Explosion near Stadium in Paris, multiple shootings and hostage taking...

[Itse]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

There have been an estimated 170,000 people killed by ISIS in Iraq.
To suggest anything to do with them is limited to 'hating us' is entirely incorrect.

I agree. But people both in Beirut and in Paris see and experience the deaths in Syria and Iraq differently from the ones that hit closer to home.

One of the common misconcepts in the West is to think of the Middle-East as one place full of war and terror, but that's not how it works. However, ISIS wants to bring the war to Europe. And Lebanon. And Russia. And just everywhere they can.

ISIS are literally worse than Nazis. They're the type of caricature evil that normally exists in fiction.

That said.

If we (and I'm speaking of humanity in general, not just the West) simply gun down ISIS but find no solution to the political chaos in Iraq and Syria, another similar group will inevitably rise from the ruins. (That would probably require re-drawing those colonization era maps for starters.)

Iraq and Afghanistan are pretty recent examples of how well sheer military force works as a way to stop international terrorism.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Agreed transplant99.

I'm all for bringing refugees to Canada and helping distressed and displaced Syrians, however the lack of time to as you say, properly vett these people and ensure they are who they are should be extremely concerning to all Canadians.

Opening a back door for radicals to enter our country and set up shop here isn't very appealing to me. They need to be properly screened.

What are you, racist?

[dammage79]

I feel like if the world rolled in like the U.S and friends did during the first Iraq war, thing's would be a little different.

Whats stomin norman doing these days?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Matata

They've been trying to do this for decades, the only result is that next generation increases their hatred and radicalism. Groups like IS are symptoms of bigger problems and trying to stamp them out only renews a cycle of violence and hatred that is already spiraling out of control. Kill every member of IS and 5-10 years down the road something worse will replace them.

Eh?

I have no recollection of a NATO led coalition that has put boots on the ground in the middle east with a sole goal of eliminating a specific group of radicalized scumbags whose only goal is to kill anyone and everyone who doesn't believe in their #######ized view of Islam.

Beyond that though...doing nothing is not an option. Diplomacy does not exist in this situation.

So what is left?

[robaur]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Eh?

I have no recollection of a NATO led coalition that has put boots on the ground in the middle east with a sole goal of eliminating a specific group of radicalized scumbags whose only goal is to kill anyone and everyone who doesn't believe in their #######ized view of Islam.

Beyond that though...doing nothing is not an option. Diplomacy does not exist in this situation.

So what is left?

You have such a bad and particularly uneducated opinion about what is going on here. This is hardly a religious thing. If you actually believe these attacks are happening because a bunch of people are pissed off about their religion? Lol....religion is just a front.

[browna]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/liv...g-live-updates

The best place on the Web I've seen for updates.

The video on that site is chilling.
Bono speaks up, claims this is an attack against music. Debatable, I'd say any large group was a target.
Three attackers were apparently from Belgium but authorities there have made some more arrests.
One attacker was a Syrian refugee.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by robaur

You have such a bad and particularly uneducated opinion about what is going on here. This is hardly a religious thing. If you actually believe these attacks are happening because a bunch of people are pissed off about their religion? Lol....religion is just a front.

Uhhh...no.

As clearly stated they hide behind the radicalized viewpoint stemming from their religion with a goal to kill all those who do not share that same thought process.

That doesn't make the religion the problem (though there are many here that would suggest it is), it makes those who want to twist said religion and hide behind it to commit atrocious and evil acts.

really not sure where you are getting some other interpretation from what I wrote.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by robaur

You have such a bad and particularly uneducated opinion about what is going on here. This is hardly a religious thing. If you actually believe these attacks are happening because a bunch of people are pissed off about their religion? Lol....religion is just a front.

That is just so wrong. It is a multi faceted problem (political, economic, social, cultural), but to ignore the significant role that religion is playing in these attacks is just irresponsible.

These terror groups transcend borders, nationalities, race, and even language. They are tied together by ideology, which comes from religion (or their interpretation of it). And when they commit these atrocities they are explicitly citing religious reasons for it. Why would they kill hundreds of people and then lie about the reason?

Ignoring the religious aspect of this is simply ignoring the facts.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by robaur

So what is the response to those that say US and its allies are part of the problem that go into countries where they shouldn't go and cause instability which leads to the rise of groups such as ISIS. Even going to say that US/CIA is mostly the culprit of supplying weapons, money and arms to these terror organizations in the beginning through back channels and then these organizations get out of their control.

I really don't know how much of that is true or not...but I guess it deserves some thought.

Maybe western governments should just stop meddling in the affairs of the middle east and let them kill each other over it? At this point, I'm at a loss for a solution.

This is without a doubt part of the problem and probably a large part of it. It's such a complex mess now though that I really don't know what the solution is. This idea that you can just go in and kill them all is ridiculous. The idea that you do nothing and let them work it out is ridiculous. I honestly don't know what to do. Conversation and understanding is ideal but as if that's going to happen at this point. Countries have messed around in the middle east for far too long that its now just one giant mess and a solution isn't coming any time soon.

[transplant99]

also, I'm not sure why the media are so hung up on where these guys are from originally (unless from France I guess) as once they join up with a group like this, any and all patriotism is long gone.

We have guys from Canada who have joined as well as dozens of other countries. They are no longer citizens of country XXX at that point IMO, they are all just scumbag cowards.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Agreed transplant99.

I'm all for bringing refugees to Canada and helping distressed and displaced Syrians, however the lack of time to as you say, properly vett these people and ensure they are who they are should be extremely concerning to all Canadians.

Opening a back door for radicals to enter our country and set up shop here isn't very appealing to me. They need to be properly screened.

I agree. They will also surely do that, as they have done everywhere in Europe. It's just not that easy, as refugees quite commonly don't have much in the way of paperworks, and typically there's no police or government left in the places where they came from who could identify the guys that could be a problem.

Security in an open, democratic society will always be imperfect. It's the price of freedom and the price of giving the refugees a chance.

A quick hypothetical. Let's imagine you're the Supreme Beloved Leader of Canada (but otherwise a rather nice guy).

You are informed that over time 100,000 refugees will come to Canada, and you have to make a choice as to whether to take them in or not.

Your Head of National Security informs you that accepting those refugees will result in about 10 new terrorist attacks in Canada that will kill 10 people on average. They will try to screen them as best they can, but no matter how hard they will try, a total of 10 new terrorists will appear in Canada and 100 Canadians will die in terror attacks on Canadian soil.

On the other hand your Human Rights Counselor informs you that if you don't accept those refugees, about 5% of those people will die somewhere in the Middle-East, and another 1% will join terrorist organizations, most likely ISIS or their affiliates. That's 5000 dead refugees before any new terrorists appear, and 1000 new terrorists that will additionally kill an unknown but probably very large number of people somewhere. Mostly those new terrorists will stay in Syria and Iraq, but obviously there's no way to guarantee that none of those new terrorists will kill Canadians somewhere, like in Paris. Or Toronto.

So, take in refugees or not?

This is a simplified example, but these are the kinds of discussions that the world leaders are very probably really having. Even if you're not a very humanitarian president and don't care at all about people who are not your countrymen, the big picture suggests that somebody needs to take in those refugees or everyone will suffer more for it. So essentially everyone is doing it. It's not because the world leaders are nice people. It's because they know it's the "lesser evil".

The endgame should be trying to help people live where they are. Once you have a huge number of refugees, there are no good options left.

TL;DR
Yes, some of the refugees will very likely be or become terrorists. But taking them in is STILL the lesser evil. Even if you don't actually care about the refugees.

You just have accept that it's an imperfect world, and be prepared for the likely problems.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by transplant99

also, I'm not sure why the media are so hung up on where these guys are from originally (unless from France I guess) as once they join up with a group like this, any and all patriotism is long gone.

We have guys from Canada who have joined as well as dozens of other countries. They are no longer citizens of country XXX at that point IMO, they are all just scumbag cowards.

They might be scumbag cowards but a bunch of scumbag cowards are what created ISIS in the first place. I don't see a point in pointing the finger soley at groups like ISIS when countries like the USA are largely to blame for these groups even existing. Even if you were to whipe out ISIS I don't see that as any solution to a problem that is just going to start up all over again.

[AcGold]

I'd stop dropping bombs and instead assemble a special strike team of several countries. Get the seals, some black ops guys, the military elite from every country in the NA/European coalition and go hunt them down one night or over a few days.

Find their bases of operations and take them out, spend a few hundred million to do so. More bombs and war will just cause more neglected youth to join these psychos in 20 years. Hunt them down and take care of the problem, declaring war will just create a cycle of escalating violence. If the US can find Saddam hiding in a hole they can surely band together to take out a group of extremists. 1000 elite military personnel with advanced weapons would be able to hunt down the core of this group. It's an ideology so twisted that if you take away the source the ideology can't stand on its own.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Eh?

I have no recollection of a NATO led coalition that has put boots on the ground in the middle east with a sole goal of eliminating a specific group of radicalized scumbags whose only goal is to kill anyone and everyone who doesn't believe in their #######ized view of Islam.

Beyond that though...doing nothing is not an option. Diplomacy does not exist in this situation.

So what is left?

The idea of actually eliminating every member of a group like IS is so insane and logistically impossible that no government ever would propose doing exactly that, but every 5-10 years or so we get a new boogeyman in the middle east and we're sold the idea that we just have to take them out and then every thing will be all better (IS, Taliban, Osama, Saddam, whoever is giving Isreal a hard time). It's becoming abundantly clear that the long term solution doesn't lie in 'boots to asses' and that a different and more complex approach is required if peace in the middle east is the goal.

I think it's important to stop thinking of ourselves and our governments as being the 'good guys', a brief history of the last 100 years in the middle east would show that this is very far from being the case.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Hackey

They might be scumbag cowards but a bunch of scumbag cowards are what created ISIS in the first place. I don't see a point in pointing the finger soley at groups like ISIS when countries like the USA are largely to blame for these groups even existing. Even if you were to whipe out ISIS I don't see that as any solution to a problem that is just going to start up all over again.

What does your "response" have to do with what I said?

Nationalities of the attackers are irrelevant in cases like this as they are all operating under the banner of ISIS now.

[JetsFlamesFan]

"Paris attacks raise questions about security, immigration" - CBC

That's some deep insight right there.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...ttacks-killers

A Syrian who apparently passed through Greece as a refugee last month, a known French extremist and an Egyptian were said to be among a cell of eight Islamist gunmen who killed nearly 130 people in a bloody wave of suicide bombings and shootings that left France reeling


Paris attacks: Isis militant said to be Syrian who passed through Greece on refugee route – live

And we're going to admit 25,000 of them to Canada in the next few months. Wonderful...

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Matata

The idea of actually eliminating every member of a group like IS is so insane and logistically impossible that no government ever would propose doing exactly that, but every 5-10 years or so we get a new boogeyman in the middle east and we're sold the idea that we just have to take them out and then every thing will be all better (IS, Taliban, Osama, Saddam, whoever is giving Isreal a hard time). It's becoming abundantly clear that the long term solution doesn't lie in 'boots to asses' and that a different and more complex approach is required if peace in the middle east is the goal.

I think it's important to stop thinking of ourselves and our governments as being the 'good guys', a brief history of the last 100 years in the middle east would show that this is very far from being the case.

Here is the problem with your theory.

As is well known, although certain countries have attempted to go in and take these groups out, they have never been allowed to finish the job.

Political pressure from various sources always leads to exiting the situation before any sort of true difference is made. It happened in Iraq, it happened in Afghanistan and it has been occurring in the area around Israel for decades.

I agree that it's certainly not appealing to go back to a ground war, but there is no other better option that has ever been proposed. Its the one thing that radical militants count on. they know that at some point troops will be pulled out and they can go right back in to fill the vloid.

Not once has a NATO nor UN mission been allowed to stay and fight to the point that there is a surrender at which point real diplomacy MIGHT have a chance to make a difference.

The only other option, and I don't think anyone has the appetite for it either, is to just abandon the area completely and in unison and leave them to their own devices and see what happens. Though we all know the likely outcome of such an action and it is not pretty.

It's a screwed up situation for sure with multiple influences on it through the years but the one thing facing us right now is a growing number of affiliated radicals who are getting more widespread with one goal in mind and that's to kill you, me and anyone not embracing their ideals.

[polak]

I'm sick of hearing that its the west responsibility to achieve peace in the middle east.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Here is the problem with your theory.

As is well known, although certain countries have attempted to go in and take these groups out, they have never been allowed to finish the job.

Political pressure from various sources always leads to exiting the situation before any sort of true difference is made. It happened in Iraq, it happened in Afghanistan and it has been occurring in the area around Israel for decades.

I agree that it's certainly not appealing to go back to a ground war, but there is no other better option that has ever been proposed. Its the one thing that radical militants count on. they know that at some point troops will be pulled out and they can go right back in to fill the vloid.

Not once has a NATO nor UN mission been allowed to stay and fight to the point that there is a surrender at which point real diplomacy MIGHT have a chance to make a difference.

The only other option, and I don't think anyone has the appetite for it either, is to just abandon the area completely and in unison and leave them to their own devices and see what happens. Though we all know the likely outcome of such an action and it is not pretty.

It's a screwed up situation for sure with multiple influences on it through the years but the one thing facing us right now is a growing number of affiliated radicals who are getting more widespread with one goal in mind and that's to kill you, me and anyone not embracing their ideals.

What exactly does "finishing the job" entail?

People have been saying this kind of thing since the Vietnam war. You simply can't conflate insurgencies or terrorist groups with traditional nation states and the types of tactics that work against them. Unless "finishing the job" looks like carpet bombing the country into a parking lot, or entangling our forces into a protracted war that will see many, many times more people killed than the odd terrorist attack, that really isn't the issue. Western forces were in Afghanistan for a decade and a half; should they have stayed there for 30 years?