, infrastructure and social order. "

Bring back Saddam Hussein? We don't even have Khaddaffi anymore.

-Owen

[Bozo]

>On Sunday, November 15, 2015 at 9:26:32 AM UTC-6, Herman wrote:
> and still you want more war?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11998324/Islamists-hate-us-and-their-aim-is-to-kill-us.-We-have-a-choice-kill-or-be-killed.-Which-is-it-to-be.html

"Indeed, there has been much written and spoken since the bloody horrors of Friday night about how, in the fight against evil, it is peace, love and understanding that will win. How, in the battle against men with guns, grenades and suicide vests, it is the simple courage of people standing together that will ultimately triumph.
Those platitudes might sound great, they feel very nice to say and they are certainly reassuring to hear and read.
After all, we were all raised on fairy tales that told us, again and again, that in the end it is good that will overcome evil every time.

There is just one crucial problem: none of it is true.

Good doesn't triumph over evil. And, contrary to popular belief, peace, love and understanding don't stand much of a chance in the face of a barrage of bullets or a suicide bomber pressing the trigger at a football stadium or in a crowded concert hall.
Sadlty, good does not triumph over evil
Indeed, the triumph of good over evil has rarely happened in human history without the helpful backing of rather a lot of guns, tanks and bombs. The good guys only win when their guns, tanks and bombs are bigger and better than those of the bad guys.

Yes, there have been plenty of peaceful protests for civil rights, democracy and even against the might of the Soviet Union during the East European so-called "velvet revolutions". But, by and large, those successes have been won only when the men with guns chose of their own free will, in the face of the combined might of the people, to put their guns down.
That is not going to happen this time. I'm sorry, but it's just not.
Isis and its death cult stablemates will never be defeated until we get to grips with the concept that this has nothing to do with anything except the fact that we exist.

The gunmen of Isil cannot - and will not - be defeated through talking, persuasion or understanding. There are no compromises to be offered.
There is, quite simply, nothing to negotiate.
The cold, hard facts are these: the Islamists hate us and their aim is to kill us.
They hate our way of life, our values, our culture, our civilisation. There is nothing we can do to appease them or persuade them to stop their killing spree - whether that murder takes places in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon or on the streets of Paris.
There is nothing we can do - whether it is changing our foreign policy by withdrawing troops or warplanes from the Middle East or ending the Israel-Palestine conflict or anything else - that will make them change their minds.
This will not change the minds of Islamists. They still want to kill us.
The terrorists and their willingness and ability to use violence against us will only be defeated by one thing: our own willingness and ability to use violence against them.

History is littered with lessons that tell us that, contrary to the lament of the dove, war is actually good for quite a lot of things: mostly, defeating those who would wish us harm.

Our politicians can wring their hands and deliver fine, uplifting speeches as much as they want. The whole world can light up in the tricoleur and we can invent hashtags and change our Facebook or Twitter avatars until the end of time: it is all utterly pointless unless it is backed up by force.
The evil of Islamism is not going to go away. It didn't go away when it was ignored and appeased by the West for many years, despite a lengthy bombing campaign on western targets long before 9/11. And it isn't going to go away now.
Isil and its death cult stablemates will never be defeated until we get to grips with the concept that this has nothing to do with anything except the fact that we exist. It is that, and that alone, which offends them and which they seek to destroy.

So, unless we are all happy to sign up to radical Islam right now, with every heretic and infidel executed on sight, every man forced to take up arms, every woman enslaved, every homosexual stoned to death and every nine-year-old girl at risk of rape, in a terrifying return to the Dark Ages, we have a choice to make.

That choice is stark: kill or be killed. So which one is it going to be? "

[Bozo]

>On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 10:07:27 AM UTC-6, O wrote:
> Bring back Saddam Hussein? We don't even have Khaddaffi anymore.
>

They were stronger than Muhammad , I guess.

[Frank Berger]

>
> We must remember that there would be no ISIS today if the US had not invaded and destroyed Iraq's leadership, government, ruling institutions, elites, army, infrastructure and social order.
>

One keeps hearing this. This is not to defend the Bush
administrations Iraq adventure in any way, but how to we
know that ISIS wouldn't have arisen anyway.

[Norman Schwartz]

O wrote:
>
> "We must remember that there would be no ISIS today if the US had not

> invaded and destroyed Iraq零 leadership, government, ruling

> institutions, elites, army, infrastructure and social order. "
>

Why not remember even more than that? If the Europeans, Churchill in
particular, hadn't needed to plead with USA in their dealing with Nazi
Germany, we'd still be the isolationist country possessing no military
might.

(Of course then came the Japanese and Pearl Harbor, with Hitler declaring
war on the USA. Coming from behind the US then became engaged in rationing
in order to build weapons of war, 24 hours/day and as fast as possible,
ending with Fat Man and Little Boy, which required their Emperor to open his
mouth breaking a tie as to whether to surrender. If it were known that the
USA had no third such weapon, we'd have had to build another and/or have the
Allies invade and engage in street fighting just as was done WWII.)
Yamamoto is quoted as somehere as saying, "I fear we have awakened a
sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve."

Then comes American naivete

> Bring back Saddam Hussein? We don't even have Khaddaffi anymore.
>

Maybe before that, American naivete allowing the near simultaneous
hijacking of 4 large passenger aircraft.

> -Owen

[Norman Schwartz]

Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> [I recommend reading & rereading the following all the way to the end
> before commenting. / RvG]

> --------------------------
> LINK
> http://grahamefuller.com/isis-the-hour-has-struck/#.VkiurHGmXQA.twitter
>
I recommend reading this (and all of it).

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

[Roland van Gaalen]

Thank you very much. I am going to read it later today.

[MiNe109]

You might search for an April 4 Washington Post story: The hidden hand
behind the Islamic State militants? Saddam Hussein’s.

Short answer, no insurgency, no ISIL.

Stephen

[Frank Berger]

I'll get around to it. I seems all I ever see is people
blathering on and on with unsupported statements, assertions and
pronouncements that serve to support the position they
already hold.

[Raymond Hall]

Of course I haven't. I did specifically say that I had stopped reading. Just more of the same claptrap we have endured for years. Do you read articles, or posts? Just wondering. I'm very selective as it happens.

Ray Hall, Taree

[Lionel Tacchini]

All this talk about who excited the mad dog first and how wrong it was
just serves to escape discussing the fact that we have and tolerate a
mad dog in the house.

Have the balls to call the islamic scum by its name.

--
Lionel Tacchini

[Bozo]

>On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 1:04:38 PM UTC-6, Norman Schwartz wrote:
>
> I recommend reading this (and all of it).
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Thanks. From the early part ,and then end , of the article :

Following takfiri doctrine, the Islamic State is committed to purifying the world by killing vast numbers of people. The lack of objective reporting from its territory makes the true extent of the slaughter unknowable, but social-media posts from the region suggest that individual executions happen more or less continually, and mass executions every few weeks. Muslim "apostates" are the most common victims....That the Islamic State holds the imminent fulfillment of prophecy as a matter of dogma at least tells us the mettle of our opponent. It is ready to cheer its own near-obliteration, and to remain confident, even when surrounded, that it will receive divine succor if it stays true to the Prophetic model. Ideological tools may convince some potential converts that the group's message is false, and military tools can limit its horrors. But for an organization as impervious to persuasion as the Islamic State, few measures short of these will matter, and the war may be a long one, even if it doesn't last until the end of time."

[Oscar]

In his first public statement since Friday's attacks, Secretary of State John Kerry in Paris just referred to ISIS by the pejorative term (among Arab-speaking peoples) "Daesh". That'll teach 'em. A privileged white male fluent in French and windsurfing, worth hundreds of millions of dollars and married to a ketchup heiress, just called ISIS by a name they detest, this mere hours after his boss with the Moslem name declared in no certain terms that US ground troops in Syria/Iraq were off the table. Why not let these evil-doers know exactly what you're _not_ willing to do, and to let your NATO ally know that in the event of they should Article Five card, well, we'll have to think that over and get back to you.

Also, did Obama co-sign Kerry's use of such smack-talk freighted with obvious demeaning racial insensitivity?

[Roland van Gaalen]

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 8:26:06 PM UTC+1, Raymond Hall wrote:
> On Monday, 16 November 2015 23:39:24 UTC+11, Roland van Gaalen wrote:
> > On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 8:28:36 AM UTC+1, Raymond Hall wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > ... it is abundantly clear that nobody has learned anything.
> >
> > As you wrote, you haven't read the article.
> > --
> > Roland van Gaalen
> > Amsterdam
>
> Of course I haven't. I did specifically say that I had stopped reading. Just more of the same
> claptrap we have endured for years.

What makes you think that? Why would I recommend such an article?

> Do you read articles, or posts? Just wondering.
> I'm very selective as it happens.

I have read a number of articles about ISIS (including a full-page article in the today's Financial Times).

To me, the upshot is that the subject matter is extremely complex.

[laraine]

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 3:56:56 PM UTC-6, Marc P. wrote:

> Sure, but how are the perpetrators going to be destroyed? An all-out military response, directed where? 9/11 (which I lived through in NYC) was similarly an "act of war," but the US Iraq invasion that followed was a catastrophe.
>
> Marc

For one thing, act on known intelligence in some way..
For example, now it is being said that there had been
talk of attacking Paris, and also that there were extremist
groups meeting in Belgium.

No matter how hard you fight in the Middle East, there
will be lots of individuals scattered over the world.

C.

[Bozo]

>On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 2:49:18 PM UTC-6, laraine wrote:
> No matter how hard you fight in the Middle East, there
> will be lots of individuals scattered over the world.

Correct. 8 were willing to blow themselves up in Paris and slaughter people , after thinking about all that for months without a change of heart or mind.There are at least 8000 more like-minded with ISIL.There will be attacks in Moscow , London , Washington , Tel Aviv,and more airplanes down.As the articles Roland has posted suggest , the probable answer is to eliminate ISIL's legitimacy by military defeat of ISIL on the ground in their caliphate , a step the West is unwilling even now to take.Ideological appeals by moderate Muslim clerics will not be sufficient. I hope the French invoke NATO Article 5 , but it will take more than just NATO to defeat ISIL and its legitimacy. The Russians, Chinese, Saudis,Turks and Iran need to join with NATO.

[Mort]

On that fateful evening, I was attending a marvelous double header
concert at Lincoln Center, N.Y.C. where Daniil Trifonov and the N.Y.P.O.
played both the Rhapsody/Paganini and P.C. #2. At intermission, most
people in my row stood up. I checked the news on my cellphone, and got
the early reports of the butchery in Paris. I switched to Paris-Match
for a direct feed from Paris, and the headline came up in French that
over 100 people were killed. A woman standing alone, next to me, a
complete stranger, saw the news and started shaking, crying,and saying,
"Oh my God" over and over. The poor woman was in a state of emotional
shock. I did something that I never do to a stranger. I hugged her and
slowly and gently patted her back,while I consoled her with my minimal
grasp of French,inasmuch as her English was poor. She in turn promptly
hugged me back.There we stood for several minutes, strangers from
different countries and speaking different languages, hugging and
sharing our fear and anger, and consoling each other. Then we separated,
and in her poor English, she said, "You sweet, you kind, thank you,
thank you."

This was not a typical New York moment, but I felt that I had done a
good deed by helping this French woman in her time of need. In Hebrew
and in Yiddish, we call this a Mitzvah = a blessing = a good deed.

May it never happen again.

Mort Linder


Oscar wrote:
> I worked AC/DC's Dodger Stadium concert on September 28. I had some downtime near the end of the show, so I walked into the house to watch the final encore with one of my close friends who was with friends in seats near the front. He was getting married a few days later -- this was my 'salute' to the closing days of his bachelorhood, as the band played For Those About To Rock (We Salute You). Standing next to him was Jesse Hughes, leader of the Eagles of Death Metal. A mutual friend, as is the whole band. Same circle of friends & acquaintances in the neighborhood. This hits way too close to home.
>
> I hope Western Europe wakes up. I hope moderate Muslims rise up. I hope President Obama 'evolves' his incoherent foreign policy. It's all too real now.
>

[Bob Harper]

It is more likely it arose because of the power vacuum that grew worse
after 2009, culminating in the total withdrawal of American troops in
2012. ISIS metastasized starting in 2013.

Bob Harper

[Frank Berger]

>
> This was not a typical New York moment, but I felt that
> I had done a good deed by helping this French woman in
> her time of need. In Hebrew and in Yiddish, we call this
> a Mitzvah = a blessing = a good deed.
>
>

Actually, the original and primary definition of mitzvah is
"commandment." As modern Jews largely abandoned the
traditional observance of their religion, the word came to
mean "good deed." Among orthodox Jews is still means
"commandment."

[Frank Berger]

Ah hah.

[John Thomas]

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 11:41:35 AM UTC-8, Lionel Tacchini wrote:

> Have the balls to call the islamic scum by its name.
>
> --
> Lionel Tacchini

John Oliver obliges: http://tinyw.in/hEF9

[Lionel Tacchini]

That's the spirit ;-)

--
Lionel Tacchini

[Frank Berger]

On 11/16/2015 7:22 PM, Bob Harper wrote:

This doesn't really address what would have happened had we
left Saddam in place.

[Bob Harper]

No it doesn't. That is unanswerable.

Bob Harper

[laraine]

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 4:36:05 PM UTC-6, Bozo wrote:
> >On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 2:49:18 PM UTC-6, laraine wrote:
> > No matter how hard you fight in the Middle East, there
> > will be lots of individuals scattered over the world.
>
> Correct. 8 were willing to blow themselves up in Paris and slaughter people , after thinking about all that for months without a change of heart or mind.There are at least 8000 more like-minded with ISIL.

I heard something on a news show --estimate of about 1% of Muslims
are extreme, about 1,000,000.

>There will be attacks in Moscow , London , Washington , Tel Aviv,and more airplanes down.

And to be fair, many Muslim countries...There have been countless such
attacks by groups in Iraq, why think that we would change all that by going
back... It would likely get much worse again for us and for civilians there.
Even drones are hated now.

And yet I hope there is a solution, both defensive and offensive.

>As the articles Roland has posted suggest , the probable answer is to eliminate ISIL's legitimacy by military defeat of ISIL on the ground in their caliphate , a step the West is unwilling even now to take.Ideological appeals by moderate Muslim clerics will not be sufficient.

What is the ultimate goal though... are we thinking of something like
conquering Germany such as in WWII... Problem is we're not Arabs or
Muslims, so we would never be accepted.

>I hope the French invoke NATO Article 5 , but it will take more than just NATO to defeat ISIL and its legitimacy. The Russians, Chinese, Saudis,Turks and Iran need to join with NATO.

Some don't want the Russians and Iran too involved, the Chinese will stay
out of it, the Saudis and Turks are Sunnis, as is most of the Arab world.
ISIS are Sunni. Would you expect Evangelical Christians to fight against other Evangelical Christians? Unlikely, except in extreme cases. And of course there are more complications than that.

Even Trump is being somewhat careful now in what he says. He doesn't
want a quagmire, at least not there.

C.

[Frank Berger]

Not if you're a Bush-basher.

[Roland van Gaalen]

I don't think the author quoted above ("We must remember...") intended to be a Bush-basher.

Something must be done (ISIS must be eliminated), he argues, without making matters worse.

As Nassim Taleb has argued, ISIS is antifragile. They benefit from disorder.

[O]

In article <600822a0-f3bd-4457...@googlegroups.com>,

Roland van Gaalen <rolandv...@gmail.com> wrote:


> >
> > Not if you're a Bush-basher.
>
> I don't think the author quoted above ("We must remember...") intended to be
> a Bush-basher.

Perhaps it's best to review the original quote in context:

> Whatever the case, these series of events now call out for broader and
> deeper international action. ISIS must be eliminated.
>
> I reach this view with much mixed feeling. Over the years I have grown
> increasingly convinced that western military interventions and wars to
> "fix" the Middle East have not only failed, but have vastly exacerbated
> nearly all regional situations. Washington has at the end of the day,
> in effect, "lost" every one of its recent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq,
> Yemen, and elsewhere. The West has been as much the problem as the
> solution.

>
> We must remember that there would be no ISIS today if the US had not
> invaded and destroyed Iraq's leadership, government, ruling
> institutions, elites, army, infrastructure and social order.
>

>

> Something must be done (ISIS must be eliminated), he argues, without making
> matters worse.

Eliminated? The author is speaking in euphemisms. I believe he means
that the people who are ISIS should be killed. I don't see how they
could be eliminated otherwise. They haven't listed any demands,
monetarily or territory, that would satisfy them. They insist the west
out of the middle east, but they don't mind themselves coming to France
or the US.

Yet, western military intervention, according to the author, doesn't
work, and makes things worse.

So, how do you kill these people without killing them? He makes a
tautological circle by dancing around the bloodshed.

I think it's clear that regardless of what the west does, there is
going to be more bloodshed. I think all the west can do is control, to
some extent, whose blood is shed.

I think it's important that we speak in real words of just what it is
that we're intending to do.

>
> As Nassim Taleb has argued, ISIS is antifragile. They benefit from disorder.

They benefit from our disorder, but they wouldn't benefit from their
own internal disorder.

-Owen

[Bozo]

>On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 9:31:30 PM UTC-6, laraine wrote:
> Would you expect Evangelical Christians to fight against other Evangelical >Christians? Unlikely, except in extreme cases.

Yes. And ISIS is an extreme case.

Hopefully, an unforeseen consequence of killing - off ISIS will be a new World cooperation and respect amongst rivals and enemies (see Putin and Obama huddled in the corner in Turkey yesterday) united by the even greater threat /evil that is ISIS , much as if the World were attacked by aliens.

We have no other choice. Avoiding " a quagmire " is not an option ; the World is a quagmire , nouveau isolationism no solution.

[james.g...@gmail.com]

It looks like Putin will be taking the G. W. Bush route in dealing with the Metrojet bombing: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34840943

If so, the world is about to become a much more dangerous place.

[O]

In article <1b11ebe2-c24b-4d8a...@googlegroups.com>,

<james.g...@gmail.com> wrote:


>
> It looks like Putin will be taking the G. W. Bush route in dealing with the
> Metrojet bombing: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34840943
>
> If so, the world is about to become a much more dangerous place.
>

I think Paris has shown that it already is. Interesting graphic at the
end of the article even makes that point stronger.

-Owen

[graham]

On 16/11/2015 8:31 PM, laraine wrote:
Would you expect Evangelical Christians to fight against other
Evangelical Christians? Unlikely, except in extreme cases. And of
course there are more complications than that.
>

Other christians? Definitely! Remember N. Ireland?
Graham

[Roland van Gaalen]

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 4:27:48 PM UTC+1, O wrote:
> In article <1b11ebe2-c24b-4d8a...@googlegroups.com>,

> <james....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > It looks like Putin will be taking the G. W. Bush route in dealing with the
> > Metrojet bombing: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34840943
> >
> > If so, the world is about to become a much more dangerous place.
> >
>
> I think Paris has shown that it already is. Interesting graphic at the
> end of the article even makes that point stronger.
>
> -Owen

Here are some minor complications:

-the Saudis support terrorism (Al Qaeda, ISIS)
-Pakistan supports terrorism (Taliban)
-Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are key allies of the West
-ISIS fighters are Sunnis
-the Sunni states (incl Saudi Arabia) "are the bedrock America's power in the region"
-the Shia side is represented by Iran, the Syrian government, Hizbollah
-supporting the Shia side would alienate the Sunnis (not just ISIS)
-the Kurds are succesful against ISIS, but Turkey is not on good terms with them
-there is potential instability in seemingly moderate states (Turkey, Bangladesh, Malaysia)

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n21/patrick-cockburn/too-weak-too-strong

[O]

In article <c23458d8-3960-4608...@googlegroups.com>,

Roland van Gaalen <rolandv...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think we've gotten beyond the point where treading on eggshells is
effective. Somebody, somewhere is going to get mighty pissed no matter
what is done (even if nothing is done!) In fact, everybody's pretty
pissed already. We need to look for solutions, not get stalled by
intractables.

I suspect that, before long, Russia is going to take matters into its
own hands, much like the US did, and the results will be far less
compassionate than even the sordid stories that came out of Iraq and
Afghanistan.

-Owen

[Frank Berger]

I didn't mean to imply that he was. A "Bush-basher," as I
define it, is someone who blames Bush for just about
everything that ever went wrong.

[Frank Berger]

You recall the the Soviet Union and the U.S. managed to
ally themselves to fight the Nazis. Anything is possible.

[Roland van Gaalen]

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 5:27:01 PM UTC+1, O wrote:
> In article <c23458d8-3960-4608...@googlegroups.com>,

I agree. (Another minor complication, by the way, is that gaining acceptance for any policy designed to be a long-term solution to such a complex problem, and based on a comprehensive rational analysis, may be a difficult or impossible task. Talking tough -- stigmatizing those poor Syrian refugees, blaming Edward Snowden, ridiculing "BHO" -- is probably a more effective campaign strategy.)

[Roland van Gaalen]

> You recall the the Soviet Union and the U.S. managed to
> ally themselves to fight the Nazis. Anything is possible.

True.

[Bozo]

>On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 10:54:37 AM UTC-6, Frank Berger wrote:

> You recall the the Soviet Union and the U.S. managed > ally themselves to fight >the Nazis. Anything is possible.

I'd suggest talking to New Zealand's All Blacks. They can beat anybody.

[O]

In article <a008b4a7-dbd1-49d7...@googlegroups.com>,

Roland van Gaalen <rolandv...@gmail.com> wrote:


> >

> > I think we've gotten beyond the point where treading on eggshells is
> > effective. Somebody, somewhere is going to get mighty pissed no matter
> > what is done (even if nothing is done!) In fact, everybody's pretty
> > pissed already. We need to look for solutions, not get stalled by
> > intractables.
>
> I agree. (Another minor complication, by the way, is that gaining acceptance
> for any policy designed to be a long-term solution to such a complex problem,
> and based on a comprehensive rational analysis, may be a difficult or
> impossible task. Talking tough -- stigmatizing those poor Syrian refugees,
> blaming Edward Snowden, ridiculing "BHO" -- is probably a more effective campaign strategy.)

The Paris bombings was absolutely the worst thing that could happen to
the Syrian refugees, whether they encompass fifth columnists or not.
They're going to bear the brunt of the backlash and fear of the public.
Snowden's a favorite whipping boy, but that never really resonated with
anyone but police types, BHO is a lame duck, so campaigns are going to
be aiming at Hillary, Bernie, Donald and Ben. Hillary might have some
vulnerability being former Sec of State, but she's been almost as
teflon as her husband.

Western diplomats may feel comfortable letting Russia blast ISIS
militarily, then let the Russians take the heat for reprisals. In
addition, that may drive even some radicals closer to Europe and the US
if Russia responds in its stereotypical fashion.

-Owen

[Steven Bornfeld]

On 11/16/2015 2:03 PM, Norman Schwartz wrote:
>>
> I recommend reading this (and all of it).
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
>
>
Excellent (and chilling) article--thanks for posting.

Steve

[Lionel Tacchini]

Looks like a winning team coming together.

--
Lionel Tacchini

[Al Eisner]

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Frank Berger wrote:

>> We must remember that there would be no ISIS today if the US had not
>> invaded and destroyed Iraq's leadership, government, ruling institutions,
>> elites, army, infrastructure and social order.
>
> One keeps hearing this. This is not to defend the Bush administrations Iraq
> adventure in any way, but how to we know that ISIS wouldn't have arisen
> anyway.

ISIS as a terrorist organization might well have, just as Al Qaeda
already did. But ISIS as a territory-holding organization (and
despite the recent attacks on the West and Russia it is in that territory
that ISIS has wreaked by far its greatest havoc) would very probably
not have arisen in Iraq, given Saddam's Sunni-dominated dictatorship.
In that sense I think the above quote is accurate. Syria is
perhaps a different matter, given Assad's brutality (in particular
to Syria's majority Sunnis) in the past few years. Yet the
founding leadership of ISIS seems to basically stem from Iraq.

Of course, the above is an oversimplification, and one cannot know
for sure, so your question is a reasonable one.
--
Al Eisner