Situation in Paris

[salm]

And this is a direct consequence of hysterical reaction. If the whole attacks wouldn´t be hyped up to no end and analized rationally this fear would be revealed as what it is: Unnecessary. We don´t have to fear stuff that kills so few people. The main problems are hysterical reactions, not the death tol itself. Or else we´d have to shut down traffic.

Fear is not hysteria, fear is not panic.

I buckle my seat belt because I fear death in a traffic accident - but I still drive every day. My fear of death in traffic is a healthy fear that makes me take reasonable precautions against accident. This is opposed to panic.

You can not tell people not to fear something that threatens them, but you can tell them to be reasonable about that fear. Tell people to put away the MP3 players and smart phones and pay attention to their surroundings, note anything suspicious. That is, in fact, how the train attack was thwarted - some people noticed something bad was starting, were alert, and took action before all hell broke loose. That is a reasonable response to terrorism.

Instead of instilling panic the media should be telling people how to take reasonable precautions to minimize their already small chances of being the particular person caught in an attack. When showing a video of the recent Paris attack point out that the proper response is to do what many in a cafe/bar did - get behind something, under something, cover your head, wait for an opportunity to flee to a safer location then do so. People who have a plan, who have something to do if an emergency occurs are much better off than those who don't.

It should be no different than fire drills, or tornado drills in the US Midwest, or earthquakes in California or Japan. Here's a hazard that we can't eliminate, here are possible warning signs, here is what you do. People don't stay out of buildings despite the risk of fire, people live in the Midwest despite the risk of tornadoes, people live all over the world on top of quake zones or next to volcanoes, people should be able to live their lives with the risk of terrorism.

But don't dismiss it as "few people get killed". That trivializes the dead and people will think you daft for NOT fearing death. Tell people that it's rare to be that person actually in the situation, but if it happens here are things you can do (list steps). Is it always going to work? No - but it gives people some control back, and that sense of control has a lot to do with the average person continuing to live their life.

Meh... unreasonable fear/panic/hysteria then if you like that wording better.

[Channel72]

I understand people are afraid and frustrated. I really do. But those emotions should not be allowed to dictate foreign policy. When they do... well, you get something like the Bush years post-911

I've been consistently saying, for months now, that the US should allocate ground troops to help local forces retake Mosul. The attacks in Paris have nothing to do with my position, although they certainly help to make my position more credible.

[The Romulan Republic]

Fair enough. I'll give you points for integrity and consistency. I can't speak to everyone else posting here, because I honestly don't know what everyone's position was before this.

I do think, however, that the level of personal hostility and, yes, dishonesty towards me has gone up, and that may have something to do with the fact that my views do not fit the current mood of many people.

[The Romulan Republic]

But perhaps it would make sense to report about the fact that the number of terror victims in Europe has been rapidly declining since the 70s.
The public has it backwards. The public thinks that terror is rising.

That's interesting.

Could you link to the relevant statistics from a credible source?

I don't really doubt it, but you know, its nice to have the proof.

[salm]

But perhaps it would make sense to report about the fact that the number of terror victims in Europe has been rapidly declining since the 70s.
The public has it backwards. The public thinks that terror is rising.

That's interesting.

Could you link to the relevant statistics from a credible source?

I don't really doubt it, but you know, its nice to have the proof.

Here´s a link to the Global Terrorism Database run by the University of Maryland.
Go to "Advanced Search". There you can search by region and other categories.

http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/

[salm]

That's interesting.

Could you link to the relevant statistics from a credible source?

I don't really doubt it, but you know, its nice to have the proof.

Here´s a link to the Global Terrorism Database run by the University of Maryland.
Go to "Advanced Search". There you can search by region and other categories.

http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/[/quote]


Here´s an image of statistic that cites the database mentioned above. The red bars indicated the number of victims in Western Europe. This shows that our spikes nowadays were the normal amount back then.

[Broomstick]

The fact that people wants to react differently to the threat of ISIS after an major attack on Paris as oppose to before the attack is a HUGE indication how people generally behave. Education can only do so much to change people's mind. We are largely irrational under duress. It's impossible to avoid this.

It is, however, possible to mitigate that irrationality.

That is the ENTIRE POINT of emergency drills. You practice what to do in an emergency so when it happens you don't need to engage the rational part of your mind to figure things out, you already have a "program" to follow.

That is the entire point of fire drills, of practicing going to exits and leaving the building is so if fire breaks out you can just do it, not have to think "um... let's see.... fire... need to find exit....where is exit...?" You have muscle memory to help you and it's been proven time and again that even the most minimal rehearsal can help, just walking through the motions solely in your head can give you an edge over someone who has never considered the hazard.

Rinse and repeat for anything you care to name - earthquake drills with kids diving under tables, tornado drills with people crowding into shelters and covering their heads, all those emergency drills I endured in pilot training, all the training police and fire men go through, disaster drills for hospitals, high-rise buildings practicing both evacuations and shelter-in-place.

It doesn't matter if you're scared if you can still act properly for the situation. Indeed, being scared can make you run faster, ignore minor pain and discomforts, and otherwise enhance your survival as long as you don't panic. And one of the best ways NOT to panic in an emergency is to have something to do. Hell, they even covered that in my pilot training - if you're having an emergency and a passenger seems to be heading towards panic give that person something to do. Doesn't matter what - have them watch an instrument, have them read a checklist, have them fucking pray if that calms them down (won't hurt, and if it keeps them calm that's one instance where prayer actually works for something useful).

In other words, stop telling people not to fear. That's about as useful as screaming CALM DOWN! in someone's face. Instead, give them a means to channel that fear to something other than panic.

[Broomstick]

Meh... unreasonable fear/panic/hysteria then if you like that wording better.

Yes, I like that wording better.

"Yes, it's scary and I understand you're concerned, but let's not panic over this risk here."

[ray245]

No they don´t. I´ve never in my life seen a multy day campaign of every single newspaper/tv station/internet magazine reporting on a traffic accident, often with multiple articles about it on the front page combined with news tickers that are updated by the minute.

That doesn't mean there's no report on accidents. News allocated things to frontpage based on the stuff that will attract people's attention in the first place.

Terrorism is more frightening to people, hence the interest in the news agency to cater to the market demand. Why do people react more often to news about natural diaster as opposed to traffic accidents? Or we react less to people dying of cancer than traffic accidents. Not all death is the same. We respond to different kinds of threat different. It's not a mere numbers game.

It is, however, possible to mitigate that irrationality.

That is the ENTIRE POINT of emergency drills. You practice what to do in an emergency so when it happens you don't need to engage the rational part of your mind to figure things out, you already have a "program" to follow.

That is the entire point of fire drills, of practicing going to exits and leaving the building is so if fire breaks out you can just do it, not have to think "um... let's see.... fire... need to find exit....where is exit...?" You have muscle memory to help you and it's been proven time and again that even the most minimal rehearsal can help, just walking through the motions solely in your head can give you an edge over someone who has never considered the hazard.

Rinse and repeat for anything you care to name - earthquake drills with kids diving under tables, tornado drills with people crowding into shelters and covering their heads, all those emergency drills I endured in pilot training, all the training police and fire men go through, disaster drills for hospitals, high-rise buildings practicing both evacuations and shelter-in-place.

It doesn't matter if you're scared if you can still act properly for the situation. Indeed, being scared can make you run faster, ignore minor pain and discomforts, and otherwise enhance your survival as long as you don't panic. And one of the best ways NOT to panic in an emergency is to have something to do. Hell, they even covered that in my pilot training - if you're having an emergency and a passenger seems to be heading towards panic give that person something to do. Doesn't matter what - have them watch an instrument, have them read a checklist, have them fucking pray if that calms them down (won't hurt, and if it keeps them calm that's one instance where prayer actually works for something useful).

In other words, stop telling people not to fear. That's about as useful as screaming CALM DOWN! in someone's face. Instead, give them a means to channel that fear to something other than panic.

Here's the interesting bit. There's hardly any major news agency or papers that is actually saying this to people, even if they are more left-wing/liberal. They are telling people there's nothing to fear, which doesn't resonate well among many people currently.

It doesn't help that this attack occurred months AFTER the CH attacks, which shows many people that increased security is NOT enough to prevent death. This has caused some people to over panic and feel as if the only way to be secure is to reject refugees and Muslims from coming into Europe and hoping Europe can be a place like Japan.

[The Romulan Republic]

Alright, I want to ask this as an honest question, since this issue has come up repeatedly of late-

How should those of us who wish to dissuade panic, and the heavy handed and often discriminatory responses that accompany it, frame our arguments so that people will be most open to them? Because I agree that simply saying not to panic is not enough.

[salm]

That doesn't mean there's no report on accidents. News allocated things to frontpage based on the stuff that will attract people's attention in the first place.

So what? They can report about terror attacks. They should report on terror attacks. They should not report in a hysterical fashion. If they reported on terror like they reported on traffic I´d be a very happy man.

Terrorism is more frightening to people, hence the interest in the news agency to cater to the market demand. Why do people react more often to news about natural diaster as opposed to traffic accidents? Or we react less to people dying of cancer than traffic accidents. Not all death is the same. We respond to different kinds of threat different. It's not a mere numbers game.

That is the point. Like I said in the beginning. News agencies are greedy assholes. They´re hyping terror attacks like a release of a god damn Micheal Jackson album in the 80s.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ugg, don't remind me. I watched a bit of CNN yesterday, in the apparently mistaken belief that they were going to have something potentially interesting on, and was quickly reminded of why I loath them.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Fair enough. I'll give you points for integrity and consistency. I can't speak to everyone else posting here, because I honestly don't know what everyone's position was before this.

I do think, however, that the level of personal hostility and, yes, dishonesty towards me has gone up, and that may have something to do with the fact that my views do not fit the current mood of many people.

I dont talk about it much, mostly because I am actually somewhat more hawkish than most of my fellow leftists (I have this insane belief that we have a moral obligation to stop genocidal douchebags etc). I did specify (it may not have been here)back when Assad first used nerve gas we should have crushed him like an insect directly and then used that position to ensure that the resulting power vacuum did not lead to a larger civil war while the government transitioned (which would also give us some sway in making sure raging assholes did not take over). We should have reached an entente with the Russians then, and done it. We may not have needed to use ground troops then (or would have needed limited numbers), because the free syrian army and various sane rebel groups could have done the job, and most of the population would have welcomed the help (they were already in rebellion for fuck's sake. We could have at least sent out feelers in that respect). Infrastructure had not been completely destroyed yet etc.

Then the civil war spiraled out of control and outright Jihadists showed up, then Da'esh broke off from Al Queda...

Now we have to use ground troops if we dont want Syria turning into a dystopian nightmare run by something out of an Ian Flemming novel.

No one is trying to accuse me of seeking a diplomatic solution with IS?

Alyrium Denryle did just that. Would you like me to quote it again?

I dont think you sympathize with Da'esh. I just think you are the sort of person who would probably have elected not to get involved in the Balkans in the 1990s despite genocide if the Balkans/Iraq time-stamps were reversed.

You appear to reject the prospect of significant western military involvement in taking down Da'esh. You support *some of* what is being done now, but none of what we are doing now will actually stop those goat-fuckers from selling young women into sex slavery or maintaining control over the territory they currently posses while they execute religious minorities in job lots. Air strikes cannot do that. Only infantry can, because only infantry can hold territory. Air strikes also kill a fuckload of civilians. Always have.

Which means some sort of diplomatic solution is all that is left on the table in the medium to long term, as far as I can infer from your prior statements.

Then there is this little gem.

As to what we should do...

I strongly oppose military action in Syria because of the risk of a conflict with Russia.

I think that some military involvement in Iraq to keep IS from overrunning the country is justifiable, but I will not go into details. I'm not entirely sure what the best policy is.

Diplomatic and humanitarian efforts in the Middle East should be stepped up.

With respect to dealing with Da'esh in Syriia, how exactly do you expect me to interpret this other than "Do nothing other than attempt diplomacy"?

Should we pray that Russia (and now France, who we are obliged by treaty to assist) sends in ground forces and then simply accept Assad remaining in power despite having committed crimes against humanity and despite another civil war being inevitable as long as he retains his power?

That does not seem workable to me.

[ray245]

Alright, I want to ask this as an honest question, since this issue has come up repeatedly of late-

How should those of us who wish to dissuade panic, and the heavy handed and often discriminatory responses that accompany it, frame our arguments so that people will be most open to them? Because I agree that simply saying not to panic is not enough.

Think of solutions that can end the threat of ISIS faster and more definitively than current proposed solutions, as opposed to simply saying current measures aren't effective.

The question and debate now ISN'T about what measures we can take to make sure the next attack is less successful. It's about how to ensure they have zero capabilities to even plan out the next attack. War has already been declared, so the discussion had already moved on to the next stage. There's no point in trying to cling onto the idea that public mood haven't changed.

Put it this way, in terms of difficulty, telling people not to be frightened is basically trying to tell the US public after Pearl Harbour not to go to war with Axis.

The debate now is about what is the most effective strategy in ending ISIS (concentrate on them first, try and solve one problem at a time) that the left could offer to a population baying for blood. The QUICKER ISIS is destroyed, the quicker people can calm down.

ISIS isn't merely happy with hiding underground and waging a guerilla war. They WANT to be in direct control of entire cities and wage a successful conventional war against others. They are using suicide attacks as part of a conventional military strategy. Ending their ability to wage a conventional war and control of cities and valuable oil wells would be an important first step towards calming people down.

Understanding what the debate is about is important. Being ignorant that the debate have shifted means you are boxing yourself into a corner where people want to ignore you.

So what? They can report about terror attacks. They should report on terror attacks. They should not report in a hysterical fashion. If they reported on terror like they reported on traffic I´d be a very happy man.

They will only do so when Europe faced as much terrorist threat on a daily basis like what the Iraqi or Tunisians are facing. People only get immune to such attacks if it happens frequent enough. People responding in a hysterical manner is a good indication that things aren't as bad as it is. It means people are UNUSED to such violence in their society.

I would hate to have any society being used to this kind of violence. It's why people on the Internet ignored the bombings in Beirut because people's response is "meh, it happens all the time over there". It's morally depressing to accept terrorist attacks as a part of life.

That is the point. Like I said in the beginning. News agencies are greedy assholes. They´re hyping terror attacks like a release of a god damn Micheal Jackson album in the 80s.

Hype only exist because there is demand for it. News agency rarely have as much influence as they would like to control how they wished to respond to news. If a News keep trying to be entirely calm and treat it like a traffic accident, a LARGE number of its readership would be outraged by what the News is doing.

The more rational you try to be, the more it is going to piss off others because you come across as being cold and detached from the suffering of the dead in these attacks. Many humans seek that kind of emotional connection from News agencies and other people in such tragedy. It's a way of responding to grief.

[ray245]

I dont talk about it much, mostly because I am actually somewhat more hawkish than most of my fellow leftists (I have this insane belief that we have a moral obligation to stop genocidal douchebags etc). I did specify (it may not have been here)back when Assad first used nerve gas we should have crushed him like an insect directly and then used that position to ensure that the resulting power vacuum did not lead to a larger civil war while the government transitioned (which would also give us some sway in making sure raging assholes did not take over). We should have reached an entente with the Russians then, and done it. We may not have needed to use ground troops then (or would have needed limited numbers), because the free syrian army and various sane rebel groups could have done the job, and most of the population would have welcomed the help (they were already in rebellion for fuck's sake. We could have at least sent out feelers in that respect). Infrastructure had not been completely destroyed yet etc.

In large part, I do blame the strong anti-war movement on the left for being overly optimistic about the situation in Iraq and Syria. Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan is ALWAYS going to be a mess. We saw how the infrastructure of Iraq and Syria was ENTIRELY sustained by the very strong military presence in those places.

It's entirely too optimistic to assume that if the West leave the Middle East alone, terrorist groups would stop carrying out attacks on the West. Either that or there's no way the events in the Middle East could affect the West as if there is some sort of magical barrier that prevent refugees from fleeing to Europe and resulting in the biggest human migration since the second world war. Too many people wanted to assume that the ramification of wars in N. Africa and the Middle East would have little impact on Europe, US and etc. Now such view has been entirely discredited. Europe has shown its difficulty in handling the spillover effect of having ONE major civil war.

A half-fucked intervention effort has caused this entire mess because no one knows what to do since the Arab Spring movement begun. All the bombings have done is prolonged the war because all the crazy factions can simply reoccupy the space once the Jets left the combat zone. If the West want to decide on what to do in the Middle East, they need to make up their mind once and for all. Any half-measures will only prolong the conflict, sending mor refugees running away and etc.

Syria has been destroyed as a country beyond any easy repair because the war dragged on with Assad nearly about to lose before the Russians and Iran came to his help. Baghdad was facing the possibility of being under seige before US deployed its planes to halt the advance of ISIS. The Yazidi were almost wiped out as a people until the West started their bombings to halt the advance of ISIS.

[The Romulan Republic]

I dont talk about it much, mostly because I am actually somewhat more hawkish than most of my fellow leftists (I have this insane belief that we have a moral obligation to stop genocidal douchebags etc).

So do I, believe it or not. But that doesn't mean we'll always agree on how to do it, of course.

I did specify (it may not have been here)back when Assad first used nerve gas we should have crushed him like an insect directly and then used that position to ensure that the resulting power vacuum did not lead to a larger civil war while the government transitioned (which would also give us some sway in making sure raging assholes did not take over). We should have reached an entente with the Russians then, and done it. We may not have needed to use ground troops then (or would have needed limited numbers), because the free syrian army and various sane rebel groups could have done the job, and most of the population would have welcomed the help (they were already in rebellion for fuck's sake. We could have at least sent out feelers in that respect). Infrastructure had not been completely destroyed yet etc.

I actually might have gone for kicking out Assad by force over the gassing, at least if not for the issue of Russia. Hell, I might go for it now if not for the issue of Russia, though I retain major misgivings about large scale ground deployments. When I feel that their is a more than a minuscule chance of military conflict between nuclear powers, a war almost inevitably moves into the "not worth it" category for me.

Then the civil war spiraled out of control and outright Jihadists showed up, then Da'esh broke off from Al Queda...

Oh, it got worse, no doubt about that. Though I think their's been a Jihadi element for a long time, and their is still a non-Jihadi element (the Kurds come to mind).

Now we have to use ground troops if we dont want Syria turning into a dystopian nightmare run by something out of an Ian Flemming novel.

I'm not certain. I sincerely hope you're wrong. But I actually think large numbers of ground troops might make it worse.

My fears with ground troops can basically be summarized as follows:

1. Backlash over a perceived imperialist occupation.
2. Possible resulting increase in Jihadi recruitment.
3.Atrocities that may be committed by those troops.
4. Lack of political will for it.

I dont think you sympathize with Da'esh. I just think you are the sort of person who would probably have elected not to get involved in the Balkans in the 1990s despite genocide if the Balkans/Iraq time-stamps were reversed.

Maybe you didn't accuse me of sympathizing with them (that was more directed at some of Broomstick's comments), but you think, or claim to think, that I want to achieve a diplomatic solution with them, and that's horse shit.

I mean, if IS magically transformed into a group that was open to such a thing, maybe then, but I might as well wish for Q to snap his fingers and make it all go away. And probably not even then, because they've committed so many crimes I wouldn't be satisfied with any concessions less than all their leadership and a lot of their rank and files in prison for life for war crimes.

I barely remember what happened in the Balkans, so I hesitate to give an opinion. I will say that my usual opinion is that military intervention to stop genocide is justified if their is not a high likelihood of it expanding into a conflict between major/nuclear powers.

You appear to reject the prospect of significant western military involvement in taking down Da'esh. You support *some of* what is being done now, but none of what we are doing now will actually stop those goat-fuckers from selling young women into sex slavery or maintaining control over the territory they currently posses while they execute religious minorities in job lots. Air strikes cannot do that. Only infantry can, because only infantry can hold territory. Air strikes also kill a fuckload of civilians. Always have.

I am aware that airstrikes can kill civilians, of course, though I believe we should try to minimize such casualties as much as possible, and of course not deliberately target civilians.

I also accept the need for infantry. However, my hope is that it can be done largely with local troops. No, that hasn't succeeded yet. But let's be honest. No strategy is going to end this in a day. Send in a huge ground force and IS simply goes underground and wages an insurgency like we fought for years in Iraq and Afghanistan before they ever showed up. Unless we're prepared to basically level whole neighbourhoods, anyway. And probably even then.

Also, maybe I'm overreacting, but doesn't "goat fuckers" have some racist/Islamophobic connotations to it?

Which means some sort of diplomatic solution is all that is left on the table in the medium to long term, as far as I can infer from your prior statements.

Then there is this little gem.

As to what we should do...

I strongly oppose military action in Syria because of the risk of a conflict with Russia.

I think that some military involvement in Iraq to keep IS from overrunning the country is justifiable, but I will not go into details. I'm not entirely sure what the best policy is.

Diplomatic and humanitarian efforts in the Middle East should be stepped up.

With respect to dealing with Da'esh in Syriia, how exactly do you expect me to interpret this other than "Do nothing other than attempt diplomacy"?

Should we pray that Russia (and now France, who we are obliged by treaty to assist) sends in ground forces and then simply accept Assad remaining in power despite having committed crimes against humanity and despite another civil war being inevitable as long as he retains his power?

That does not seem workable to me.

I despise Assad, and have made that clear repeatedly on this forum, but I do not believe removing him by force is practical at this time. Believe me, if Russia was out of the picture, I'd be quite open to us raining bombs on that motherfucker. Maybe even ground troops, despite my misgivings.

However, as things stand, I support the diplomatic efforts of the US, Russia, and others to achieve a ceasefire and transition to a new Syrian government, which I have posted on previously here. I have no idea if those efforts are proceeding in good faith or will ultimately succeed, but that's what I want. That is basically the diplomatic solution I support (that and getting as many people as possible into an anti-IS coalition).

If we can work things out with Russia and get a clear agreement to work together, then I will be open to continuing airstrikes in Syria, and possibly sending in small scale ground forces.

I'm also open to giving support to local forces as we have been doing, provided they are carefully vetted.

One more point- as I understand it from stuff I've read on the subject, we would only be obligated by treaty to help France if Article Five of NATO is invoked. However, one can certainly argue that we have a moral obligation to them regardless. However, their are various forms that help can take.

[The Romulan Republic]

Actually, let me add an obvious concern I have over ground troops in Syria that I clumsily omitted- it would vastly increase the risk of a clash with Russia.

[salm]

Hype only exist because there is demand for it. News agency rarely have as much influence as they would like to control how they wished to respond to news. If a News keep trying to be entirely calm and treat it like a traffic accident, a LARGE number of its readership would be outraged by what the News is doing.

The more rational you try to be, the more it is going to piss off others because you come across as being cold and detached from the suffering of the dead in these attacks. Many humans seek that kind of emotional connection from News agencies and other people in such tragedy. It's a way of responding to grief.

No. Hype exists because media keeps pushing it hysterically.

It is possible to report on a subject with emotional connection combined with rational analysis without being hysterical. The pure capitalist approach of "they´re just selling what we are buying" doesn´t work here. There is such a thing a s journalistic responsibility.

[ray245]

I am aware that airstrikes can kill civilians, of course, though I believe we should try to minimize such casualties as much as possible, and of course not deliberately target civilians.

I also accept the need for infantry. However, my hope is that it can be done largely with local troops. No, that hasn't succeeded yet. But let's be honest. No strategy is going to end this in a day. Send in a huge ground force and IS simply goes underground and wages an insurgency like we fought for years in Iraq and Afghanistan before they ever showed up. Unless we're prepared to basically level whole neighbourhoods, anyway. And probably even then.

There's one really massive problem with local troops, especially in the case of Syria. Other than the Kurds, there are no major secular factions left in the Syrian civil war. And the Kurds do not want to take over Syria.

Letting the local troops ( other than Assad and Kurds) fight the ground battle means letting other factions like Al-Nusar to take over, which is just as bad as ISIS. There are NO liberal/democratic factions left in this war that is strong enough to hold the country together. Any hope of that is gone.

Almost every Western trained/backed faction have collapse and ending up giving them weapons to ISIS and other factions.

I despise Assad, and have made that clear repeatedly on this forum, but I do not believe removing him by force is practical at this time. Believe me, if Russia was out of the picture, I'd be quite open to us raining bombs on that motherfucker. Maybe even ground troops, despite my misgivings.

However, as things stand, I support the diplomatic efforts of the US, Russia, and others to achieve a ceasefire and transition to a new Syrian government, which I have posted on previously here. I have no idea if those efforts are proceeding in good faith or will ultimately succeed, but that's what I want. That is basically the diplomatic solution I support (that and getting as many people as possible into an anti-IS coalition).

If we can work things out with Russia and get a clear agreement to work together, then I will be open to continuing airstrikes in Syria, and possibly sending in small scale ground forces.

I'm also open to giving support to local forces as we have been doing, provided they are carefully vetted.

The only faction that is somewhat reasonable with the West's ideas is the Kurds ( with one faction being Communist). Every other faction that the West have backed has been entirely destroyed. In other words, no other faction in left in the Syrian Civil War is going to be any acceptable by Western standards. The strongest opposition to Assad has been OTHER Islamic factions that do want to impose a Sunni state and wipe out other minorities supporting Assad.

No. Hype exists because media keeps pushing it hysterically.

It is possible to report on a subject with emotional connection combined with rational analysis without being hysterical. The pure capitalist approach of "they´re just selling what we are buying" doesn´t work here. There is such a thing a s journalistic responsibility.

That depends on the Public mood. Just take a look at the comment section in the Guardian for example. There has been HUGE amount of post that rejected the position of Guardian, with very few comments offering their support of the Guardian editorial opinions. Of course it doesn't necessary mean all the commentators are left-wing, but it shows the limitation of rational discourse in the current public mood.

It shows the limitation of the media in being able to formulate the opinions of its readers. Even some of the right-wing paper have opposed carrying out further bombings, but that does not mean their readership agrees with them.

You are completely underestimating the public mood and overestimating the power of the media in influencing people's opinion. Carry on ignoring it and you are making less and less people in your arguments.

[Broomstick]

My fears with ground troops can basically be summarized as follows:

1. Backlash over a perceived imperialist occupation.
2. Possible resulting increase in Jihadi recruitment.
3.Atrocities that may be committed by those troops.
4. Lack of political will for it.

OK, while I share your concern on point #4, and I can see an argument for 1 and 2, for #3...

You're talking about a battlefield that already seen the use of poison gas, genocidal murder of unarmed civilians, systematic rape and sexual slavery.... and you're worried about OUR troops committing atrocities?!?!?!?!

This is where I think you're an idiot. I'm assuming you are aware of these things, but when you talk like that you appear to some sort of ignoramus who doesn't know what the other side is doing. And that's why people repeatedly TELL you what they're doing, despite your claims to already know, because you talk like you are unaware of the facts.

What the hell do you think our troops are going to do?

And frankly, I don't give a fuck about #1. When bad guys from your neighborhood start shooting up and bombing the major cities of world powers you're going to get some unwanted visitors. If this shit just stayed in the Middle East that argument might hold water but that ship sailed already. The Germans didn't get a say in the Allies carving up Berlin, the Syrians don't get a say in the current world powers who are being targeted by the Jihadist scumbags carving up their territory. That may not be right in an ethical sense, but it is how the world works. Once your problems spill onto other peoples' territories those other people suddenly get a say in your shit, particularly if those other people are bigger and better armed than you are. Fair? No, just reality.

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course I know about IS's atrocities. And lots of other peoples' atrocities. I'd just rather not add to the pile, and so prefer a course of action which minimizes the risk of such horrors. Of course, airstrikes can still result in atrocities (that MSF hospital in Afghanistan comes to mind).

But that is only one of five points I just raised against ground troops (I added another- that it could make things worse with Russia). And you seem willing to acknowledge the validity of at least some of them.

As to number one, I'm not saying that an invasion automatically would be imperialist. But I do think that a lot of people would perceive it that way, and that could have reprecussions that would make the war harder.

ray245, if what you say about the local factions is accurate, then I say we try to achieve a transition to a better Syrian government diplomatically and let them and the Kurds split the country, while providing support to them to kick IS's teeth in.

[ray245]

Of course I know about IS's atrocities. And lots of other peoples' atrocities. I'd just rather not add to the pile, and so prefer a course of action which minimizes the risk of such horrors. Of course, airstrikes can still result in atrocities (that MSF hospital in Afghanistan comes to mind).

Those things happen when you have zero idea what is going on at the ground level and bombing having limited use to begin with. It's good to halt an enemy marching forward to the Kurds or the Iraqi army. It's not so useful when you are trying to figure out which target is the legit target in a city that once housed several hundred thousand people to a few million people. Bombs are never meant to be so precise in targeting the RIGHT building in an overcrowded city.

But that is only one of five points I just raised against ground troops (I added another- that it could make things worse with Russia). And you seem willing to acknowledge the validity of at least some of them.

As to number one, I'm not saying that an invasion automatically would be imperialist. But I do think that a lot of people would perceive it that way, and that could have reprecussions that would make the war harder.

They are already seeing airstrikes as being a valid excuse to attack cities like Paris. If they did not actually attack Paris, then perhaps we can have another debate.

ray245, if what you say about the local factions is accurate, then I say we try to achieve a transition to a better Syrian government diplomatically and let them and the Kurds split the country, while providing support to them to kick IS's teeth in.

Good luck getting the people to support a brand new government that have not fought on their own in the Syrian Civil War. Assad is already seen by many as a Russian and Iranian puppet. And this is the legit (at least they still have the formality of being one) government we are talking about.

Supporting the Kurds in carving a piece of Kurdistan would allow Turkey to go apeshit because some of the Kurdish faction are considered to be terrorist by the Turkish population and HAD committed ugly terrorist attacks on them in the past. Not to mention the Kurd-controlled territory would be rather tiny compared to the rest of Syria. Turkey hates the Kurds more than ISIS.

There is NO better government that the West can hope to back in this war. Any faction that the West have backed have already lost the civil war. Good luck trying to convince the Syrians that this government( likely to be built from a bunch of losers) won't fall apart the second Western public got tired of sending their kids to die in Syria.

This is why the war in Syria and Libya is so fucked up. There is no legit party that the West can support if they cling onto notions of trying to find the most "moral" party in this war. Human rights have went way out of the window among every single faction in this war for a pretty long time. Do you know what the Yazidi are doing to the Muslim population after IS was kicked out from minor cities and towns? They are taking revenge on the Sunni population who were seen as aiding ISIS.

Every faction right now are utterly immoral and ugly. There is zero hope of a "moderate" party coming to power. Everyone hates each other far too much that the only acceptable outcome is the complete destruction of other parties and their supporters ( even if they are civilians). There are PLENTY of horror stories of what the "good" Kurds are doing once they retook towns from ISIS as well.

The only solution France is doing right now is to back a faction that they know will not try and launch another attack on them again. Assad is becoming an option because they know even if Assad wins, he will not order an attack on French soil.

Of course, the problem is Assad has been losing the war against Al-Nursa, ISIS and other "moderate" rebel groups even when Russia has been providing him with lots of support. Even his most loyal supporters are getting tired of sending all their kids to die on the battlefield while losing bases left and right.


This is how well the US-backed rebels have been fairing.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fwxmjs0TKkI[/youtube]

[Thanas]

Actual update: They got the planner of the attack.

May he rot.

[Broomstick]

But that is only one of five points I just raised against ground troops (I added another- that it could make things worse with Russia). And you seem willing to acknowledge the validity of at least some of them.

Yes, which I have been willing to do all along but you seem determined to paint either "us" or "them" on everyone in this debate.

As to number one, I'm not saying that an invasion automatically would be imperialist. But I do think that a lot of people would perceive it that way, and that could have reprecussions that would make the war harder.

And.... so what? This will be a hard war regardless.

Fact is, NO ONE in the ME will welcome anyone from outside like the liberated French celebrating the Allies taking back Paris from the Nazis. Just not going to happen. If we will be despised regardless of what we do then why not act in our own self interest, as ethically as we can under the circumstances?

ray245, if what you say about the local factions is accurate, then I say we try to achieve a transition to a better Syrian government diplomatically and let them and the Kurds split the country, while providing support to them to kick IS's teeth in.

As several people have already said there are no "nice" people to back in this. The "legtimate" government has been rejected pretty thoroughly by the Syrians, to the point that the country has descended into chaos among factions that are, to our eyes, just as appalling, or more so, than Assad.

And I get what you say about concerns of making the situation worse with Russia. However, the Russians are ruthlessly self-interested. That is why the strategy of MAD worked during the Cold War. Despite numerous accidents and provocations the Cold War never erupted into a Hot War. Why? Because both the US and USSR completely understood on a gut level what a losing proposition that would have been. There was no way either side could win, both would lose no matter what. So neither side started a war, because it was in the interest of neither side to do so. Yes, that's simplistic, but it worked.

By the way - it won't work with the Jihadists. They had zero problems killing themselves to kills their enemies. If you tried MAD with them they'd move to a first launch - sure, they die, but you're dead, too! Mission accomplished!

Anyhow - Russia currently is just as ruthlessly self-interested as the USSR was. Putin and company understand that it is not in their self-interest to get into a shooting war with the US. I expect that even now the two sides are coordinating in regards to air attacks to minimize the risks of any accidents, and if one does occur it won't be kneejerk reaction to war between the two major powers but rather a resolution between allies that have experienced a friendly fire fatality. It's not like the situation is unprecedented, these sorts of things have always happened and they can be resolved peaceably between allies. Which, if we're working together on the Syria situation, we would be even if we aren't friends otherwise.

[Broomstick]

Actual update: They got the planner of the attack.

May he rot.

The meme I've seen on the internet is "may be rest in pieces... tiny, tiny pieces".

At least he won't be killing anyone else.