this article i think is pretty spot on:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6942016.html
my point would be:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6942016.html
my point would be:
By taking up the cause of the Syrian and Libyan opposition and
destroying the Syrian and Libyan states,France and Britain
opened the door to Isis and should share in the blame for the rise of Isis
and terrorism in Europe.By refusing to admit to or learn from past mistakes,
the West Europeans did little to lay the basis for the current,surprisingly successful cessation of
hostilities in Syria which is almost entirely an US and Russian achievement.
Britain and France have stuck close to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies in their policies towards Syria.
I asked a former negotiator why this was so and he crisply replied: Money.They wanted Saudi contracts.
After the capture of Salah Abdeslam there is talk of security lapses that had allowed him to evade arrest for so long,
but this is largely irrelevant as terrorist attacks will go on as long
as Isis remains a power.Once again,the wall-to-wall media coverage is allowing Western governments to escape responsibility
for a far worse security failure,which is their own disastrous policies.
destroying the Syrian and Libyan states,France and Britain
opened the door to Isis and should share in the blame for the rise of Isis
and terrorism in Europe.By refusing to admit to or learn from past mistakes,
the West Europeans did little to lay the basis for the current,surprisingly successful cessation of
hostilities in Syria which is almost entirely an US and Russian achievement.
Britain and France have stuck close to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies in their policies towards Syria.
I asked a former negotiator why this was so and he crisply replied: Money.They wanted Saudi contracts.
After the capture of Salah Abdeslam there is talk of security lapses that had allowed him to evade arrest for so long,
but this is largely irrelevant as terrorist attacks will go on as long
as Isis remains a power.Once again,the wall-to-wall media coverage is allowing Western governments to escape responsibility
for a far worse security failure,which is their own disastrous policies.
Not going too deep on the subject, but I think we need some kind of push in the right direction here.
Are these trends real?
What trends? That war has escaped the middle east and the west is not prepared to fight said wars on their own soil? Yes. Most of the western world has troops in the middle east fighting a regime, and its followers are fighting us with the means accessible, including fighting said war in the west. "What about the civilians?", since when has the war FN/Nato/US ever fought a war without inflicting civilian casualties? The whole intervention has caused the deaths of thousands of innocents, and most of it are on the hands of the west, not said regimes. Sure, oppression exist under a regime, but that said oppression still follows rules of that regime, much like the death sentence in the US follows US law. Now, that we as foreigners believing that said rule is wrong and that thus we should intervene, we have only our morals on which we act as there is no true right thing to do, and as such, if they fight a war on our soil with the same idea it's fair game. "But civilians", yes, why not? We have tried to tidy it up since WW1, but war is gruesome, and as far as I know, they have signed no treaty to not fight us with any means necessary to have the western world stop the intervention in the middle east, or really, any part of the world where we bring death.
What about in terms of severity/amount of life lost?
It's fair game. We kill people, they kill people. To fight our intervention in said zones, one of the best way is to have the people press politicians to withdraw troops, or to reach a scenario similar to MAD where it's simply not a good idea to not stop the intervention in the middle east. After all, we as the west destabilized the first functioning democracy [EDIT] in recent history[/EDIT] in the region over some fucking oil, and we are still to pay the price, as are we to blame for the damage it has caused upon millions of civilians in said region of the world.
What external, possibly previously overlooked factors could be causing this trend?
None? We have pretty much not ignored the factors, but neglected them. We have somehow come to the conclusion that the intervention in the middle east is a good solution, and that's probably where we are wrong, to some extent. However, now that we have birthed ISIS perhaps withdrawing is not a good solution either, but the price of damage control by other means might be very high, including the recent terror attacks, but at no point limited to them. These attacks are most likely only the beginning to a trend that will stretch far into the future as the western world has shown how weak it is to said ways of war.
Would it be ethical or even possible to reduce or eliminate these factors and how?
At this point, there is simply choosing the lesser evil of two horrendous scenarios; a prolonged state of the current war ending in either the second option or a massive invasion/purging of said region of the world (compare to Irak invasion or the nukes over japan). The second option is to withdraw troops and let ISIS form as a state. In essence it's no worse than any other extreme-religious state such as Israel.
Are these trends real?
What trends? That war has escaped the middle east and the west is not prepared to fight said wars on their own soil? Yes. Most of the western world has troops in the middle east fighting a regime, and its followers are fighting us with the means accessible, including fighting said war in the west. "What about the civilians?", since when has the war FN/Nato/US ever fought a war without inflicting civilian casualties? The whole intervention has caused the deaths of thousands of innocents, and most of it are on the hands of the west, not said regimes. Sure, oppression exist under a regime, but that said oppression still follows rules of that regime, much like the death sentence in the US follows US law. Now, that we as foreigners believing that said rule is wrong and that thus we should intervene, we have only our morals on which we act as there is no true right thing to do, and as such, if they fight a war on our soil with the same idea it's fair game. "But civilians", yes, why not? We have tried to tidy it up since WW1, but war is gruesome, and as far as I know, they have signed no treaty to not fight us with any means necessary to have the western world stop the intervention in the middle east, or really, any part of the world where we bring death.
What about in terms of severity/amount of life lost?
It's fair game. We kill people, they kill people. To fight our intervention in said zones, one of the best way is to have the people press politicians to withdraw troops, or to reach a scenario similar to MAD where it's simply not a good idea to not stop the intervention in the middle east. After all, we as the west destabilized the first functioning democracy [EDIT] in recent history[/EDIT] in the region over some fucking oil, and we are still to pay the price, as are we to blame for the damage it has caused upon millions of civilians in said region of the world.
What external, possibly previously overlooked factors could be causing this trend?
None? We have pretty much not ignored the factors, but neglected them. We have somehow come to the conclusion that the intervention in the middle east is a good solution, and that's probably where we are wrong, to some extent. However, now that we have birthed ISIS perhaps withdrawing is not a good solution either, but the price of damage control by other means might be very high, including the recent terror attacks, but at no point limited to them. These attacks are most likely only the beginning to a trend that will stretch far into the future as the western world has shown how weak it is to said ways of war.
Would it be ethical or even possible to reduce or eliminate these factors and how?
At this point, there is simply choosing the lesser evil of two horrendous scenarios; a prolonged state of the current war ending in either the second option or a massive invasion/purging of said region of the world (compare to Irak invasion or the nukes over japan). The second option is to withdraw troops and let ISIS form as a state. In essence it's no worse than any other extreme-religious state such as Israel.
Last edited by Smogard49; Mar 23, 2016 at 11:54 PM.
Reason: left out a important part.
Now doing recoloring for people not in the clan as-well, PM for more info!
PROUD OWNER OF THORN'S GOOD ENOUGH WRITER AWARD!
PROUD OWNER OF THORN'S GOOD ENOUGH WRITER AWARD!
Originally Posted by Smogard49
What this guy said about war.
I think one of the biggest mistakes people make when discussing this topic is calling terror attacks an act of war, or even an eye for an eye attack. At what point did any of the western countries launch an attack which goal was to create maximum civillian casulties and as much terror as possible? Suicide bombing innocent civillians isnt exactly what I would call war. Also ISIS isn't much worse than israel? For shits sake, last time I checked israel didn't exactly take sexslaves for the sole purpose of rape, or behead journalists with opposite views. But hey, what do I know about worse. Sure the west is partially to blame for this shitfest, but please dont call this whole thing a "fair game"
Last edited by Kyure; Mar 24, 2016 at 01:30 AM.
Originally Posted by Smogard49
Not going too deep on the subject, but I think we need some kind of push in the right direction here.
Are these trends real?
What trends? That war has escaped the middle east and the west is not prepared to fight said wars on their own soil? Yes. Most of the western world has troops in the middle east fighting a regime, and its followers are fighting us with the means accessible, including fighting said war in the west. "What about the civilians?", since when has the war FN/Nato/US ever fought a war without inflicting civilian casualties? The whole intervention has caused the deaths of thousands of innocents, and most of it are on the hands of the west, not said regimes. Sure, oppression exist under a regime, but that said oppression still follows rules of that regime, much like the death sentence in the US follows US law. Now, that we as foreigners believing that said rule is wrong and that thus we should intervene, we have only our morals on which we act as there is no true right thing to do, and as such, if they fight a war on our soil with the same idea it's fair game. "But civilians", yes, why not? We have tried to tidy it up since WW1, but war is gruesome, and as far as I know, they have signed no treaty to not fight us with any means necessary to have the western world stop the intervention in the middle east, or really, any part of the world where we bring death.
What about in terms of severity/amount of life lost?
It's fair game. We kill people, they kill people. To fight our intervention in said zones, one of the best way is to have the people press politicians to withdraw troops, or to reach a scenario similar to MAD where it's simply not a good idea to not stop the intervention in the middle east. After all, we as the west destabilized the first functioning democracy [EDIT] in recent history[/EDIT] in the region over some fucking oil, and we are still to pay the price, as are we to blame for the damage it has caused upon millions of civilians in said region of the world.
I may be mistaken, but it feels like the first half of your post is really rather derailing. Whether the West started this shitstorm is irrelevant to whether there is a real observable trend in the number of terrorist attacks over time. Sure you could argue that you are saying we are the terrorists, and therefor our actions in that area must be included in these trends, but you didn't really imply that in your post. Furthermore including act of intervention by the West would probably only add to the suspected trend (an increase), in which case it is irrelevant to bring up. Maybe my questions weren't clear enough, or maybe I am misinterpreting your post even now, but otherwise, try to keep your message to where it is relevant (like the third question I listed, which the first half of your post would of fitted well into)
On a side note, people should not feel obliged to answer all three of the questions at once. Two people have now tried to provide answers for every single question at once, but I have not seen any links showing statistical evidence that there are even any trends in the amount of terrorism over the last few years. You need to lay a solid foundation before you can do the flamboyant, more opinion based stuff. The technical boring stuff should come before self expression and flair.
-----
Last edited by Zelda; Mar 24, 2016 at 01:26 AM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
Good morning sweet princess
Originally Posted by cowmeat
I think one of the biggest mistakes people make when discussing this topic is calling terror attacks an act of war, or even an eye for an eye attack. At what point did any of the western countries launch an attack which goal was to create maximum civillian casulties and as much terror as possible? Suicide bombing innocent civillians isnt exactly what I would call war. Also ISIS isn't much worse than israel? For shits sake, last time I checked israel didn't exactly take sexslaves for the sole purpose of rape, or behead journalists with opposite views. But hey, what do I know about worse. Sure the west is partially to blame for this shitfest, but please dont call this whole thing a "fair game"
I also like the fact that you consider yourself a proper discussion jesus, who's here to teach us the ways of discussion.
I simply made the comparison to Israel as both has caused death amongst their own population, one be it Palestinians in Gaza and one be it another part of the population.
The thing I find interesting is that you would consider not giving all before throwing your life at the hands of a opposing [edit] force[/edit]. The war in the middle east has now lasted more than a decade, and as far as I know, the war has been fought in the middle east and mostly civilians in the middle east has died. Why not invite these forces over to the west and fight the war in the west? Human history up to and including WW2 has been forged by horrendous acts not limited to rape, executions without trial and murder of civilians at the hands allied forces. But all of a sudden we expect war to be a noble thing, a fight where one resigns as if in chess and that's it? Saying that terror attacks are not acts of war is just as illusional as believing that there is such a thing as a fair world, however, not sinking to the same moral low is honourable, but disconnected from any kind of realism.
EDIT NO2:
Originally Posted by Zelda
I may be mistaken, but it feels like the first half of your post is really rather derailing. Whether the West started this shitstorm is irrelevant to whether there is a real observable trend in the number of terrorist attacks over time. Sure you could argue that you are saying we are the terrorists, and therefor our actions in that area must be included in these trends, but you didn't really imply that in your post.
I have simply put forward the motion that these acts of war is a natural evolution to the war fought in the middle east. At some point the western society disconnected itself from the idea that war can be fought at home as well and that wars are a gruesome thing strictly different from a chess game with guns, where soldiers are the only pawns that fall. Perhaps I am the one who does not understand this "seemingly" natural conviction that there is a strict difference between the nukes over japan as a act of war and these occurrences in the western society at the moment? Both were aimed at the general population to force leaders to resign in this noble game called war.
Last edited by Smogard49; Mar 24, 2016 at 01:13 AM.
Reason: replaced the word state with force., and some spelling
Now doing recoloring for people not in the clan as-well, PM for more info!
PROUD OWNER OF THORN'S GOOD ENOUGH WRITER AWARD!
PROUD OWNER OF THORN'S GOOD ENOUGH WRITER AWARD!
