Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Terrorist attacks in Paris

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Versus View Post
    It is not possible to have a meaningful discussion if no one wants to admit mistakes.
    Post stolen from a friend .

    Apologies for the long post but I think I've finally figured out what is happening in the Middle East:
    President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (Hurrah!). But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)
    So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.
    By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.
    Getting back to Syria.
    So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?
    But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).
    Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
    So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.
    Now the British (obviously good, except some freak called Corbyn who, incidentally wears a corduroy jacket, which is dead give away as that's never good) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).
    So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).
    To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good (Doh!)
    Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmmm... might have a point) and hence we will be seen as Bad.
    So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (Good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?
    I hope that clears all this up for you.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by tankie View Post
      Post stolen from a friend .

      Apologies for the long post but I think I've finally figured out what is happening in the Middle East:
      President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (Hurrah!). But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)
      So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.
      By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.
      Getting back to Syria.
      So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?
      But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).
      Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
      So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.
      Now the British (obviously good, except some freak called Corbyn who, incidentally wears a corduroy jacket, which is dead give away as that's never good) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).
      So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).
      To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good (Doh!)
      Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmmm... might have a point) and hence we will be seen as Bad.
      So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (Good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?
      I hope that clears all this up for you.
      While a good explanation, it is too perfect for my small suspicions mind, used to grand political manipulation, to accept.
      Last edited by Versus; 17 Nov 15,, 17:38.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by kato View Post
        France has officially claimed Article 42 (7) of the Lisbon Treaty today.

        If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

        Article 42 (7) is far more strongly worded and requires far more committing than NATO Article 5, in case anyone wonders. In other words:
        500 million people just went to war with ISIS as of 10 am this morning.
        War is a pretty elastic term these days.
        Those who know don't speak
        He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

        Comment


        • As a relatively rapid consequence, Germany will move a couple hundred soldiers to Mali to free up French troops there and will reinforce its engagement supporting Kurdish forces in Iraq.

          It's France that'll dictate that war though, not either of us. We'll just give all the means in our power to support it.

          Comment


          • @tankie

            It has nothing to do with asad. It has everything to do with the american obsession with russia.

            The crisis in the middle-east is spilling over into europe. You should not expect the americans to withdraw support from anti-asad/russian forces post france attacks. The americans are pragmatists like that. They're willing to put europe on a platter to get with russia. To influence them, you have to show them that the spill over not only affects europe but CONUS too.

            The good terrorists / bad terrorists PoV comes from realpolitiks and they practice it through the strategy of counter-balance.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by tankie View Post
              Post stolen from a friend .

              Apologies for the long post but I think I've finally figured out what is happening in the Middle East:
              President Assad (who is bad) is a nasty guy who got so nasty his people rebelled and the Rebels (who are good) started winning (Hurrah!). But then some of the rebels turned a bit nasty and are now called Islamic State ( who are definitely bad!) and some continued to support democracy (who are still good.)
              So the Americans (who are good) started bombing Islamic State (who are bad) and giving arms to the Syrian Rebels (who are good) so they could fight Assad (who is still bad) which was good.
              By the way, there is a breakaway state in the north run by the Kurds who want to fight IS ( which is a good thing ) but the Turkish authorities think they are bad, so we have to say they are bad whilst secretly thinking they're good and giving them guns to fight IS (which is good) but that is another matter.
              Getting back to Syria.
              So President Putin ( who is bad, cos he invaded Crimea and the Ukraine and killed lots of folks including that nice Russian man in London with polonium poisoned sushi ) has decided to back Assad (who is still bad) by attacking IS (who are also bad) which is sort of a good thing?
              But Putin ( still bad ) thinks the Syrian Rebels (who are good) are also bad, and so he bombs them too, much to the annoyance of the Americans (who are good) who are busy backing and arming the rebels (who are also good).
              Now Iran (who used to be bad, but now they have agreed not to build any nuclear weapons and bomb Israel are now good) are going to provide ground troops to support Assad (still bad) as are the Russians (bad) who now have ground troops and aircraft in Syria.
              So a Coalition of Assad (still bad) Putin (extra bad) and the Iranians (good, but in a bad sort of way) are going to attack IS (who are bad) which is a good thing, but also the Syrian Rebels (who are good) which is bad.
              Now the British (obviously good, except some freak called Corbyn who, incidentally wears a corduroy jacket, which is dead give away as that's never good) and the Americans (also good) cannot attack Assad (still bad) for fear of upsetting Putin (bad) and Iran (good / bad) and now they have to accept that Assad might not be that bad after all compared to IS (who are super bad).
              So Assad (bad) is now probably good, being better than IS (but let’s face it, drinking your own wee is better than IS so no real choice there) and since Putin and Iran are also fighting IS that may now make them Good. America (still Good) will find it hard to arm a group of rebels being attacked by the Russians for fear of upsetting Mr Putin (now good) and that nice mad Ayatollah in Iran (also Good) and so they may be forced to say that the Rebels are now Bad, or at the very least abandon them to their fate. This will lead most of them to flee to Turkey and on to Europe or join IS (still the only constantly bad group).
              To Sunni Muslims, an attack by Shia Muslims (Assad and Iran) backed by Russians will be seen as something of a Holy War, and the ranks of IS will now be seen by the Sunnis as the only Jihadis fighting in the Holy War and hence many Muslims will now see IS as Good (Doh!)
              Sunni Muslims will also see the lack of action by Britain and America in support of their Sunni rebel brothers as something of a betrayal (mmmm... might have a point) and hence we will be seen as Bad.
              So now we have America (now bad) and Britain (also bad) providing limited support to Sunni Rebels (bad) many of whom are looking to IS (Good / bad) for support against Assad (now good) who, along with Iran (also Good) and Putin (also, now, unbelievably, Good) are attempting to retake the country Assad used to run before all this started?
              I hope that clears all this up for you.
              From what I was able to gather, although I don't have a much time to deal with that (bing! narcissism alert :))) ) issue, your friend analysis lacks one crucial factor and that is Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Oman all of those Middle East what-not's states. It looks to me that this whole thing, the Arab spring, started as a geo political move to remove any regime that might be friendly to Russia, simply because, from historical perspective, Russia is by default evil state and it is always bad, simply because it is Russia. So that is a vector that can be taken as a constant. Now...

              That vector has many sub vectors, try to picture it as a party of billiard where you hit a ball and it goes bounces until it gets all the balls into the hole. So if we look this as a billiard game, things that are irrational at first, can be rational later on. I think that it started with the American plan to deny Russia routes of expansion and secure Europe from its energy grasp. Because no matter how clever you are it all comes down to a simple fact that you need energy to perform an action. What kind of action, good or bad, that is debatable and it depends a lot on the angle of view, so I will leave that one out. So yes, I still view this as an energy war that needs to secure energy for other things. So the plan was to secure energy from the Caspian basin which was trumped with Georgian conflict and that was the time when Putin emerged as a player on the world scene. Than second route was needed and that is the decaying oil fields of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which is the TAP pipeline. Problem is that on that route, Syria lies and Assad is a friendly to Russia. Also Syria owes 0 bucks to IMF which pretty much left only one option for this plan and that is the regime change. It started with the Havley's boys from Canvas and Otopor as a nonviolent democratic civilized, Soros open society blah blah what not protest but it turned violent not so much because Assad was a blood thirsty dictator, but because Havley's plan has been busted, aka Assad knew what is really going on so he came hard on the opposition. There is a joke about train accident here that might explain his action (sorry for the derailment but I will get back on track). "The drunken guy was walking on the rails one night and was hit by a train. He survived and spend a year in recovery. When he got out of the hospital, his wife bought a toy train to their son. The moment the boy opened his present, the father jumped and smashed the toy. The mother, hugging the son asked the dad, why he did that and the father replied "That thing needs to be killed while its still young". Back to the topic. So although West supported the regime change, the Middle Eastern "allies" took it over in the form of ISIS, whose brutality made the West look bad. So ISIS is a proxy enemy to all but also a proxy friend to ALL.
              So to simplify, we have three main fractions there, the West backed "moderate" head cutters, the Middle Eastern backed hard core "head cutters" and Russia's backed "legal head cutters". Of course, the motif for Russia to enter the game is the "soft underbelly" the Caucasus, because it knows that if Assad falls, it will have the trouble there and if that fails, well, pretty much Ukraine will fall also and that is the game over for Russia. Back in Europe, fight over supremacy is live and well and it can mean that, unfortunately, we will be looking at the very turbulent times ahead. Just today, one of the analysts said that next year we could expect increased terrorist activity on our soil so yeah, we are all in the same basket, regardless if we like it or not.

              Comment


              • There is a lot of satire in the post versus , wink .

                Comment


                • Originally posted by tankie View Post
                  There is a lot of satire in the post versus , wink .
                  Well, I have Libyan embassy across the street which is also their school and hundreds of their refugees/migrants in my neighborhood so yeah, its not very comfortable. I am trying to keep my spirits high, but I actively think of moving to country side, before I get a mosque in front of my window. The memory of the army days and my deployment to Sanjak before Kosovo, is something that I would like to forget (shrug!) and God forbid, repeat.
                  Last edited by Versus; 17 Nov 15,, 19:50.

                  Comment


                  • Sad state of affair these days ....

                    Though not sure, if overexcited French pilots flying Rafales on no-merci sorties & bombing for the sake of bombing will do anything ... but i guess emotions will dictate actions in the short term.
                    If GWB was allowed to go Iraq and play god (in the wake of 9/11) and thus directly/indirectly changing the destiny/lives of 100,000s people (for worse or better) than I guess French can be forgiven for doing the same.

                    I ll say this, something like this would not have happened in US or Canada, simply because these countries are better in assimilating immigrants. What happened in France, is not just about Daesh' strategy of seeding chaos everywhere and provoking; it is also related to the demographic nature of France, how the latter was used by Daesh and leveraged to carry out this despicable act.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by kato View Post
                      France has officially claimed Article 42 (7) of the Lisbon Treaty today.

                      If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

                      Article 42 (7) is far more strongly worded and requires far more committing than NATO Article 5, in case anyone wonders. In other words:
                      500 million people just went to war with ISIS as of 10 am this morning.
                      I'll believe it when I see it.

                      It's all for show. France will drop some bombs like how we lobbed a few dozen Tomahawks at some supposed Al Queda training center in 1996 and call it quits. And then Billy would claim he missed Osama by just a few hours...
                      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                      Comment


                      • The Truman CSG has just set off to conduct strikes in Syria and is expected to arrive in the coming weeks. So we've got the French, the Russians, and the Americans out for blood. Last time those countries were on the same side, things didn't go over so well for the enemy...
                        "Draft beer, not people."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by kato View Post
                          As a relatively rapid consequence, Germany will move a couple hundred soldiers to Mali to free up French troops there and will reinforce its engagement supporting Kurdish forces in Iraq.

                          It's France that'll dictate that war though, not either of us. We'll just give all the means in our power to support it.
                          Hmm, I'm not surprised re: support

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                            I'll believe it when I see it.

                            It's all for show. France will drop some bombs like how we lobbed a few dozen Tomahawks at some supposed Al Queda training center in 1996 and call it quits. And then Billy would claim he missed Osama by just a few hours...
                            That's what I would expect. I actually don't see a better outcome than that anyways, at least not a realistic outcome. There's no political will to "fix" Syria, especially not with Russian soldiers in it.
                            "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                            Comment


                            • On reflection and having spoken to perhaps wiser colleagues I think there is a real danger of losing sight of the wood for the trees so to speak regarding this whole Paris palarva... or at least it may seem so from a Ukrainian or general 'Central European' perspective.

                              While certainly it must be and is admitted that the attacks in Paris were terrible crime and those responsible must be brought to justice some wonder why the French, who now appear to be hopping (sorry couldn't resist) mad declaring it 'an act of war' and vowing to 'destroy' their enemy, are reacting in such an extreme manner? When Ukraine is attacked on a daily basis - six Ukrainian soldiers dead in the last couple of days - these 'good Europeans' Germany and France urge us that there can 'only be a diplomatic solution'. Why is it different when France is attacked? Perhaps Georgia and Ukraine should 'negotiate' on their behalf while they temporarily cede some of their land to ISL? There are 129 dead in Paris and we all regret and denounce those responsible but there are over 8,000 officially dead from agression against Ukraine and literally hundreds of thousands dead at the hands of the criminal Assad regime. Are French people in some way intrinsically worth more than others that everyone must now ignore these other crimes and join the French revenge war? Indeed it was these 'good Europeans' in France and Germany who have for so long and still recently insisted that all European nations accept these 'refugees', who it is now abundantly clear that at least a minority of are not entirely benign. Should we have a quota of terrorist attacks too since the French have persued an immigration policy which many other nations do not agree with. Is this tragedy not self imposed at least in part? Ukraine does not have a 'Muslim problem', the guy who started the Maidan protests with a post on facebook, Mustafa Nayyem, is an Afghan by birth; the Chechen and Tartar Battalions fighting for Ukraine are among our finest because we of course fight for their rights, a Crimean Tartar homeland and a free Chechnya too. There are also some Syria 'refugees' now in Kyiv and Lviv I am told but as no doubt the majority of these refugees they are grateful for relative peace.

                              Now we hear that M. Hollande is off to Moscow to negotiate with Putin who's aim is to destroy European unity and the transatlantic alliance. God forbid that this fool of a 'good European' cedes any further Ukrainian soveriegnty to a regime hell bent on destroying Europe as a whole. Today Moscow has banned any import of Ukrainian food - which of course in reality means only a pay rise for customs guards, yet M. Hollande is off to make a deal perhaps including the continuation of the Assad regime... all for 129 casualties when both Ukraine and Syria have suffered far more but refuse to do any deal. Who gives the French President the right to even discuss such deals regarding the rights of people who are not his fellow citizens? I know the French are occasionaly somewhat conceited and haughty but perhaps the real blame for this tragedy lies in their immigration policy which they have sought to impose on other, at least in part?

                              Of course Paris was a terrible tragedy but the French have done little over greater tragedies in Ukraine and in particular Syria. Everyone can respect the role they have played in Mali and other central African nations but if they are serious about European unity doing deals with Moscow is not the way to go about it. "Sic semper tyrannis" could well have been a motto of the French revolution and if they truly want liberté, égalité et fraternité all the tyrants must go, including the one in Moscow.

                              I do not wholy agree with these sentiments but some of my friends and colleagues feel this way. In general I agree with the idea that 'European unity' if it is to exist, must exclude any deal with the Muscovite Midget. From what I hear any 'deal' with the devil will result in the end of the 'Normandy format' participation by Ukrainian senior officials, we shall "observe" only and not regard ourselves as bound by any future 'agreeements' on such a level. I have long been opposed to the 'Normandy format' agreed at the Dday commemorations last year. Both the US and UK went very wrong to allow this; the Budapest Memorandum was breached and as signatories to it the UK and US should have been involved in any talks but Obama ceded responsibility to Germany, now busy trying to force through North Stream 2 and France, now off to Moscow to negotiate over Ukraine's head. This was a grave mistake from the start and these 'good Europeans' are now busy compounding the blunders. You want 'European unity'? Act accordingly or you will lose Central Europe.

                              Just as a matter of note I would bet butter cookies that the guns used in Paris came from Kosovo. I believe the Germans found a car load not too long ago from the Balkans.

                              Comment


                              • In 6 months almost no one in the US is going to remember this, anymore than we remember the London Bus bombings, or the Madrid bus bombings, or the Asian tsunami, or Boko Haram, or Joseph Kony, or anything else Facebook says it cares about.

                                Basing your foreign policy off emotional over-reactions is stupid. For instance, "oh, we should all be one big happy family and use the same currency, because unity!"

                                For what it's worth, people in the US hate Putin as much as they hate ISIS. No one in the US runs on the "let's understand Russia" ticket anymore.
                                "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X