Paris is Burning

[MOIDALIZE]

I feel like everyone should leave this thread for about a week, and then come back to it.

[Guinastasia]

@CoolHandCox

I’m probably very ignorant, but not dumb.

Jury’s still out on that one.

[John_Mace]

@Kobal2

Just in case anybody’s wondering (I highly doubt it, but eh) : I’m fine, so are my peoples.

In fact, I was thinking about both you and clairobscur. Not sure who else here posts from France.

[CoolHandCox]

@Guinastasia

Jury’s still out on that one.

Yeah, well, Scooby Doo can doo-doo, but Jimmy Carter is smarter.

[John_Mace]

@Kobal2

Yeah. But it just so happens that lately “the best available intelligence” often boils down to statistical probabilities based on metadata rather than, you know, *actual *intelligence. Or even simple, basic identification of who exactly the people getting blown up are. John Oliver did a whole segment on how disturbingly low the bar is set for drone strike approval and how that affects the lives of innocent people - and not just those getting blown up, either.

@CarnalK

People don’t think that and that’s not what clairobscur said.

Yep, to both. Maybe some people think that, but I don’t know how common it is. This whole business of targeting killings based on movement patterns is very iffy, at best.

[John_Mace]

Anyone interested can look up “Signature Strikes” if they want some details about what we are talking about.

[Jonathan_Chance]

@Guinastasia

Jury’s still out on that one.

That’s enough of that from both of you.

[Donald_Rump]

A question for the board. The US has been pretty successful foiling terrorist plots since 9/11. The would-be underwear bomber, the would-be Times Square bomber, a bunch of other random plots over the years, etc. The Boston bombers slipped through the cracks, but generally we have not experienced much in the way of large-scale Islamic terrorism since 9/11. Is the US just doing a better job than France when it comes to policing and intelligence, or is the recent frequency of attacks in France more a reflection of its demographics and geographic position? Could France address the problem by emulating whatever the US is doing in its (domestic) approach to counter-terrorism?

[CarnalK]

The underwear bomber? Seriously? Yes that was quite the coup for American anti-terrorist intelligence work. And yes, let’s ignore the Boston bombing because reasons.

France has a higher muslim population and that population is much less integrated. France is also not the “island nation” that the U.S. is. This makes them more susceptible, imho. Even still, not sure these two recent attacks (Hebdo and this one) proves a pattern. I am sure the French authorities could trot out a similar number of thwarted plans that US authorities might.

[Kobal2]

@Donald_Rump

Could France address the problem by emulating whatever the US is doing in its (domestic) approach to counter-terrorism?

Well we could emulate being 10.000 kilometers and a large-ish ocean away from the Middle East I suppose. Possibly using a couple of very large buzzsaws, some booster rockets… I’ll napkin the math and get back to you.

(that’s not just a very clever and amusing joke, btw. You can *drive *from Syria to France in three or four days if you care to. Won’t face a border check from the time you hit Bulgaria onwards, either).

[boffking]

@Donald_Rump

A question for the board. The US has been pretty successful foiling terrorist plots since 9/11. The would-be underwear bomber, the would-be Times Square bomber, a bunch of other random plots over the years, etc. The Boston bombers slipped through the cracks, but generally we have not experienced much in the way of large-scale Islamic terrorism since 9/11. Is the US just doing a better job than France when it comes to policing and intelligence, or is the recent frequency of attacks in France more a reflection of its demographics and geographic position? Could France address the problem by emulating whatever the US is doing in its (domestic) approach to counter-terrorism?

What about Dylan Roof, or the attack on Gabrielle Giffords, or the many small attacks by white supremacists? Not all terrorists are muslim.

[Magiver]

@davida03801

Just yesterday morning the White House claimed that ISIS is being “contained”.

Well none of them have landed on the moon yet. So that claim is true.

[CarnalK]

@boffking

What about Dylan Roof, or the attack on Gabrielle Giffords, or the many small attacks by white supremacists? Not all terrorists are muslim.

Giffords murder wasn’t a terrorist attack by any useful definition afaik.

[Claverhouse]

@Donald_Rump

A question for the board. The US has been pretty successful foiling terrorist plots since 9/11. The would-be underwear bomber, the would-be Times Square bomber, a bunch of other random plots over the years, etc. The Boston bombers slipped through the cracks, but generally we have not experienced much in the way of large-scale Islamic terrorism since 9/11. Is the US just doing a better job than France when it comes to policing and intelligence, or is the recent frequency of attacks in France more a reflection of its demographics and geographic position? Could France address the problem by emulating whatever the US is doing in its (domestic) approach to counter-terrorism?

The French, being weak and dainty, with their trademark frivolity and unwillingness to think things through, don’t have the strength of mind and Can-Do spirit that has led to each American refusing to be attacked; nor have they been willing to be spied on so much for their own good.

Americans trust the NSA and are sure it will always do the right thing. Other countries have less love for those charged with controlling them.
Those who would give up essential Protection, to purchase a little temporary Privacy, deserve neither Protection nor Privacy.

[Broomstick]

@Donald_Rump

Many of these attacks are said by their perpetrators to be in response to Western military activities in the Middle East. To the extent those statements are true, a reduced Western military footprint in the Middle East would diminish the casus belli driving terrorist attacks on the West. That’s how doing less would, in the long run, help. Of course, this approach would have to be coupled with vigilant police and intelligence work, of the sort that has foiled so many would-be attackers in the US since 9/11.

Now, maybe the terrorists are lying about why they’re attacking us. Or maybe the occasional terrorist attack is a necessary trade-off for us pursuing our interests in the Middle East. Or maybe a better solution altogether is indeed more military engagement with the source of the threat and the real policy failure has been to do too little against ISIS, which seems to be the establishment consensus on the issue.

Or maybe backing off from pressuring ISIS is the 21st Century’s Munich Agreement of 1938. Trying to appease the other side/give them what they want/avoid war just leads to worse problems down the road.

While “the west” withdrawing from the Middle East would appease SOME radicals it will not appease ALL of them.

[Broomstick]

@CoolHandCox

Because it’s not true. The amount of places where 100+ people gather versus the amount of times some guys walk in there and shoot everyone up is practically non-existent.

There’s a world of difference between “practically non-existent” and “actually non-existent”. This may be news to you, but most people are not comfortable running a risk of being in the line of fire. That is, after all, why we invented laws and civilization.

@Donald_Rump

A question for the board. The US has been pretty successful foiling terrorist plots since 9/11. The would-be underwear bomber, the would-be Times Square bomber, a bunch of other random plots over the years, etc. The Boston bombers slipped through the cracks, but generally we have not experienced much in the way of large-scale Islamic terrorism since 9/11. Is the US just doing a better job than France when it comes to policing and intelligence, or is the recent frequency of attacks in France more a reflection of its demographics and geographic position? Could France address the problem by emulating whatever the US is doing in its (domestic) approach to counter-terrorism?

As previously noted, there are significant differences between the US and France, such as a higher proportion of Muslims in France vs. the US, and the American Muslims being far better integrated into American society. There is also the matter of sheer distance and an ocean between the US and the MENA vs. as noted being able to drive or walk from France to the MENA.

@boffking

What about Dylan Roof, or the attack on Gabrielle Giffords, or the many small attacks by white supremacists? Not all terrorists are muslim.

That’s probably another difference between the US and France and some other nations - in the US, outside of 9/11, our worst terrorism events have mostly been perpetrated by home-grown white people.

[GIGObuster]

@davida03801

Just yesterday morning the White House claimed that ISIS is being “contained”.

@Magiver

Well none of them have landed on the moon yet. So that claim is true.

Well, I have seen that the WH has reasons to claim that.

Kurdish forces: ISIS 'defeated and on the run' in key Iraqi town

End of ISIS near? Caliphate so depleted it is recruiting disabled CHIL

"Sinjar is liberated," U.S.-allied Kurds declare

And if we get credit to Russia:

ISIS running scared: Militants 'retreating' from strongholds after Put

This report from last year points to the problems ISIS has encountered.

A month ago, ISIS’s advance looked unstoppable. Now it’s been stopped.

There are at least three major causes of ISIS’s recent defeats. Each gives us reason to believe that ISIS may only become more vulnerable as time goes on.

First, while American airstrikes are not going to defeat ISIS, they have seriously limited the group’s ability to conduct offensive operations. “Airpower has made it difficult for ISIS to concentrate its forces in large numbers,” Jason Lyall, a political scientist at Yale University and an expert on counterinsurgency, writes via email. “It has made it more dangerous to reposition its equipment and forces, slowing down its reaction times and complicating its command and control. As a result, ISIS is a far more dispersed force than it was in June.”

The harder it is for ISIS to fight in the open, the harder it is for it to put together troop-intensive drives to conquer territory. If ISIS can’t expand, it can only preserve what it has or retract.

Second, ISIS’s enemies are adapting. ISIS “is a military power mostly because of the weakness and unpreparedness of its enemies,” Knights writes in West Point’s Sentinel journal. ISIS’s advances depend on its ability to launch lightning-quick strikes against opponents that aren’t ready for it. Iraqi and Kurdish forces, with American support, are finally learning how to counter these tactics.

Third, ISIS’s so-called caliphate has hamstrung its military options. “When they declared the caliphate, their legitimacy came to rest on the continuing viability of their state,” Gartenstein-Ross writes.

I did check the latest news from contested placed mentioned in the article, not good for DAESH/ISIS.

Good.

It seems to me that DAESH does want to get NATO forces in so as to get a more worthy martyrdom. They may still get that wish, but I still say that the less the USA intervenes, the better.

[octopus]

@Donald_Rump

A question for the board. The US has been pretty successful foiling terrorist plots since 9/11. The would-be underwear bomber, the would-be Times Square bomber, a bunch of other random plots over the years, etc. The Boston bombers slipped through the cracks, but generally we have not experienced much in the way of large-scale Islamic terrorism since 9/11. Is the US just doing a better job than France when it comes to policing and intelligence, or is the recent frequency of attacks in France more a reflection of its demographics and geographic position? Could France address the problem by emulating whatever the US is doing in its (domestic) approach to counter-terrorism?

It’s just a matter of luck and the fact that those who would commit these acts have been remarkably restrained. Think of the carnage 6 people with rifles can do at a mall, a downtown area, or really anywhere where people congregate and how easy it is to get rifles in the US and be thankful that it hasn’t happened. We do have school shootings and that madness in this country but a small group could do MUCH more than a lone madman.

[Leaper]

@CarnalK

Giffords murder wasn’t a terrorist attack by any useful definition afaik.

Absolutely true — “murder” means the person is dead.

[Donald_Rump]

@Broomstick

Or maybe backing off from pressuring ISIS is the 21st Century’s Munich Agreement of 1938. Trying to appease the other side/give them what they want/avoid war just leads to worse problems down the road.

While “the west” withdrawing from the Middle East would appease SOME radicals it will not appease ALL of them.

Dude, seriously? Germany in 1938 had a larger military budget than any of its immediate neighbors. They had a tremendous industrial base and had a legitimate shot at a bid for continental hegemony. Yes, ISIS can threaten the safety of various Western countries, in the same sense that mass shooters or domestic right-wing terrorists can. Not hard to do, given how open our societies are. But they pose nothing like the threat of Nazi Germany and it’s silly to invoke the ever-tired Munich analogy to argue for more robust action against them.