Senate Terror attacks in Europe

Years of complaining about drone strikes goes unnoticed. I guess I'll pack it in.

 

Drop is.

 

SuperWatto, that's mildly silly. I'll certainly not deny the US has made a whole string of egregious injustices in the Middle East over the last few decades. But the primary Muslim populations in France are from their former colonies, not refugees or transplants after American interventions. Moreover, their alienation from France is a failure of that country's domestic policies. not a primary byproduct of American foreign policy. Things like the War in Iraq can certainly help radicalize people once they've already turned away from the society around them, but the real problem is that their turning away in the first place.

 

Incorrect.

 

But Watto, how much of what you just highlighted is the fault of the way the international system works? Let's disregard the history that happened before Desert Storm, even though most of it is decidedly anti-European (at least moreso than anti-US) and use 1991 as the start of the current paradigm. The dispute between Iraq and Kuwait heated up between the both of them over oil, and I think everyone recognizes the folly of allowing Iraq to remain in control of an output of about 540 million barrels of oil per year. Had the US not lead Desert Storm, the impact of Iraq controlling so much additional oil would have impacted the EU much, much more than the US. But the way international markets are interwoven, we can agree it would have negatively impacted both. But Desert Storm had a set mandate and the overall mission remained unfinished, which directly lead to 2003's invasion. An important distinction which has also been largely forgotten.

Imagine if Russia's Gazprom heated up its conflict with Naftohaz Ukrayiny (The Ukrainian natural gas company). 80% of the EU's natural gas travels through the Ukraine, and the EU would be seriously damaged if that was cut off. Except imagine if the European countries deferred action only until the US decided to do something? It's a double edged sword. Often times, the international community faults the US for becoming entangled in foreign conflicts, but at the same time, no major action that has benefitted the West has been undertaken until the US leads it (and provides most of the resources) . Generally, the US is much more idealistic than any country in the EU, and good or bad, the US is much more willing to involve itself in conflict beyond what benefits it directly.

So what's the solution that addresses both realities?

 

My evening info tidbit: the vast majority of French Muslims are not "immigrants", they're the second, third and even fourth generation after immigration. So they're as French as anyone else -- which is why the "these customs were in place when you came" argument is TOTALLY invalid (not to say fallacious, farcical and mildly, ahem, prejudiced*?)

* Sorry for that, Ender, but that argument you used is plain dangerous. Just check out the people who use it in RL. It starts from Sarko and moves further on to the far-right.

 

I'm sorry, I was not aware. I meant in this thread. But it's good to know you did the work.

Of course the integration of Muslims in France sucks. And France has itself to blame for that, first and foremost. It's had its signs, too - there were often protests in the banlieus even before jihadists started appearing.
But just like France needs to take its responsibilities seriously, so should the US. The US is at war with Al Qaeda Yemen. It was 'assisting in a government crackdown' for 8 years; it's been open war for 5 years now. The US made five times as many civilian casualties in Yemen than these Algerian French guys did in Paris. Why is that not an outrage? I'll be the JCC's Dr. Phil here: you have to own that. Work on that, and I'm pretty sure the Evil West will be perceived as less evil.

Oh yeah, and incarcerate Cheney.

 

Which part, exactly?

 

Desert Storm = good.
The liberation of a sovereign nation that was overrun.
Invasion of Iraq = bad.
The invasion of a sovereign nation under a false pretext.

Pretty clear distinction.

 

Except it's not that simple. Watto, I'm sure you already know that it was a cell from al Qaeda Yemen who bombed the USS Cole...And more... in 2000. Before al Qaeda became a household word after 2001.

Or that al Qaeda Yemen is another brutal representation of twisted fundamentalism in the vein of ISIS or Boko Haram, or the Lord's Resistance Army (the reaction against has become a silly internet meme in its own right). A favored tactic of the main terrorists- Yemeni al Qaeda and the Islamic army- is to use gunmen to storm hospitals and aid stations and kill the patients (and medical personnel if found) being treated there.

If you're going to play the JCC's Dr Phil, then looking at it from the opposite, someone has to be the pragmatic realist. It's not a quid pro quo with regards to casualties, when there are clearly "bad guys" in the conflict. This doesn't mean that real life is neatly wrapped up in a nice bow. It's quite the opposite. But some actions are certainly more than justified, even including the consequences.

 

I agree. But at least let the course of action be decided upon out in the open, and honestly.
Yemen isn't out in the open, Iraq wasn't honest. Time to shape up the act!

 

You correctly note that the issue only seems to be recent in France; implicit then is that there wasn't the level of discourse or disharmony there is now.

We, too, have seen a growing radicalisation of our Muslim population. We know at least one common trait among radicals - they didn't migrate here holding radical beliefs. Usually, they are the second generation migrants - for the avoidance of doubt, these are the first generation born to immigrant parents in the new country of residence. And the radicalisation is largely effective due to their lower socio-economic status but it is driven by the perception that Islam is under attack from the West.

That perception has been fueled by US foreign policies and actions.

In simple terms, most migrants aren't looking for trouble and will generally keep their heads down and not rock the boat. Especially if they are refugees. So you're not getting people going from Algieria or Morocco to France and then being repressed and pushing back on that. It's just not happening.

EDIT: Wocky, have you seen La Haine.

 

Man.
Two minutes on the internet.
In looking up some more information I came across a PBS documentary on YouTube, "Frontline: Al Qaeda in Yemen". First comment:

"There is no Al Qaeda,truly any Muslim who rejected the American Imperialism is Al Qaeda and truly no one will accept that . Americans and its allies got the weapon and Muslims get the faith ,this war will take at least hundred years and faith will win.
whether you scare or not this is the reality."

First reply:
"Absuletley".

So of course I go, I don't feel like watching this. It's past midnight. Gimme a break. Let me see what's on the news.

Jihadist from Amsterdam killed in Syria
A seventeen year old jihadist from Amsterdam was killed in an anti-IS bombardment. His father had been trying to get his son back to Holland for weeks.

 

That documentary, was it hosted by Bob Baer?

 

No, I don't think so. Here it is. I'm going to bed, I'll watch it some other time.

 

No. It's Will Lyman who does the narration for Frontline.

 

Right ok. I know Baer was heavily involved with a few Frontline documentaries in the past but couldn't check that one.

Cheers Shane.

 

I f#*@ing hate people who spread ignorance and fear like Jeanine Pirro. No surprise coming from Fox News.

Best answer to this nutcase is this!!!!

 

It looks like the French are sending their aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle to the Gulf to conduct some airstrikes against the Islamic State:



Now, this is obviously an escalation in force, using the "Je Suis Charlie" with all the subtlety as a sledgehammer, but somebody, somewhere is going to be subject to some French payback. The long term wisdom of such an action will have to play itself out.

Going back to something Watto mentioned, I don't think this is getting much coverage in the international news outlets either,(I don't know how it is being covered in French media) considering it is all but a mission of vengeance. I suppose it is going to depend on how many missions are conducted. If it's just a show of force with a couple of sorties here and there, probably not much impact. If it is more robust, who knows?

 

where is Islamic State ?

I must admit I thought it was an organisation , is it a place ?

 

They're an actual state, albeit an unrecognized one. They control territory and use the resources in that territory to wage war and expand their territory.

 

what am I looking for ? is it the bits that are red diagonal stripes ? they control those areas ?


.

 

The orange bits and the diagonal stripes are territory controlled by them, yes.