Heartland

Very sad, terrible, horrifying tragedy.

I hope that all our (French) HLers, their families, friends are save and, at least physically, not injured.

Life before death. Happiness before anger. Reality before illusion.

Sad day that may change history of EU. A sad day that shown once again that we're, as open society, extremely exposed to hurt. Our (well at least most of us) values, freedoms and way of life, and weakness we're out in danger. We may now show our unity and solidarity to that rights, yet we cannot be blind. Our true enemy in not Muslims itself, but those of them wanting to change cities, part of cities, those who're saying that we cannot live as we want to, but that we have to obey any religious rules based on strange, aggressive interpretation Qur'an. They are the danger lies within. Other enemy is obvious - so~called IS.
(That's obviously without saying a word about cause and "origin" so~called IS).

We also cannot let our self act in sheer emotions, revenge, because that, IMO, is what they (so~calles) IS is want to achieve. They want to stir, our society, divide it, they want French (and other nations) to revenge, blind revenge, on Muslim people, so IS can say: you see, all they want is your death, so fight with them, not only as infidels, but as a murderers. Then we'll start fight that none us want.

And it shows that Internet is the best and the worst source of information. Quantity of fake, not-checked information were huge.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't see that debate is going in other thread. Mods, delete this thread if you want to.

It seems fairly obvious that the "nuke the entire Middle-east" knee-jerk response that I've seen (from a depressingly large number of people) is precisely what the Paris attackers wished to provoke. Whip up anti-Muslim sentiment (even further) in the West, idiots with half an inch of brain will throw bricks through brown-skinned people's windows, driving their young people straight into the arms of the IS recruiters.

Obviously. Yet, so~called IS is enemy to destroy. At the same time trying to stabilize mid-east should be long term goal, but that's different thing. Diminishing so~called IS, their impact is a goal (of course 3rd wave of new Musilm based terrorists will show-up quickly and replace them).

11/13 might, just might, be the beginning of the end of so~called IS. At least I hope so.

One of interpretation of latest attack saying that IS is getting weaker, so they want to hurt innocent people, so they can be pissed of their governments, and to prove, and show, that they're still force that can hurt West. But now it's tons of interpretations.

Interesting article in Teh Grauniad which offers an explanation for why Daesh is successful, and what we might do to combat it. Not that anyone will listen - far more interested in getting into a pissing match with Russia over Syria. smh.

Nice read, thanks for link. However, if one read something more about terrorism, it's clear that when you think of surface-rational-level about their actions may looks like: I have no idea what I'm doing, except spreading chaos. But it's not. It's a contrary my dear Mary. Like it's obvious that they're, like any organization based on ideas calling for fight , basing on idealism and rebelliousness of youth, also on lack of perspectives, hollowness of life (in their eyes) showing bright goal, and giving free Coca-Cola.

EvilBastard wrote:Interesting article in Teh Grauniad which offers an explanation for why Daesh is successful, and what we might do to combat it. Not that anyone will listen - far more interested in getting into a pissing match with Russia over Syria. smh.

A good read and sad enough ... though there is another opportunity to change the match now.

Bartek wrote: and giving free Coca-Cola.

Pepsi...

I was referring to "Death of the West" by Death in June. Also to information that so~called IS were giving Coca-Cola or Pepsie people fighting for them.

Bartek wrote:Nice read, thanks for link. However, if one read something more about terrorism, it's clear that when you think of surface-rational-level about their actions may looks like: I have no idea what I'm doing, except spreading chaos. But it's not. It's a contrary my dear Mary. Like it's obvious that they're, like any organization based on ideas calling for fight , basing on idealism and rebelliousness of youth, also on lack of perspectives, hollowness of life (in their eyes) showing bright goal, and giving free Coca-Cola.

My take-away from the article was that Daesh was attractive precisely because it offered yoof (and the video they have there was also enlightening, highlighting as it did the number of people who were joining Daesh not from "traditional" muslim backgrounds but from Christianity or atheism) a tribe, a belonging, a sense of community, which is lacking in their everyday lives. The lengths to which Daesh will go to recruit is impressive, and far greater than the lengths to which governments are going to prevent people from joining. If you can convince someone that the concept of the caliphate is not only desirable but possible, and that it will solve their problems of lack of identity, of isolation, and that its worth their sacrifice, you've got 'em. Daesh's approach is remarkably sophisticated, and it's time that we countered their appeal with something more sophisticated than "If you join Daesh, if you go to Syria to fight for them, then we'll kill you." Capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent - even Pierrepoint understood this - so the fact that the threat of death doesn't deter people from joining Daesh isn't a surprise. We need a better approach; we know that the approach we're using doesn't work; we have the knowledge to formulate the new approach; it's just a matter of whether or not there is the will to implement a solution that doesn't involve airstrikes. And alas, I'm not confident that there is, so perhaps we'd better steel ourselves for more of this sort of thing.

Yes, that's what states should to do prevent people from joining. Hell, as atheist, I'd say go Catholics, go Buddhists, go Kabbalah followers, waffle eaters and Dudeists I see place and space for religion, but not one that convince you that killing in name on any dog is good.

Another good question that we don't seem to have a ready answer for: what will the world look like if we defeat ISIS?.

3rd (or 4th) wave of Islam-based terrorism, that's what gonna happen. If we defeat them only by force of bombs.

Informing article, the best of it is, however, the basic question it touches.
What do we want the world to be like? How far is the point where we are now from the best we can imagine?

Being645 wrote:Informing article, the best of it is, however, the basic question it touches.
What do we want the world to be like? How far is the point where we are now from the best we can imagine?

Best case scenario is Iran - a Syrian Islamic republic (it's styled as a "Arab Republic" now), headed by clerics and a president with limited powers. Difficult to know whether that will work in a Sunni-majority, or whether the Saudis will leave it alone (when it comes to hives of scum and villainy, I'm afraid that the Wahabis have that rather sewn up), but I can see a tri-partite Iraq (Sunni, Shia, Kurd) in a federal alliance with a Syrian Islamic Republic being a not unpalatable outcome. Egypt will have to sort itself out, decide what it's going to be, Jordan is seemingly happy to sit on the sidelines, Lebanon will need to make some decisions too.

Perhaps an Islamic Economic Community is the path to take - modeled on Europe, with customs and economic union. Lawrence maintained that for as long as the arab fights with itself it will always be a little people - if a single regional power bloc could be achieved, with internal co-operation, even between difference sects of Islam. They already have language union, which should make things easier from the get-go. It would pay huge dividends and ultimately result in far greater regional stability than we have. it would sideline Saudi (not a bad thing), give Israel the reassurance that they weren't living next door to a bunch of ASBOs, and encourage Israel to start co-operating with its neighbours.

EvilBastard wrote: Best case scenario is Iran - a Syrian Islamic republic (it's styled as a "Arab Republic" now), headed by clerics and a president with limited powers. Difficult to know whether that will work in a Sunni-majority, or whether the Saudis will leave it alone (when it comes to hives of scum and villainy, I'm afraid that the Wahabis have that rather sewn up), but I can see a tri-partite Iraq (Sunni, Shia, Kurd) in a federal alliance with a Syrian Islamic Republic being a not unpalatable outcome. Egypt will have to sort itself out, decide what it's going to be, Jordan is seemingly happy to sit on the sidelines, Lebanon will need to make some decisions too.

Reconstructing the borders of both Iraq and Syria has been on my mind too, as they were created for the same reason as many other colonial-time borders back then - to divide and conquer.

One such "new" state could for example be an extended Lebanon including the rather secular/christian/alawite coast of Syria all the way up to Turkey.

I'm afraid the problems will only persist and reoccur regularly if one spends a lot of time on uniting people who don't want to be united.

euphoria wrote:I'm afraid the problems will only persist and reoccur regularly if one spends a lot of time on uniting people who don't want to be united.

Well that is the big problem - the will to create an Islamic Union such as I described would have to come from within, it could not be imposed. And that will doesn't exist today. At least, it's not clear that it does. But maybe if someone suggested it, and offered constructive, consultative, help in getting it off the ground, made it clear what the advantages would be, convinced those involved that there would be no loss of sovereignty. If you could convince Jordan's King Abdullah and Iran's Khatami to sign up, then I think it would have a decent chance of success. Pan-Arab unity movements have failed every time, unless it's a coalition to go stuff it up the Israelis - as you say, you can't unite people who don't want to be united, so common ground needs to be found, something that all of them could agree on. Economic empowerment and military co-operation seem to be clear areas for co-operation, with Shia and Sunni acting as checks and balances against the other. If we can get past the historic distrust, which will not be a simple matter, offer incentives for doing so (like favourable trading policies with the US and the EU), then maybe there's a path out of this.

Worth reading: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... s-spy.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... ts/384980/

Dunno if that's going far enough really.
Daesh have made it perfectly clear that they think only their idea of Islam is the right one & have no problem murdering those who appear to "veer from the path". It's almost like the Red Dwarf war of the cats over which hat was the right colour in terms of levels of ridiculousness.
They also have a bucketload of sand in their various orifices over the fact that progressive followers of the Muslim faith are embracing Western culture & allowing the strict doctrines to be diluted.
The only common ground I can really see is that they worship the same deity & even that's not enough.
So what other common ground could there be?

Another good, if lengthy, read. It highlights the principle differences between al Quaeda and ISIL, and offers what may turn out to be the solution to the problem - if the caliph is required to continuously wage jihad, and to expand his territory, then preventing the latter may ultimately make Daesh disappear up its own arse, since the caliph's followers are required to hold the caliph to this duty. Failure to do so results in the caliph's removal and the appointment of another.
The caliph's failure to expand territory could also result in the disillusionment of many of the people who went to Syria to fight for the caliphate, and who may abandon the cause and thereby remove the caliph's ability to wage the required war.
So perhaps the really perverse solution is turn a blind to Russian airstrikes against the Syrian rebel forces, arm Assad's army with high-tech weaponry, and have him chip away at the caliph's turf. While Assad is the last word in unpleasantness, it wouldn't be the first time that the west got into bed with a villain. Like it or not, Syria is going to need leadership when this mess gets dealt with - and Assad has proved himself a capable leader.
Me, I'm not a fan of that solution - but it's one possible avenue of exploration.

EvilBastard wrote: Syria is going to need leadership when this mess gets dealt with - and Assad has proved himself a capable leader.

& one that the Saudis want shot of

Pista wrote:

EvilBastard wrote: Syria is going to need leadership when this mess gets dealt with - and Assad has proved himself a capable leader.

& one that the Saudis want shot of

All the more reason to keep him around, then.

EvilBastard wrote:

Pista wrote:

EvilBastard wrote: Syria is going to need leadership when this mess gets dealt with - and Assad has proved himself a capable leader.

& one that the Saudis want shot of

All the more reason to keep him around, then.

Good point. Well made.
But as long as Enlightened Western Culturesâ„¢ have their tongues jammed up the Saudis' jacksies, making them even more incredibly wealthy whilst conveniently ignoring their less than sparkling human rights record, that's going to be a toughie. No wonder he's turned to Putin for a bit of a leg up.

my friend was there, working for another band at another venue. still shivering about that one.

emilystrange wrote:my friend was there, working for another band at another venue. still shivering about that one.

One of our FPL players (JupiterCrash) was 5 minutes away.
She's okay thankfully.

send her my very best.

emilystrange wrote:
send her my very best.

Will do.