12 ms·

I have to ask, and please excuse my ignorance here, but what are we supposed to do? If men, armed with guns and explosives, kill scores of civilians and injure

I have to ask, and please excuse my ignorance here, but what are we supposed to do? If men, armed with guns and explosives, kill scores of civilians and injure hundreds more in the name of a particular ideology what are we supposed to actually do? When I hear the thought that "responding with knee-jerk Islamophobia" is exactly what they want it begs the question: should we do nothing? Any response is going to be deemed Islamophobic because the response is going to single out Muslims. Is that really a crazy thing though? The shooters sure weren't Shinto. If we do literally nothing then what? We wait for another deadly, and possibly more spectacular attack. Are we supposed to do nothing then too? At what point are we supposed to act? I feel very torn on this because I have at times thought that as crazy as some may be Islamist extremists sometimes have a point about Western interference in the Middle East. However, I cannot get behind the idea that when they gun down civilians at restaurants and concerts that the response should be anything but severe. I also take issue with people who label Western aggression in response to terrorism "Islamophobic." We in the West are not the ones making it about Islam. The terrorists are. They are the ones showing up with guns screaming about their God. They are the ones using their religion to recruit and justify their actions. And so when governments go after them then YES, they are going after Muslims. That is the bed they made and unfortunately we all have to sleep in it.

rorykoehler 11y ago
Follow the money. It might be uncomfortable to find out that much of it originates at home but would it be all that surprising? Money is our god and the West continually turns a blind eye when we can also turn a profit. Violence is like a terminal virus, propagating it doesn't bring a cure, it just ruins more peoples lives.
- mercurial 11y ago
  The other thing is to destroy their power base by finding a way to turn Iraqi Sunni tribes against them.
  - rorykoehler 11y ago
    If you turn off the tap there will be no need for that.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
agumonkey 11y ago
It's about avoiding useless acts of anger. Why hating peaceful population of a certain faith ? what will this do ? I just saw a documentary about day to day "life" in Iraq, these people are just like me and you, victims. Victims of what ? that's the question. Some are fanatics, some are clinical psychopath that want to kill, some are gullible lost souls believing in evil/good and rallying ISIS thinking it's the good (lots of westerners), etc etc Now include the hidden political ties behind all this, because we ~know all States have helped to trigger the fever since the last 40 years (ISIS gets money selling oil, who buys it ? weapons from other States, including past help from westerners, who keeps helping them growing aggression power ?). Now answer this ? what is "the" cause ? how to stop it without creating more problems ? So far nobody really knows, nobody talks about viable solutions except typical PR/Medias speeches. It seems a really nasty mess involving lots of nations, populations, ethnic and religious groups.
7952 11y ago
We can have greater involvement in the war in Syria, or we can have less. Either way we have to deal with the consequences. But right now we are in a war with Isis and navel gazing about religiosity is hardly going to help.
Natanael_L 11y ago
How about first stopping with what we know makes things worse - NOT provoking them by for example interfering the way CIA have staged coups for decades, causing internal animosity, bombing carelessly (see the US bomb that hit Doctors Without Borders recently), etc... All these countries are being careless and heavy handed, and the origins of most of the high profile terrorists of today can be traced back to actions taken by western countries. So many rebel groups armed by western agencies later turned into terrorists and guerillas once the agencies left, so many times, over and over. So many aided coup makers just defected and kept their power for themselves. The most effective way to get rid of terrorists is to take away their recruitment base, by not giving people more reasons to attack. Yes, it will take long until all the current terrorists are gone. But the current methods are only making things worse.
- criddell 11y ago
  Forgive me if this is in the linked article (it's not loading for me), but if we were to say to ISIS "let's negotiate", what is it that they want? Is it something reasonable?
  - pan69 11y ago
    He's saying the west should stop interfering in the middle east, with which I whole heartily agree.
  - notsony 11y ago
    What do they want? Here you go. This is the first (and only?) interview ever given to a Western journalist. https://www.facebook.com/JuergenTodenhoefer/videos/10152723644955838/ https://www.facebook.com/JuergenTodenhoefer/videos/101527236...
    - criddell 11y ago
      I just watched that entire video and it's pretty terrifying.
  - vixen99 11y ago
mjklin 11y ago
Your point about "Islamophobia" reminds me of this almost twenty-year-old article from The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/article/crazed-palestinian-gunman-angered-by-stereotypes-1651 http://www.theonion.com/article/crazed-palestinian-gunman-an...
m_eiman 11y ago
but what are we supposed to do? How about we put the terrorists we can find in jail (after a fair trial), help the refugees who flee the conflict zone and convince the various "powers" covertly involved in the conflict to stop putting more fuel on the fire?
- omginternets 11y ago
  How exactly do you propose we help the refugees? We're already failing to integrate culturally Muslim populations, and this failure is very much responsible for the current wave of radicalization. I don't see why accepting hoards of refugees should yield different consequences now.
  - rdancer 11y ago
    Make peace in Syria, and help them rebuild their lives there.
    - omginternets 11y ago
      Agreed, but that will involve killing people.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    In the UK we seem to be failing to integrate populations quite knowingly and deliberately, by promoting separatist faith schools for religions of all persuasions, including Islam, radical and otherwise, and various fringey forms of Christianity. This is curious behaviour in a society that's become increasingly and adamantly secular. I have no idea how Rest of World does it, but government policy on this issue is either insane, sinister, or both.
  - m_eiman 11y ago
    Short term: food and a safe place to sleep. Longer term: end the Middle East war(s), stop treating everyone who looks like they're from the Middle East like they're terrorists (or at the very least terrorist supporters).
Keyframe 11y ago
Nothing so far that wouldn't compromise principles modern society lies on. If people who do these acts have a mindset that they have nothing to lose and that their activities are righteous, then you have to think in a way that would undermine either their belief in that or put their activities at causing them more harm then their own life. KGB did something along those lines, where when soviet officials were abducted. What KGB did was effective, but it is not compatible with modern western society: http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-07/news/mn-13892_1_soviets http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-07/news/mn-13892_1_sovie... Could you imagine a modern country like France abducting and mutilating and executing all of relatives of attackers? I cannot. I can imagine Russia doing so, or even Mossad. Not France. Personally, I do not think either way is a way forward. I'm jus answering your question - what can we do? There were several approaches, of which KGB's one was proven to be effective.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- rorykoehler 11y ago
  Yes I can see France doing it. They've done similar things in the not so distant past. We have a story in our heads that we are somehow better than <insert name here> but really there is a ton of evidence to the contrary. Have a read of this: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/06/french-spy-who-sunk-greenpeace-ship-apologises-for-lethal-bombing http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/06/french-sp...
  - mercurial 11y ago
    Oh, come on. This wasn't especially glorious, but that's manslaughter, not homicide. If you want examples of truly horrible crimes committed by the French military, you can look up our last few decolonisation wars.
    - rorykoehler 11y ago
      It was just the most recent example that came to mind but you are right.
allendoerfer 11y ago
1. Take their arguments away from them. Stop invading countries trying to bring democracy, ultimately making things worse. Stop torturing and so on. 2. Take their people away from them. Like other forms of extremists, they need young male identiy-seeking misfits, who have nothing going on for them and want easy answers, somebody who gives them orders and to be part of something bigger. 3. Prosecute them like other criminals, too (with police forces).
- optimiz3 11y ago
  Police and civil procedure only work in your own sovereign state where everyone plays by the same social contracts and has shared values (mostly). Force necessary to achieve threat elimination and future deterrence work on sovereign adversaries who chose not to play by your rules. Doesn't matter why they don't like you (rightly or wrongly), if they are a violent adversary you will suffer consequences if you do not stop them. If the adversary is reasonable, diplomacy is always a preferable option, but not the most common denominator.
  - allendoerfer 11y ago
    And as long as we do not have a world police under the UN (which benefits are itself at least debatable), that's a fact we have to live with. Ignoring it, just makes things worse. You can use the military to sink some pirate ships or to stop Russia from going crazy, but you cannot win a war against guerilla. Every generation has their example war for this but we still keep joining them.
    - optimiz3 11y ago
      There are many ways to win wars against guerillas, but just as guerilla attacks on civilians are incompatible with western values, most of the responses are similarly incompatible.
- cm2187 11y ago
  Prosecute them? You are going to mail a warrant to a war zone in Syria? Assuming the letter even makes it way to ISIS they will be grateful for the free toilet paper.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
> I also take issue with people who label Western aggression in response to terrorism "Islamophobic." We in the West are not the ones making it about Islam. The terrorists are. They are the ones showing up with guns screaming about their God. They are the ones using their religion to recruit and justify their actions. And so when governments go after them then YES, they are going after Muslims. That is the bed they made and unfortunately we all have to sleep in it. However, our anti-terrorist policies almost always seem to wind up targeting innocent Islamic people (and people who look like they might be Islamic).
mpoloton 11y ago
The west only needs to dump their old good friend, the Saudis. This corrupted family morally and financially support and endorse extreme and barbaric version of Islam, Salafism. But unfortunately, economics (e.g. massive sales of arms) and geopolitics don't allow the west to do the right thing!
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Oil will run out. It can't happen soon enough.
Pamar 11y ago
Maybe supporting "moderate" Islamic groups more? (N.B.: I am not saying that use of force againt ISIS or other terrorist organizations should not be used - I am only suggesting something to do _in addition_ to a military/intelligence program to target the threat)
- agumonkey 11y ago
  Just read an article stating Islamic groups are too fluid, the moderate may become extremist very quickly. This idea might backfire.
azakai 11y ago
> but what are we supposed to do? One rational response is that we know plenty of terrorist plots are foiled by intelligence agencies and police, so giving them more resources to act could be a logical thing to do. Similarly, improving communication between agencies and between countries might be helpful. Most of that would not be publicly noticeable, so to the general public it might seem like "nothing is being done." But that wouldn't be the case. What might not be rational is to change public policies, like foreign policy or domestic policy or immigration policy. Those might serve the role of theater, making the public feel that something is being done. But you also run the risk of being led along by the terrorists - the attacks might have been a provocation intended to elicit that response (do they want France to stop attacking them in Syria? Or to attack them more so they can more easily radicalize their followers? who knows). Instead, if we react rationally, it doesn't matter what they intended.
powertower 11y ago
To myself, a good start would be to ask what the social and economic costs of allowing 5 million Muslims into France has been? As far as I've been able to uncover, when you put all the politically-correct rederick away, the driver of this has been the fact that Europeans have not been having enough children to economically replace and support all the people that are now retiring... Basically, there needs to be more tax-payers to cover everything and to balance the books. So is this working out? Are Muslims as a group embracing European values and becoming individuals / or are they maintaining their group and forming a parallel society, which is largely unskilled, xenophobic, closed-minded, and predominantly seeks welfare from the state? Considering that the Muslim population in France (and other European countries) overall negatively impacts every single metric of social-ills, and with a grim European economic outlook (manual labor is no longer needed, gainful employment requires skills, those jobs are few, etc), I think that whatever this is, it has failed. The first step to the solution is to drop the white-guilt act and call a spade a spade. This will open the door to actual debate instead of shutting it down with words like "racist" and "bigot" for simply not being politically-correct. The second step is to stop importing "other cultures" into Europe. The human race has been based on groups/collectives since its inception, with each group producing, collecting, and evolving individuals of similar attributes and behaviors. Put two groups together that are too different, you'll likely get violence. The third step is trying out a program similar to Sweden's to try to integrate the existing Muslim population with special targeted resources. But only to a point - not ongoing forever. And designed to grow European values, not to preserve or maintain a parallel society. The forth step is likely some type of a guaranteed minimum income based on negative income tax across the entire EU system (as proposed by Milton Friedman).
- oxide 11y ago
  What wide a brush you paint with. Are blanket statements and bird shot opinions all you've got to contribute?
calibraxis 11y ago
> If men, armed with guns and explosives, kill scores of civilians and injure hundreds more in the name of a particular ideology what are we supposed to actually do? Like an invading army? Reminds of the Iraqi expat I met, who made a burger for me. He asked where I came from; I'm from the US. He clenched as he quietly strangled out how Bush crushed Iraq. Always bizarre to see how oblivious "my people" and our sympathizers are, like the racist, cartoonish "Islamist" in our heads. We're fundamentalists indoctrinated in state ideologies like capitalism and imperialism. I mean, what do people think it'd be like if the reigning global superpower (let's pretend China) sent legions of uniformed killers, bombs and drones across the world at us? (Come to think of it, a common theme in literature where catastrophe ends the US government, is fascist militias carving up the country... No surprise where ISIS came from.)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
rsp1984 11y ago
The key thing to understand is that ISIS is first and foremost a criminal and terrorist organization, not a religious group. They use religion (or rather a perverted interpretation of it) to construct a unifying framework, a story for its members, something that they use to silence their members' potential critical thinking. Don't think for one second that the higher-ups in ISIS and the ones who planned this recent attack are religious people or drink their own ideology kool-aid. ISIS leaders are criminals and do whatever it takes to advance their "careers".
- Klapaucius 11y ago
  > Don't think for one second that the higher-ups in ISIS and the ones who planned this recent attack are religious people or drink their own ideology kool-aid. Oh yes, they are, and yes, they do.
Mr_Robot183 11y ago
You can do a lot of things , Firstly you stop using the words like Muslim and terrorist together, the word terrorist is pretty much self-explanatory noun (plural terrorists) A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals. See not religious," political" goals. Same with islamophobia, these words are overused on the internet without people understanding them like the word inception(most people on the internet think it means a thing within a thing within a thing, its not that's recursion) also like hashtag#, people started using hashtag everywhere, without knowing it's use. Second of all you can learn a little about different religions , but search using keywords like "is Islam a religion of Peace", " what are the basic teachings of Islam" do not start by searching " is the prophet of Islam a pedophile" the keywords you use directly impact the results. So always look for legitimate information. Next you can learn a little about psychology and learn why people do what they do. Now I'm not a expert on psychology, all I know about psychology comes from American TV shows(like criminal minds, law and order etc), one can question their accuracy and methods but its hard to miss the point. People do henious crimes coz of certain things that can scientifically explained. Regarding our current situation you can look into how Cults are formed and their inner working and ideology. A cult leader is some with leadership qualities, has brainwashing skills, Is very charming and motivational. The leaders just brainwash psycopaths, orphans, impressionable kids. Osama bin laden never wore a suicide west, he just coordinated and planned the attacks, his followers follow him blindly and there are reasons for that, well documented and researchered for you to read. Do you think that ISIS leaders actually go to ground zero to fight ?? They probably sit inside bunkers surrounded by all the things "haram" in Islam. Next thing you can do is start questioning... Question how such a remote and cut off place is getting hi-tech western guns and ammunitions. How are these guys getting funded. How come Afghanistan is the largest producer of heroin, how they can snuggle heroin in US(biggest consumer of heroin) without the help of americans. Then you can ask why do these terrorist plan for years to coordinate something like 9/11 when they can burn oil wells in their own country and actually cripple western countries in a matter of days. Don't sleep on it, educate yourself on how modern society works , how money and power are so important and root cause of all evil. Not religion, Islam was founded in the middle East to fight evil like all other religions. All religions are practically the same ..they all preach the same things with minute differces. Just educate yourself more on current world affairs and remember there's nothing wrong with any religion or country. It's all political propaganda for power and money. Every such act is based on profit of the cult group and for the people funding them. You can also help human beings who are suffering, its the best thing you can do, help anyone and everyone it's the only things in your control , for things out of your control you cannot do anything, but you can always educate yourself and fight ignorance. PS:English is not my first language. PS:I'm a kid so please refrain from blunt/harsh comments.
Mr_Robot183 11y ago
You can do a lot of things , Firstly you stop using the words like Muslim and terrorist together, the word terrorist is pretty much self-explanatory noun (plural terrorists) A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals. See not religious," political" goals. Same with islamophobia, these words are overused on the internet without people understanding them like the word inception(most people on the internet think it means a thing within a thing within a thing, its not that's recursion) also like hashtag#, people started using hashtag everywhere, without knowing it's use. Second of all you can learn a little about different religions , but search using keywords like "is Islam a religion of Peace", " what are the basic teachings of Islam" do not start by searching " is the prophet of Islam a pedophile" the keywords you use directly impact the results. So always look for legitimate information. Next you can learn a little about psychology and learn why people do what they do. Now I'm not a expert on psychology, all I know about psychology comes from American TV shows(like criminal minds, law and order etc), one can question their accuracy and methods but its hard to miss the point. People do henious crimes coz of certain things that can scientifically explained. Regarding our current situation you can look into how Cults are formed and their inner working and ideology. A cult leader is some with leadership qualities, has brainwashing skills, Is very charming and motivational. The leaders just brainwash psycopaths, orphans, impressionable kids. Osama bin laden never wore a suicide west, he just coordinated and planned the attacks, his followers follow him blindly and there are reasons for that, well documented and researchered for you to read. Do you think that ISIS leaders actually go to ground zero to fight ?? They probably sit inside bunkers surrounded by all the things "haram" in Islam. Next thing you can do is start questioning... Question how such a remote and cut off place is getting hi-tech western guns and ammunitions. How are these guys getting funded. How come Afghanistan is the largest producer of heroin, how they can snuggle heroin in US(biggest consumer of heroin) without the help of americans. Then you can ask why do these terrorist plan for years to coordinate something like 9/11 when they can burn oil wells in their own country and actually cripple western countries in a matter of days. Don't sleep on it, educate yourself on how modern society works , how money and power are so important and root cause of all evil. Not religion, Islam was founded in the middle East to fight evil like all other religions. All religions are practically the same ..they all preach the same things with minute differces. Just educate yourself more on current world affairs and remember there's nothing wrong with any religion or country. It's all political propaganda for power and money. Every such act is based on profit of the cult group and for the people funding them. You can also help human beings who are suffering, its the best thing you can do, help anyone and everyone it's the only things in your control , for things out of your control you cannot do anything, but you can always educate yourself and fight ignorance. PS:English is not my first language. PS:I'm a kid so please refrain from blunt/harsh comments.
Klapaucius 11y ago
If IS takes the pain to fund and coordinate something like this, it is surely because they want to obtain something. If the attack would not change status quo in any way, there would be no reason to invest time and resources in carrying it out. According to those Western scholars who study IS ideology, it is clear that they adhere to an apocalyptic interpretation of islam where they envisage some kind of final battle against "the armies of Rome". Whether the attack was intended to serve a strategic or ideologic purpose, or just to make a point, it is clear that the last thing they want is for it to change nothing. So, in a purely rational world, the best reaction would be to change nothing. Not scale up military presence in Syria, certainly not scale it down, not change any policy, keep on carrying out business as usual, and on the emotional level, mourn, but not fear. Of course, we do not live in a purely rational world, so whether this route is even possible to follow, I don't know. But I really believe that if we were able to react (or rather non-react) in this way, it would be the very least the attackers wanted. It would reduce their "heroic deed" to just the meaningless slaugher that it was. As a semi-analogy: After the right-wing extremist Anders Breivik killed some eighty people at a youth camp a few years ago, the Norwegian government more or less handled him as a regular criminal (albeit a high-profile one). Now he spends his day alone in a prison cell, occasionally whining in the media about not having the latest X-Box or something similar, pretty much revealing to everyone with a working brain what a small character he truly is. If he had been executed (not possible in Norway, I know....) he could surely have ended up being seen as a martyr by some.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > So, in a purely rational world, the best reaction would be to change nothing. I think that ship has sailed: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-16/france-conduct-airstrikes-in-syria/6943250 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-16/france-conduct-airstri...
  - Klapaucius 11y ago
    Quite possibly, and in any case I did not have many illusions that we'd actually catch that ship. But I am not sure whether this particular news item shows that anything has really changed in terms of policy. France has been bombing IS for quite some time already, as far as I understand.
jacquesm 11y ago
The very best response imo - not that this will ever happen, France just bombed Raqqa - is to do absolutely nothing. To deny them a platform and to very quietly concentrate on the ringleaders and the process of radicalization. This will take a lot more guts than what we collectively have because it would certainly lead to more attacks as the counterparty gets more and more desperate why their ploy isn't working but the Achilles heel of ISIS as far as I can see is their ability to recruit. If they are judged to be unable to move the needle in any meaningful way (either negative or positive) then they will lose. On another note, kick out each and every Imam that preaches hate to their flock rather than compassion and balance. Those guys are definitely part of the problem and they should not be aided and abetted because they are effectively part of the recruitment arm of ISIS. On a more positive note, this seems to be changing and these characters seem to be much less welcome than they were in the past. Yet another note: joining ISIS by westerners should be a one-way ticket, once radicalized and gone to fight there there is no way back. This would require quite a bit of legal hassle.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> If men, armed with guns and explosives, kill scores of civilians and injure hundreds more in the name of a particular ideology what are we supposed to actually do? What we're supposed to do is distinguish them from non-violent people claiming the same named ideology and focus response and condemnation on the murderers, not the community claiming the ideology that the terrorists are trying to target and recruit from with the idea that an apocalyptic existential struggle is in progress between the named ideology and the rest of the world. Because when you do conflate the terrorists with the named ideology that hundreds of millions of people who aren't terrorists claim and target your response against that community rather than distinguishing the terrorists from that community and targeting the terrorists, you validate the terrorist propaganda, and make the people that the terrorists want to be your enemies into your enemies.

rorykoehler 11y ago

Follow the money. It might be uncomfortable to find out that much of it originates at home but would it be all that surprising? Money is our god and the West continually turns a blind eye when we can also turn a profit. Violence is like a terminal virus, propagating it doesn't bring a cure, it just ruins more peoples lives.

mercurial 11y ago
The other thing is to destroy their power base by finding a way to turn Iraqi Sunni tribes against them.
- rorykoehler 11y ago
  If you turn off the tap there will be no need for that.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

agumonkey 11y ago

It's about avoiding useless acts of anger. Why hating peaceful population of a certain faith ? what will this do ? I just saw a documentary about day to day "life" in Iraq, these people are just like me and you, victims. Victims of what ? that's the question. Some are fanatics, some are clinical psychopath that want to kill, some are gullible lost souls believing in evil/good and rallying ISIS thinking it's the good (lots of westerners), etc etc Now include the hidden political ties behind all this, because we ~know all States have helped to trigger the fever since the last 40 years (ISIS gets money selling oil, who buys it ? weapons from other States, including past help from westerners, who keeps helping them growing aggression power ?). Now answer this ? what is "the" cause ? how to stop it without creating more problems ? So far nobody really knows, nobody talks about viable solutions except typical PR/Medias speeches. It seems a really nasty mess involving lots of nations, populations, ethnic and religious groups.

7952 11y ago

We can have greater involvement in the war in Syria, or we can have less. Either way we have to deal with the consequences. But right now we are in a war with Isis and navel gazing about religiosity is hardly going to help.

Natanael_L 11y ago

How about first stopping with what we know makes things worse - NOT provoking them by for example interfering the way CIA have staged coups for decades, causing internal animosity, bombing carelessly (see the US bomb that hit Doctors Without Borders recently), etc... All these countries are being careless and heavy handed, and the origins of most of the high profile terrorists of today can be traced back to actions taken by western countries. So many rebel groups armed by western agencies later turned into terrorists and guerillas once the agencies left, so many times, over and over. So many aided coup makers just defected and kept their power for themselves. The most effective way to get rid of terrorists is to take away their recruitment base, by not giving people more reasons to attack. Yes, it will take long until all the current terrorists are gone. But the current methods are only making things worse.

criddell 11y ago
Forgive me if this is in the linked article (it's not loading for me), but if we were to say to ISIS "let's negotiate", what is it that they want? Is it something reasonable?
- pan69 11y ago
  He's saying the west should stop interfering in the middle east, with which I whole heartily agree.
- notsony 11y ago
  What do they want? Here you go. This is the first (and only?) interview ever given to a Western journalist. https://www.facebook.com/JuergenTodenhoefer/videos/10152723644955838/ https://www.facebook.com/JuergenTodenhoefer/videos/101527236...
  - criddell 11y ago
    I just watched that entire video and it's pretty terrifying.
- vixen99 11y ago

mjklin 11y ago

Your point about "Islamophobia" reminds me of this almost twenty-year-old article from The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/article/crazed-palestinian-gunman-angered-by-stereotypes-1651 http://www.theonion.com/article/crazed-palestinian-gunman-an...

m_eiman 11y ago

but what are we supposed to do? How about we put the terrorists we can find in jail (after a fair trial), help the refugees who flee the conflict zone and convince the various "powers" covertly involved in the conflict to stop putting more fuel on the fire?

omginternets 11y ago
How exactly do you propose we help the refugees? We're already failing to integrate culturally Muslim populations, and this failure is very much responsible for the current wave of radicalization. I don't see why accepting hoards of refugees should yield different consequences now.
- rdancer 11y ago
  Make peace in Syria, and help them rebuild their lives there.
  - omginternets 11y ago
    Agreed, but that will involve killing people.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  In the UK we seem to be failing to integrate populations quite knowingly and deliberately, by promoting separatist faith schools for religions of all persuasions, including Islam, radical and otherwise, and various fringey forms of Christianity. This is curious behaviour in a society that's become increasingly and adamantly secular. I have no idea how Rest of World does it, but government policy on this issue is either insane, sinister, or both.
- m_eiman 11y ago
  Short term: food and a safe place to sleep. Longer term: end the Middle East war(s), stop treating everyone who looks like they're from the Middle East like they're terrorists (or at the very least terrorist supporters).

Keyframe 11y ago

Nothing so far that wouldn't compromise principles modern society lies on. If people who do these acts have a mindset that they have nothing to lose and that their activities are righteous, then you have to think in a way that would undermine either their belief in that or put their activities at causing them more harm then their own life. KGB did something along those lines, where when soviet officials were abducted. What KGB did was effective, but it is not compatible with modern western society: http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-07/news/mn-13892_1_soviets http://articles.latimes.com/1986-01-07/news/mn-13892_1_sovie... Could you imagine a modern country like France abducting and mutilating and executing all of relatives of attackers? I cannot. I can imagine Russia doing so, or even Mossad. Not France. Personally, I do not think either way is a way forward. I'm jus answering your question - what can we do? There were several approaches, of which KGB's one was proven to be effective.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rorykoehler 11y ago
Yes I can see France doing it. They've done similar things in the not so distant past. We have a story in our heads that we are somehow better than <insert name here> but really there is a ton of evidence to the contrary. Have a read of this: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/06/french-spy-who-sunk-greenpeace-ship-apologises-for-lethal-bombing http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/06/french-sp...
- mercurial 11y ago
  Oh, come on. This wasn't especially glorious, but that's manslaughter, not homicide. If you want examples of truly horrible crimes committed by the French military, you can look up our last few decolonisation wars.
  - rorykoehler 11y ago
    It was just the most recent example that came to mind but you are right.

allendoerfer 11y ago

1. Take their arguments away from them. Stop invading countries trying to bring democracy, ultimately making things worse. Stop torturing and so on. 2. Take their people away from them. Like other forms of extremists, they need young male identiy-seeking misfits, who have nothing going on for them and want easy answers, somebody who gives them orders and to be part of something bigger. 3. Prosecute them like other criminals, too (with police forces).

optimiz3 11y ago
Police and civil procedure only work in your own sovereign state where everyone plays by the same social contracts and has shared values (mostly). Force necessary to achieve threat elimination and future deterrence work on sovereign adversaries who chose not to play by your rules. Doesn't matter why they don't like you (rightly or wrongly), if they are a violent adversary you will suffer consequences if you do not stop them. If the adversary is reasonable, diplomacy is always a preferable option, but not the most common denominator.
- allendoerfer 11y ago
  And as long as we do not have a world police under the UN (which benefits are itself at least debatable), that's a fact we have to live with. Ignoring it, just makes things worse. You can use the military to sink some pirate ships or to stop Russia from going crazy, but you cannot win a war against guerilla. Every generation has their example war for this but we still keep joining them.
  - optimiz3 11y ago
    There are many ways to win wars against guerillas, but just as guerilla attacks on civilians are incompatible with western values, most of the responses are similarly incompatible.
cm2187 11y ago
Prosecute them? You are going to mail a warrant to a war zone in Syria? Assuming the letter even makes it way to ISIS they will be grateful for the free toilet paper.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

> I also take issue with people who label Western aggression in response to terrorism "Islamophobic." We in the West are not the ones making it about Islam. The terrorists are. They are the ones showing up with guns screaming about their God. They are the ones using their religion to recruit and justify their actions. And so when governments go after them then YES, they are going after Muslims. That is the bed they made and unfortunately we all have to sleep in it. However, our anti-terrorist policies almost always seem to wind up targeting innocent Islamic people (and people who look like they might be Islamic).

mpoloton 11y ago

The west only needs to dump their old good friend, the Saudis. This corrupted family morally and financially support and endorse extreme and barbaric version of Islam, Salafism. But unfortunately, economics (e.g. massive sales of arms) and geopolitics don't allow the west to do the right thing!

jacquesm 11y ago
Oil will run out. It can't happen soon enough.

Pamar 11y ago

Maybe supporting "moderate" Islamic groups more? (N.B.: I am not saying that use of force againt ISIS or other terrorist organizations should not be used - I am only suggesting something to do _in addition_ to a military/intelligence program to target the threat)

agumonkey 11y ago
Just read an article stating Islamic groups are too fluid, the moderate may become extremist very quickly. This idea might backfire.

azakai 11y ago

> but what are we supposed to do? One rational response is that we know plenty of terrorist plots are foiled by intelligence agencies and police, so giving them more resources to act could be a logical thing to do. Similarly, improving communication between agencies and between countries might be helpful. Most of that would not be publicly noticeable, so to the general public it might seem like "nothing is being done." But that wouldn't be the case. What might not be rational is to change public policies, like foreign policy or domestic policy or immigration policy. Those might serve the role of theater, making the public feel that something is being done. But you also run the risk of being led along by the terrorists - the attacks might have been a provocation intended to elicit that response (do they want France to stop attacking them in Syria? Or to attack them more so they can more easily radicalize their followers? who knows). Instead, if we react rationally, it doesn't matter what they intended.

powertower 11y ago

To myself, a good start would be to ask what the social and economic costs of allowing 5 million Muslims into France has been? As far as I've been able to uncover, when you put all the politically-correct rederick away, the driver of this has been the fact that Europeans have not been having enough children to economically replace and support all the people that are now retiring... Basically, there needs to be more tax-payers to cover everything and to balance the books. So is this working out? Are Muslims as a group embracing European values and becoming individuals / or are they maintaining their group and forming a parallel society, which is largely unskilled, xenophobic, closed-minded, and predominantly seeks welfare from the state? Considering that the Muslim population in France (and other European countries) overall negatively impacts every single metric of social-ills, and with a grim European economic outlook (manual labor is no longer needed, gainful employment requires skills, those jobs are few, etc), I think that whatever this is, it has failed. The first step to the solution is to drop the white-guilt act and call a spade a spade. This will open the door to actual debate instead of shutting it down with words like "racist" and "bigot" for simply not being politically-correct. The second step is to stop importing "other cultures" into Europe. The human race has been based on groups/collectives since its inception, with each group producing, collecting, and evolving individuals of similar attributes and behaviors. Put two groups together that are too different, you'll likely get violence. The third step is trying out a program similar to Sweden's to try to integrate the existing Muslim population with special targeted resources. But only to a point - not ongoing forever. And designed to grow European values, not to preserve or maintain a parallel society. The forth step is likely some type of a guaranteed minimum income based on negative income tax across the entire EU system (as proposed by Milton Friedman).

oxide 11y ago
What wide a brush you paint with. Are blanket statements and bird shot opinions all you've got to contribute?

calibraxis 11y ago

> If men, armed with guns and explosives, kill scores of civilians and injure hundreds more in the name of a particular ideology what are we supposed to actually do? Like an invading army? Reminds of the Iraqi expat I met, who made a burger for me. He asked where I came from; I'm from the US. He clenched as he quietly strangled out how Bush crushed Iraq. Always bizarre to see how oblivious "my people" and our sympathizers are, like the racist, cartoonish "Islamist" in our heads. We're fundamentalists indoctrinated in state ideologies like capitalism and imperialism. I mean, what do people think it'd be like if the reigning global superpower (let's pretend China) sent legions of uniformed killers, bombs and drones across the world at us? (Come to think of it, a common theme in literature where catastrophe ends the US government, is fascist militias carving up the country... No surprise where ISIS came from.)

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

rsp1984 11y ago

The key thing to understand is that ISIS is first and foremost a criminal and terrorist organization, not a religious group. They use religion (or rather a perverted interpretation of it) to construct a unifying framework, a story for its members, something that they use to silence their members' potential critical thinking. Don't think for one second that the higher-ups in ISIS and the ones who planned this recent attack are religious people or drink their own ideology kool-aid. ISIS leaders are criminals and do whatever it takes to advance their "careers".

Klapaucius 11y ago
> Don't think for one second that the higher-ups in ISIS and the ones who planned this recent attack are religious people or drink their own ideology kool-aid. Oh yes, they are, and yes, they do.

Mr_Robot183 11y ago

You can do a lot of things , Firstly you stop using the words like Muslim and terrorist together, the word terrorist is pretty much self-explanatory noun (plural terrorists) A person, group, or organization that uses violent action, or the threat of violent action, to further political goals. See not religious," political" goals. Same with islamophobia, these words are overused on the internet without people understanding them like the word inception(most people on the internet think it means a thing within a thing within a thing, its not that's recursion) also like hashtag#, people started using hashtag everywhere, without knowing it's use. Second of all you can learn a little about different religions , but search using keywords like "is Islam a religion of Peace", " what are the basic teachings of Islam" do not start by searching " is the prophet of Islam a pedophile" the keywords you use directly impact the results. So always look for legitimate information. Next you can learn a little about psychology and learn why people do what they do. Now I'm not a expert on psychology, all I know about psychology comes from American TV shows(like criminal minds, law and order etc), one can question their accuracy and methods but its hard to miss the point. People do henious crimes coz of certain things that can scientifically explained. Regarding our current situation you can look into how Cults are formed and their inner working and ideology. A cult leader is some with leadership qualities, has brainwashing skills, Is very charming and motivational. The leaders just brainwash psycopaths, orphans, impressionable kids. Osama bin laden never wore a suicide west, he just coordinated and planned the attacks, his followers follow him blindly and there are reasons for that, well documented and researchered for you to read. Do you think that ISIS leaders actually go to ground zero to fight ?? They probably sit inside bunkers surrounded by all the things "haram" in Islam. Next thing you can do is start questioning... Question how such a remote and cut off place is getting hi-tech western guns and ammunitions. How are these guys getting funded. How come Afghanistan is the largest producer of heroin, how they can snuggle heroin in US(biggest consumer of heroin) without the help of americans. Then you can ask why do these terrorist plan for years to coordinate something like 9/11 when they can burn oil wells in their own country and actually cripple western countries in a matter of days. Don't sleep on it, educate yourself on how modern society works , how money and power are so important and root cause of all evil. Not religion, Islam was founded in the middle East to fight evil like all other religions. All religions are practically the same ..they all preach the same things with minute differces. Just educate yourself more on current world affairs and remember there's nothing wrong with any religion or country. It's all political propaganda for power and money. Every such act is based on profit of the cult group and for the people funding them. You can also help human beings who are suffering, its the best thing you can do, help anyone and everyone it's the only things in your control , for things out of your control you cannot do anything, but you can always educate yourself and fight ignorance. PS:English is not my first language. PS:I'm a kid so please refrain from blunt/harsh comments.

Mr_Robot183 11y ago

Klapaucius 11y ago

If IS takes the pain to fund and coordinate something like this, it is surely because they want to obtain something. If the attack would not change status quo in any way, there would be no reason to invest time and resources in carrying it out. According to those Western scholars who study IS ideology, it is clear that they adhere to an apocalyptic interpretation of islam where they envisage some kind of final battle against "the armies of Rome". Whether the attack was intended to serve a strategic or ideologic purpose, or just to make a point, it is clear that the last thing they want is for it to change nothing. So, in a purely rational world, the best reaction would be to change nothing. Not scale up military presence in Syria, certainly not scale it down, not change any policy, keep on carrying out business as usual, and on the emotional level, mourn, but not fear. Of course, we do not live in a purely rational world, so whether this route is even possible to follow, I don't know. But I really believe that if we were able to react (or rather non-react) in this way, it would be the very least the attackers wanted. It would reduce their "heroic deed" to just the meaningless slaugher that it was. As a semi-analogy: After the right-wing extremist Anders Breivik killed some eighty people at a youth camp a few years ago, the Norwegian government more or less handled him as a regular criminal (albeit a high-profile one). Now he spends his day alone in a prison cell, occasionally whining in the media about not having the latest X-Box or something similar, pretty much revealing to everyone with a working brain what a small character he truly is. If he had been executed (not possible in Norway, I know....) he could surely have ended up being seen as a martyr by some.

jacquesm 11y ago
> So, in a purely rational world, the best reaction would be to change nothing. I think that ship has sailed: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-16/france-conduct-airstrikes-in-syria/6943250 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-16/france-conduct-airstri...
- Klapaucius 11y ago
  Quite possibly, and in any case I did not have many illusions that we'd actually catch that ship. But I am not sure whether this particular news item shows that anything has really changed in terms of policy. France has been bombing IS for quite some time already, as far as I understand.

jacquesm 11y ago

The very best response imo - not that this will ever happen, France just bombed Raqqa - is to do absolutely nothing. To deny them a platform and to very quietly concentrate on the ringleaders and the process of radicalization. This will take a lot more guts than what we collectively have because it would certainly lead to more attacks as the counterparty gets more and more desperate why their ploy isn't working but the Achilles heel of ISIS as far as I can see is their ability to recruit. If they are judged to be unable to move the needle in any meaningful way (either negative or positive) then they will lose. On another note, kick out each and every Imam that preaches hate to their flock rather than compassion and balance. Those guys are definitely part of the problem and they should not be aided and abetted because they are effectively part of the recruitment arm of ISIS. On a more positive note, this seems to be changing and these characters seem to be much less welcome than they were in the past. Yet another note: joining ISIS by westerners should be a one-way ticket, once radicalized and gone to fight there there is no way back. This would require quite a bit of legal hassle.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> If men, armed with guns and explosives, kill scores of civilians and injure hundreds more in the name of a particular ideology what are we supposed to actually do? What we're supposed to do is distinguish them from non-violent people claiming the same named ideology and focus response and condemnation on the murderers, not the community claiming the ideology that the terrorists are trying to target and recruit from with the idea that an apocalyptic existential struggle is in progress between the named ideology and the rest of the world. Because when you do conflate the terrorists with the named ideology that hundreds of millions of people who aren't terrorists claim and target your response against that community rather than distinguishing the terrorists from that community and targeting the terrorists, you validate the terrorist propaganda, and make the people that the terrorists want to be your enemies into your enemies.