6 ms·

> It's my sincerest hope that French troops will be deployed to Syria in the near future This kind of thinking is exactly why Mid-east is in its current state

> It's my sincerest hope that French troops will be deployed to Syria in the near future This kind of thinking is exactly why Mid-east is in its current state and that is exactly the reason why ISIS was born. ISIS high command mainly consists of Iraqi ex-officers, who were rendered jobless and aimless by USA's 'liberation' attempt. Al-Qaida was a result of a 'liberation' attempt by Soviets and then consequently another 'liberation' attempt by USA. Guess how the French 'liberation' will result at the end.

omginternets 11y ago
I respectfully (and partially) disagree. The invasion of Iraq was stupid, reckless and selfish. It was a for-profit war that destabilized the region and allowed ISIS to take on its present form. I'll have you remember that France staunchly opposed this war. Now the US and the brits have left us with a veritable cesspool, and we're bearing the brunt of the consequences. This isn't a liberation attempt or a preemptive strike. This is responding to an immediate threat. And again, it would be foolish and disastrous to only respond militarily, but it's just as foolish not to protect ourselves from immediate threats while we counter persistent threats through non-military action. Yours is a false dichotomy.
- utku_karatas2 11y ago
  Hate to dwell on topics not suited on HN, but I'll just ask you one thing: how would the French troops on the Syrian ground even remotely help securing France? USA can pull off its invasive politics via a) pouring insane amount of resources both militarily and politically b) by getting along pretty good with other Muslims while bombing some (like Saudis, Turks, etc.) c) by being an ocean distance away from the very people they drop bombs on. How will France do all of that with a) much more limited resources b) while being uniformly disliked by almost all Muslim nations due to historical reasons and c) while being a boat ride away from tens of millions of agitated Muslims? I believe, with this attack, France is pulled into this already extremely messy situation by the powers that be. And I am afraid things will escalate to a much worse situation.
  - cmdkeen 11y ago
    The Islamic State are different from AQ in that they have territorial ambitions, the clue is in the name. Their PR success is buoyed by their successes. France has the expeditionary capability to assist in driving the IS out of the territory it currently occupies. If France doesn't care about who takes control of the territory afterwards, as long as they aren't terrorist supporting Islamists then it does have the capacity to seriously damage IS. Will it lead to world peace and happiness, no. Will it lead to an awful lot of Syrians continuing to die, yes. Will it marginally improve the lives of those suffering under IS rule, I believe so. Will it degrade IS' ability to recruit and inspire terror attacks abroad in the long run, yes. Given a lot of poor choices you need to find the best one. Doing nothing is a conscious choice that may not be the best option.
    - utku_karatas2 11y ago
      I am afraid the answer to all of those questions is NOPE. ISIS did grow and will continue to grow as long as there is foreign military existence on Middle-east soil. It is extremely easy to recruit people to do anything while their national/religious pride is being pissed on by their historical enemy.
      - cmdkeen 11y ago
        IS grew out of the vacuum of a civil war in Syria and is predicated on creating a Caliphate. They cannot physically grow if they are not able to gain ground. Their recruitment message is likely to be significantly weakened if they lose territory and battles. Unlike AQ or even the Taliban of recent years they are not able to avoid pitched battles, they can't melt into the background - they would have to stand and fight for their territory - thus they can be defeated.
        seren 11y ago
        They can definitely hide in the population. Rakka still have 200,000 people living there. I have no idea which part of that population are hardcore isis member : 40-50k maximum maybe. Assuming you could take Rakka, you can't just execute or deport every one with a weird accent. Mosul is even bigger. How many ground troop would it take to occupy all these cities ? This would be a repeat of the second Irak war, or Afghanistan, with the endless terrorist attacks, IEDs, etc. Even if you have contributions from Kurds, Irak regular army, or Hezbollah, they would not be welcome as savior in Sunni's territory. Like in most conflict, the military option can be used to create conditions for a political resolution, but you have to provide some sort of long term plan for Sunni population : you can't just tell them they will go back under Assad rule they despise in the first place. Currently, I don't believe there is a clear political solution. In this condition, the military option is doomed to fail.
- FiloSottile 11y ago
  I dare to go OT and possibly in bad HN form, but I want to mention that I found your two comments to be an excellent example of good etiquette. You made a strong point without being harsh, and answered a more heated rebuttal with an even stronger but nevertheless respectful comment. I'm not sure I agree with you, but thanks sincerely for contributing a point of view in this manner.
- 0xFFC 11y ago
  Am pretty angry about what is going on in world , so if you felt insulted , I am so sorry , and You should understand I don't want to insult you or any other person specifically,But I want insult Ideologies pretty badly. As person who LIVES in heart of middle east (Iran) and I have seen shia militant from very close(I know people who works in IRGC),You are completely and pure wrong , do you know what would generate another generation of terrorist ? another invasion. I am atheist and liberal with a little being gay,I am not gay , but sometime things go wrong - and believe me these are pretty dangerous thing to be in Iran and would get me killed, without doubt - but I can realize the only thing will give terrorist another opportunity is invasion of a country in middle east. This is not your fucking war.This was not west fucking war at all. They shouldn't come here in any circumstance.You know what ? because Paris like terrorism act will happen again and again and again. West should understand they were wrong all the time. What the fuck are you doing in middle east ? You know what ? no body more than me would be glad to live in secular community with secular government, but it seems politician in west do not realize , being in middle east is equal to raising radical movement against them. YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND , MIDDLE EAST SHOULD FIGHT FOR ITSELF, EVEN IF ISIS KILL ALL OF US, this is not your fucking war.I do not remember reading if any alien did help west during the renaissance. Society should grow. PLEASE , do for humanity a favor , understand militarism is equal to terrorism. I was talking with one idiot yesterday , and he mentioned I do not believe France invade Iraq. Yes your are right idiot . France did not . but west did . These fucking killers in middle east , do not see countries , they see Islam against West. Do you know who fights in Iran against mullah's ? Christians ? Are you kidding me, mojahidin ? Those fucking traitors, no way. Academia fights against mullah's, science fights, liberal people fighting against mullah's more effective than any other person in whole revolution history.This regime is almost unbeatable in political sense- because they have money and manpower and oil- but do you know they are seeing liberals in their nightmare. They even don't care about West invasion against Iran(some stupid person like G.W Bush may even consider that option).Because at the end they know the can manage harm West military pretty badly. Worse than maybe Vietnam war.BUT THEY CANNOT FIGHT WITH INTERNET, WITH TOR, WITH STUDENTS who USE TOR. Give them internet , provide them satellite , facebook/twitter/youtube/porn , Show them fucking beautiful women in Texas(with respect to women, I just want show sexual incentives), show them there is no need to kill so many people to get those woman , you can fuck like heaven in earth without killing people. And BOOOOOM this is the sound of explosion of foundation of religion. Ruin their stupid culture , and then you are going to see middle is will revive. and turn to into secular place. and Do you know who is supporting ISIS ? Which countries? I would suspect Saudi Arabia ( the US closest ally after Israel in middle east).Can you fucking believe it ? This is not double standard. This is fucking fraud against humanity.At the end we all know , non of the west's politician's give fucking flying shit about terrorism in middle east. If they did , They weren't this double standard'ed against corrupted (I would say most corrupted regime in whole world) regime in Saudi Arabia.What was last time you checked women condition in Saudi Arabia.And why the hell us have this much relation ship with country which behead people like candy. This is what I mean when I am saying double standard. p.s. if you felt I insult you , I am so sorry , I was talking broadly than talking with you.I hope respectively, you understand there was something HUGE wrong with west policy in middle east.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
chappi42 11y ago
There are a lot of jobless people in the world. If all of them became militants we had the full chaos. Bye bye open society, here comes the surveillance society. If you read e.g. what happened in Palmyra, the (sometimes foreign) radical muslim terrorists attacked/killed the citizians and a liberation is very much needed. 'Only' maybe the 'state-building' has to be done longer than before in Afghanistan, Irak... And a UN administratered government is needed for some time. I don't talk about 'the west' but also about the 'moderate muslim community'. It's no good now to stand on the side and watch the atrocities. If I read correctly also countries like the Lebanon suffer from the influx of radical maslims foreigners.
Mikeb85 11y ago
> This kind of thinking is exactly why Mid-east is in its current state and that is exactly the reason why ISIS was born. ISIS was born out of the Salafist/Wahhabi ideology that the Saudi state has been exporting from the beginning of its existence. This is why terrorism is almost the exclusive domain of this one sect. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism... As another poster said, if every disenfranchised person in the world turned to terrorism, we'd have complete and utter chaos. But most don't. As for you argument, Mali was in the grips of an Islamist army. They aren't any more. Thanks to French intervention.
- utku_karatas2 11y ago
  Of course, ISIS is not a one variable function. I think the point you and @chappi42 miss is that being a jobless individual with no prospects in a war torn country with no end in sight is a whole different psychology than just being a jobless guy. Add this mix some religious agitation and you have the easiest job of all times as the HR manager of ISIS. I think this is the biggest contributing factor. Not the religion itself.
- megalodon 11y ago
  > The government of Mali asked for foreign military help to re-take the north. [1] Intervening and waging proxy wars in the middle-east sent the message that sovereignty is relative and only applies to countries with "appropriate" views, hence the hate against west. Still I wouldn't call Mali a stable country as they are constantly plagued by terrorist attacks. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mali_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mali_conflict

omginternets 11y ago

I respectfully (and partially) disagree. The invasion of Iraq was stupid, reckless and selfish. It was a for-profit war that destabilized the region and allowed ISIS to take on its present form. I'll have you remember that France staunchly opposed this war. Now the US and the brits have left us with a veritable cesspool, and we're bearing the brunt of the consequences. This isn't a liberation attempt or a preemptive strike. This is responding to an immediate threat. And again, it would be foolish and disastrous to only respond militarily, but it's just as foolish not to protect ourselves from immediate threats while we counter persistent threats through non-military action. Yours is a false dichotomy.

utku_karatas2 11y ago
Hate to dwell on topics not suited on HN, but I'll just ask you one thing: how would the French troops on the Syrian ground even remotely help securing France? USA can pull off its invasive politics via a) pouring insane amount of resources both militarily and politically b) by getting along pretty good with other Muslims while bombing some (like Saudis, Turks, etc.) c) by being an ocean distance away from the very people they drop bombs on. How will France do all of that with a) much more limited resources b) while being uniformly disliked by almost all Muslim nations due to historical reasons and c) while being a boat ride away from tens of millions of agitated Muslims? I believe, with this attack, France is pulled into this already extremely messy situation by the powers that be. And I am afraid things will escalate to a much worse situation.
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  The Islamic State are different from AQ in that they have territorial ambitions, the clue is in the name. Their PR success is buoyed by their successes. France has the expeditionary capability to assist in driving the IS out of the territory it currently occupies. If France doesn't care about who takes control of the territory afterwards, as long as they aren't terrorist supporting Islamists then it does have the capacity to seriously damage IS. Will it lead to world peace and happiness, no. Will it lead to an awful lot of Syrians continuing to die, yes. Will it marginally improve the lives of those suffering under IS rule, I believe so. Will it degrade IS' ability to recruit and inspire terror attacks abroad in the long run, yes. Given a lot of poor choices you need to find the best one. Doing nothing is a conscious choice that may not be the best option.
  - utku_karatas2 11y ago
    I am afraid the answer to all of those questions is NOPE. ISIS did grow and will continue to grow as long as there is foreign military existence on Middle-east soil. It is extremely easy to recruit people to do anything while their national/religious pride is being pissed on by their historical enemy.
    - cmdkeen 11y ago
      IS grew out of the vacuum of a civil war in Syria and is predicated on creating a Caliphate. They cannot physically grow if they are not able to gain ground. Their recruitment message is likely to be significantly weakened if they lose territory and battles. Unlike AQ or even the Taliban of recent years they are not able to avoid pitched battles, they can't melt into the background - they would have to stand and fight for their territory - thus they can be defeated.
      - seren 11y ago
        They can definitely hide in the population. Rakka still have 200,000 people living there. I have no idea which part of that population are hardcore isis member : 40-50k maximum maybe. Assuming you could take Rakka, you can't just execute or deport every one with a weird accent. Mosul is even bigger. How many ground troop would it take to occupy all these cities ? This would be a repeat of the second Irak war, or Afghanistan, with the endless terrorist attacks, IEDs, etc. Even if you have contributions from Kurds, Irak regular army, or Hezbollah, they would not be welcome as savior in Sunni's territory. Like in most conflict, the military option can be used to create conditions for a political resolution, but you have to provide some sort of long term plan for Sunni population : you can't just tell them they will go back under Assad rule they despise in the first place. Currently, I don't believe there is a clear political solution. In this condition, the military option is doomed to fail.
FiloSottile 11y ago
I dare to go OT and possibly in bad HN form, but I want to mention that I found your two comments to be an excellent example of good etiquette. You made a strong point without being harsh, and answered a more heated rebuttal with an even stronger but nevertheless respectful comment. I'm not sure I agree with you, but thanks sincerely for contributing a point of view in this manner.
0xFFC 11y ago
Am pretty angry about what is going on in world , so if you felt insulted , I am so sorry , and You should understand I don't want to insult you or any other person specifically,But I want insult Ideologies pretty badly. As person who LIVES in heart of middle east (Iran) and I have seen shia militant from very close(I know people who works in IRGC),You are completely and pure wrong , do you know what would generate another generation of terrorist ? another invasion. I am atheist and liberal with a little being gay,I am not gay , but sometime things go wrong - and believe me these are pretty dangerous thing to be in Iran and would get me killed, without doubt - but I can realize the only thing will give terrorist another opportunity is invasion of a country in middle east. This is not your fucking war.This was not west fucking war at all. They shouldn't come here in any circumstance.You know what ? because Paris like terrorism act will happen again and again and again. West should understand they were wrong all the time. What the fuck are you doing in middle east ? You know what ? no body more than me would be glad to live in secular community with secular government, but it seems politician in west do not realize , being in middle east is equal to raising radical movement against them. YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND , MIDDLE EAST SHOULD FIGHT FOR ITSELF, EVEN IF ISIS KILL ALL OF US, this is not your fucking war.I do not remember reading if any alien did help west during the renaissance. Society should grow. PLEASE , do for humanity a favor , understand militarism is equal to terrorism. I was talking with one idiot yesterday , and he mentioned I do not believe France invade Iraq. Yes your are right idiot . France did not . but west did . These fucking killers in middle east , do not see countries , they see Islam against West. Do you know who fights in Iran against mullah's ? Christians ? Are you kidding me, mojahidin ? Those fucking traitors, no way. Academia fights against mullah's, science fights, liberal people fighting against mullah's more effective than any other person in whole revolution history.This regime is almost unbeatable in political sense- because they have money and manpower and oil- but do you know they are seeing liberals in their nightmare. They even don't care about West invasion against Iran(some stupid person like G.W Bush may even consider that option).Because at the end they know the can manage harm West military pretty badly. Worse than maybe Vietnam war.BUT THEY CANNOT FIGHT WITH INTERNET, WITH TOR, WITH STUDENTS who USE TOR. Give them internet , provide them satellite , facebook/twitter/youtube/porn , Show them fucking beautiful women in Texas(with respect to women, I just want show sexual incentives), show them there is no need to kill so many people to get those woman , you can fuck like heaven in earth without killing people. And BOOOOOM this is the sound of explosion of foundation of religion. Ruin their stupid culture , and then you are going to see middle is will revive. and turn to into secular place. and Do you know who is supporting ISIS ? Which countries? I would suspect Saudi Arabia ( the US closest ally after Israel in middle east).Can you fucking believe it ? This is not double standard. This is fucking fraud against humanity.At the end we all know , non of the west's politician's give fucking flying shit about terrorism in middle east. If they did , They weren't this double standard'ed against corrupted (I would say most corrupted regime in whole world) regime in Saudi Arabia.What was last time you checked women condition in Saudi Arabia.And why the hell us have this much relation ship with country which behead people like candy. This is what I mean when I am saying double standard. p.s. if you felt I insult you , I am so sorry , I was talking broadly than talking with you.I hope respectively, you understand there was something HUGE wrong with west policy in middle east.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

chappi42 11y ago

There are a lot of jobless people in the world. If all of them became militants we had the full chaos. Bye bye open society, here comes the surveillance society. If you read e.g. what happened in Palmyra, the (sometimes foreign) radical muslim terrorists attacked/killed the citizians and a liberation is very much needed. 'Only' maybe the 'state-building' has to be done longer than before in Afghanistan, Irak... And a UN administratered government is needed for some time. I don't talk about 'the west' but also about the 'moderate muslim community'. It's no good now to stand on the side and watch the atrocities. If I read correctly also countries like the Lebanon suffer from the influx of radical maslims foreigners.

Mikeb85 11y ago

> This kind of thinking is exactly why Mid-east is in its current state and that is exactly the reason why ISIS was born. ISIS was born out of the Salafist/Wahhabi ideology that the Saudi state has been exporting from the beginning of its existence. This is why terrorism is almost the exclusive domain of this one sect. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism... As another poster said, if every disenfranchised person in the world turned to terrorism, we'd have complete and utter chaos. But most don't. As for you argument, Mali was in the grips of an Islamist army. They aren't any more. Thanks to French intervention.

utku_karatas2 11y ago
Of course, ISIS is not a one variable function. I think the point you and @chappi42 miss is that being a jobless individual with no prospects in a war torn country with no end in sight is a whole different psychology than just being a jobless guy. Add this mix some religious agitation and you have the easiest job of all times as the HR manager of ISIS. I think this is the biggest contributing factor. Not the religion itself.
megalodon 11y ago
> The government of Mali asked for foreign military help to re-take the north. [1] Intervening and waging proxy wars in the middle-east sent the message that sovereignty is relative and only applies to countries with "appropriate" views, hence the hate against west. Still I wouldn't call Mali a stable country as they are constantly plagued by terrorist attacks. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mali_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Mali_conflict