Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This
ronpaulinstitute.org
Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This
1–10 of 69 posts
Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This
#2J'acquiesce.
Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This
#3"Stop disenfranchising the Muslims who live with us."
or they will kill us? While a big believer in developing infrastructure, education, etc. I think we also have to address the zealots in every "disenfranchised" group that might start killing us. Not sure how to do that.
Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This
#4"Stop disenfranchising the Muslims who live with us." or they will kill us? While a big believer in developing infrastructure, education, etc. I think we also have to address the zealots in every "disenfranchised" group that might start killing us. Not sure how to do that.
Sure but don't make that your excuse for continuing to disenfranchise Muslims who live with us.
Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This
#5The author was right: I did not.
I do not want to read another article by someone who thinks the Iraq war was about terrorism, and who seems to have potato levels of knowledge about international politics.
> and now in Syria, before in Libya, and only created more failed states and ungoverned spaces that provide havens for terrorists and spilled terror like dropped paint across borders.
Yeah, no, that isn't at all what happened. The US didn't create Syria or Libya. They're both civil wars that started organically (see "Arab Spring"); the US (and UK, et al) tried to fund certain factions after the conflicts kicked off, but they didn't initiate it.
While I agree with the overall thrust that we shouldn't sacrifice freedom for security, this whole article reads like a YouTube comment (meaning: uninformed, of low quality, making emotional but vapid arguments).
Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This
#6Well I'm watching MSNBC right now and pretty much every commentator is talking about how the terrorists were communicating using encryption and suggesting the fact that criminals have the ability to communicate secretly is something new that needs to be curtailed. Haven't seen anyone suggest we should read everyones mail yet (maybe they do this in France?). It's pretty crazy the way the media is acting. Am I to really believe they're this dumb and that they're not trying to push an agenda?
Crazy times we're living in.
Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This
#7i don't think the US had any country destabilisation action occuring while 9/11 took place. french hadn't bomb anyone while the 1995's st michel subway station took place, etc etc.
i have a test for evaluating those kind of speeches : would it have been a good speech to give in france or england in the year 1938.
Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This
#8"Stop disenfranchising the Muslims who live with us." or they will kill us? While a big believer in developing infrastructure, education, etc. I think we also have to address the zealots in every "disenfranchised" group that might start killing us. Not sure how to do that.
> or they will kill us?
Or you will need to expect repercussions that come from disenfranchising groups of people, and yes, that can include that group taking up arms against you.
A group of people that are being marginalized over and over will produce very angry people. This is the fertile ground that zealotry needs to grow.
Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This
#9A little coincidental but not completely off-topic...I just read this March 2015 piece from The Atlantic that's been passed around as the article about ISIS and its motives:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi...
It's a great, lengthy read...it's been posted a few times on HN but without much discussion. But relevant to the OP's opinion: the Atlantic writer asserts that the success of ISIS is heavily contingent on it having material victories, including territorial conquests:
> One way to un-cast the Islamic State’s spell over its adherents would be to overpower it militarily and occupy the parts of Syria and Iraq now under caliphate rule. Al‑Qaeda is ineradicable because it can survive, cockroach-like, by going underground. The Islamic State cannot. If it loses its grip on its territory in Syria and Iraq, it will cease to be a caliphate. Caliphates cannot exist as underground movements, because territorial authority is a requirement: take away its command of territory, and all those oaths of allegiance are no longer binding.
This could be an argument for or against intervention...for intervention, because U.S.-powered intervention would likely overwhelm the ISIS forces and take back territory. But OTOH, the writer asserts that besides unforeseen problems of U.S. intervention (as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan)...ISIS wants America to invade for prophetic reasons.
The Atlantic writer asserts:
> Given everything we know about the Islamic State, continuing to slowly bleed it, through air strikes and proxy warfare, appears the best of bad military options. Neither the Kurds nor the Shia will ever subdue and control the whole Sunni heartland of Syria and Iraq—they are hated there, and have no appetite for such an adventure anyway. But they can keep the Islamic State from fulfilling its duty to expand. And with every month that it fails to expand, it resembles less the conquering state of the Prophet Muhammad than yet another Middle Eastern government failing to bring prosperity to its people.
Re: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This
#10> Leave the Middle East alone
Not sure if the many 'normal' people who live there would agree. In the end they have to endure their, in most cases, bad governments.
I bet the Saudia Arabian blogger who got punished so cruelly with stoneage methods and/or the women who are not even allowed to drive a car, don't want to be left alone.
The world has become smaller and maybe it is time to enforce 'universal minimal ethics'. Instead that millions of Syrian people flee their home one maybe should (but how?) rebuild by force a capable democratic government there. Administrated by the UN for 10 years if their own people are incapable to compromise.
(A bit naive, I know...)