General Question

elbanditoroso's avatar

France has said that they "declare war" on ISIS and will eliminate them. How? Is this realistic? Or is it bluster?

Asked by elbanditoroso (28831points) November 14th, 2015

Hollande has said that France considers the attacks as an act of war, and that France will annihilate ISIS.

But how? If this goal has eluded the world for the last couple of years, what will the world do differently now?

Do other armies besides the US have the ability and the guts?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

85 Answers

ragingloli's avatar

Because the French airstrikes against ISIS in Syria since the end of September were not “acts of war”.
He acts as if these attacks were unprovoked.

jaytkay's avatar

@ragingloli True, ISIS is simply fighting back.

But are you happy with the way ISIS rules its territory? Do you think France and NATO should not oppose ISIS?

Buttonstc's avatar

Perhaps a good starting point would be to expel every single Muslim from France beginning with a “last in, first out” policy.

If they’re so unhappy being surrounded by the “decadent” infidels, send them back to their own deserts.

Wouldn’t this inconvenience a lot of innocent “peaceful Muslims” ? Yup, it sure would but there are already lots of innocents already being inconvenienced (AND KILLED).
It would simply change the demographics of which innocents get inconvenienced by these radical Jihadists.

Tell the peaceful Muslims to get their rogue brethren under control by any means necessary; re-educate them, imprison them, or bury them. Let them start a Jihad for peace.

Why not assign them the job of keeping these nutbars from continually misrepresenting their religion? Expelling them from the country would provide excellent motivation for them to actually do something about it other than just a few politicslly corrrct soundbites about how much Islam is really a religion of peace.

All of a sudden it might not be so attractive for disaffected young people to join the cause of Jihad. If it contained actual consequences from the majority of other Muslims, it would no longer be seen as the “cool” thing to do.

If they want to die for the Jihadist cause, fine. Let them do it back in their own countries where they lack the opportunity to take tons of innocent civilized people in other nations with them.

Let them die at the hands of other Muslims who are fed up with their crap getting them kicked out of civilized society.

Is that likely to happen? Probably not. At least not in the USA. But maybe if France (or other European nations) get fed up enough with being taken advantage of, they might kick all of them out until they get these radicalists under control.

Then if there have been no more terror attacks for a specified number of years (five maybe?) the sensible ones can petition to be allowed back in to the country on a case by case basis.

I think it would be a lot easier than trying to pick out ISIS (or other radical Jihadis) from the rest of the crowd in which they’re hiding in plain sight.

Let the rest of the crowd deal with them. These guys have “hijacked” Islam is a commonly heard sentiment. So, let the rest of Islam take back their religion and eliminate these radical elements. If it means killing them, so be it. They’re ready to die for the cause anyway. No loss. Let Islam police its own.

ragingloli's avatar

Come one, tell us what you really want to do.
Put them all into camps, build those special showers, and fire up the ovens.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

There are 3 objectives to liquidating an enemy. You must destroy their Command and Control, their logistics (supply lines, suppliers, including their financiers), and the individual members. themselves. But not necessarily in that order. Preferably all at once. This has been wartime modus operandi since the time of Sun Tzu in the 6th century BCE, reiterated and modernized by Clausewitz in the 19th century.

Eliminating Command and Control:
ISIS is a stateless international group of terrorists with “a very loose and decentralized command structure that operates on ideas rather than directives. The US has attacked their C and C with drones, special forces operations, and in conventional air attacks, but these have had very little effect on the intensity and frequency of operations. Since January 1st, 2015, they have killed more than 1,700 people in ISIS and attacks.

Killing and Incarcerating Individual Hostiles:
Many nations, including the US, have incarcerated and killed individual operatives within their own borders and throughout the world. Still this has little effect upon them or their ability to recruit. It is common knowledge where the many ISIS and al Qaeda training camps are: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, the West Bank, Gaza, and possibly Iran and North Korea.

There has been a civil war going on in Iran for more than a year. Last night, soon after the attack in Paris, the president of Iran condemned it. If he is serious, he might like to share what his intelligence services know about these international terrorist groups and their supply lines, training camps, etc.—which Iran has been materially supporting since 1978.

Destroying the Enemy’s Logistics:
This hasn’t been seriously addressed. The destruction of supply lines, training camps, and the various Islamic terrorist groups’ financial sources requires the international cooperation of intelligence services, police, and military not seen since WWII. Hopefully, this attack on Paris, and the many international treaties against terrorism they have with their allies, including the US, will go a long way to prosecuting this war.

Working on the other end of this, the West needs to seriously pressure the tyrannical governments these terrorists come from to finallly allow the people political self-determination and enact a sharing of these countries’ natural wealth with their people, like the Norwegian government does. Going full blast into sustainable, non-fossil fuels will making this less painful for the West.

Buttonstc's avatar


Absolutely not. Those who were put into prison camps and ovens were total innocents. Radical Jihadists are anything but. Expulsion is a lot simpler.

However the rest of the Muslims decide to deal with them is their business. If they can re-educate them fine. If not, let them figure out what to do with them.

ragingloli's avatar

Do you also think that Norway should expel every single christian because of Breivik?

Buttonstc's avatar


He was not part of an ongoing organized group whose methods revolved around terrorism.

Big difference. And you know it.

ragingloli's avatar

And neither are the vast majority of muslims in france.
What you are advocating is collective guilt, and guilt by association.
You would probably froth at the mouth if someone suggested that all christians are responsible for every christian terrorist across the world and christian oppression especially in african nations.
And you know as well as I do that the “organised group” argument is just a smokescreen to mask your hypocrisy.
The “Lord’s Resistance Army” is an organised group. So is the KKK and the IRA.
All three are christian terrorist groups.
And yet you do not think that all christians are responsible for those group’s actions.
No, boy. That privilage is restricted to those “filthy brownskinned, camelfucking sandnigger mooslimes.”

jaytkay's avatar

@ragingloli Are you happy with ISIS?

If not, what do you think can be done?

JLeslie's avatar

The whole thing seems so impossible to me. From what I understand ISIS encourages people living within a country to get their own guns and bombs and reek havoc. Whether it’s very organized from the top down, or more in separate silos within each country or community, I guess it doesn’t matter, except to say that obviously if the people are allowed in the country they have access. But, what are you going to do? Send them all back as suggested above?

A Palestinian-American friend of mine wrote on Facebook:

“I’m seeing a lot of #paris and #prayforparis hash tags tonight… all very deserved and any kind of support is good… but this isn’t a time to pray for Paris… it’s a time to pray for mankind as a whole… that we’ve created a world where people feel their only means for being heard is to go out and kill innocent civilians is sad… that this type of coordinated attack wasn’t an “if” but “when” scenario is sad… right now this world is lacking true leaders… men and women willing to stand up, push politics aside and do what needs doing… we have created a vacuum… a vacuum of leadership that has been filled by folks with hate in their heart… the Parisian authorities will neutralize this threat tonight and we’ll all be left asking the same questions we were after Oklahoma City, 9/11, The Olympic bombing in Atlanta and countless others… this isn’t a Muslim thing… a Christian thing… a white thing or a black thing… this is a human thing and we are doing nothing to address a world that creates enough hatred in people’s hearts to carry out acts like this.”

I have to agree that we need to look at underlying causes and address them, probably as a world, not just as a country. An entire cultural shift needs to take place. How the heck that will take place I don’t know. I have the feeling something really horrific will happen. Worse than we have seen. I don’t know what to think. I do think the Arab world needs to unite and fight these homicidal/suicidal maniacs. Fighting, might be war, or it might be bettering their own societies so people are not attracted to this violence. I see it as similar to gang mentality, it’s just heightened because God and a cause is added to the feeling of belonging somewhere.

I’m interest to see more answers.

Buttonstc's avatar


I think it’s interesting to see who is resorting to racially charged invective here.

And which Christian terrorist group is Breivik a part of (other than in his own mind)?

Look, I’m fully aware that there is likely no practical way for France or any other country to follow through on what I wrote.

It was more of a tongue in cheek fantasy spurred by frustration. But I don’t buy the line of thought that other Muslims bear zero responsibility for their radical elements.

They’d basically bystanders. If they wanted to be more helpful in providing intelligence to authorities in identifying the radicals they could be if there were any incentive to do so.

I’m not an expert on the inner workings of the other groups you cited.

But I do know for certain that if the KKK were going around staging massive terror attacks, most people wouldn’t be idly standing around with their hands in their pockets whether Christian or not.

But the fact of the matter is that they are basically a part of the ugly past of the US with little relevance to current times.

But you won’t get any argument from me that it was an ugly and shameful past.

But I don’t see any Christian groups exporting terrorism to other nations. I realize that you have strong feelings about colonialism and such but that’s a different issue.

I’d be really interested to hear your solution to the ongoing terrorism created by Radical Islamists. I fully realize that they do not represent the majority of Muslims but something needs to be done.

So, what’s your solution?

Or do you think ISIS is perfectly justified because France is so full of infidels treating Mudlims so horribly. Who knows? Perhaps you do.

filmfann's avatar

My first inclination is to simply remove all of our soldiers and ambassadors from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and any other Isis/al qaeda/whatever homeland. Next, I would tell them that if I hear any more shit from them, I nuke Mecca, and any other holy site (excluding Jerusalem, of course).
Of course, this is a horrifying plan. I doubt they take us seriously, and if a small sect violates my conditions, they either know we are bluffing, or we give them more reason to hate us.
The better plan is to realize that this is not a conventional war, and our approach has been ham handed. We stop giving them reasons to hate us, and stop much of our current tactics. We stop killing their leaders (replacements are usually more vicious, and less restrained). We become more supportive and, if you’ll forgive the term, more Christian, to stop them for having reasons to hate us.
How will this approach work? It won’t. This pussy footing is a doomed scenario.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@Buttonstc “I think it’s interesting to see who is resorting to racially charged invective here.”

Do you even hear yourself? Your posts in this thread are a bit of an eye-opener about your character, frankly.

elbanditoroso's avatar

I think that the answerers are hitting the nub of the problem. The complications with all of these approaches are:

1) the governments (Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, etc.) don’t have control of ISIS and don’t have much leverage to stop them

2) Not every Syrian is an ISIS person. So you end up killing too many people.

3) That, in turn, gets more on-the-fence Arabs pissed off, so they want to aid their muslim brothers. So the cycle gets larger but no result is ever achieved.

4) The only countries with power to do anything serious are the US, Russia, and China. No one else has the armaments. Israel isn’t going to get involved. Countries with armies (Germany, England, and a handful of others) aren’t going to get political approval to wipe ISIS out. And the US not only doesn’t have the $$ but will never be a serious ally with China or with Russia.

I’m not sure that it’s pussy-footing, as someone said above. I think whatever is done will have consequences – probably bad consequences – and we need to find the least bad alternative.

And on that, I don’t have a clue.

msh's avatar

Terry McVey stated that God- his Christian God, told him to destroy the office building in Kansas City. Rembering the picture of little Bailey being carried, dying, by the firefighter is a sucker punch to the gut. Sooo does that mean that we should annihilate Christians of his particular branch of religion?
Stop painting with a wide brushstroke, please.
Most of our relatives immigrated because of some cause from where they began. The only difference is usually just the date.

What happened yesterday was a bold move by a radical group. They caused at least a couple of their goals come to fruition; •Front and center in the news. Check.
•Put fear into countries who accepted predominantly Syrian refugees trying to flee- especially if they are of the relgious group ISIL wishes to obliterate. Forever. To make those at their most vulnerable face more resentment and hatred everywhere they go. Check. •Create the same anti-agression backlash group who oppose actions and money going into a fight. Ehhh, Kinda-Check. ( all US lawmakers supported going after Bin Laden, just not via Iran, yet later, platform politics critics questioned their ‘patriotic’ actions. ) Etc.
One thing that has finally made other European and worldwide countries go from ” Oh, look at all those poor nations fighting! Poor dears. Why are they always such aggressive places? We can watch them on the evening news.” move towards a more realistic view of aggressions being carried out in their own front yards.
All the European nations held emergency council meetings before the activities in Paris had finally ended, for now.
I believe your – Pearl Harbor in Paris, has changed things dramatically in the last 24+ hours.
Central America has been sending $ aid to the US in their nightly military expenditures.
The silent tendrils of this monster called ISIS, are not going away. Not easily.
However killing all Muslims, or McVey’s Christians is not the answer.
We’ll have to form some better understanding and work inclusive of more countries taking things more seriously, more actively seeking and supporting groups in the middle of the current bullseye in Syria et al. and not leaving them weaponless.
We will never, ever come out on the positive side of ‘Boots on the Ground’ theory idiocy. That is what is desired to end all. By ISIL. It’s out there. They haven’t hidden their agenda.
Killing all of a group is done out of hot anger.
Cool thought on how to counter and bring down, that’s where the difference makes more sense.

Buttonstc's avatar


Who is suggesting to kill them all? (other than Trump who starts bragging about how much bombing he’ll do. He seems to like the idea of bombing most of the Middle East into a parking lot. Idiot.)

But our current methods of trying to “selectively bomb” ISIS and other terrorist groups, even with the aid of drones, has a horrendously high rate of collateral damage (read as: innocent civilians.)

Killing them all certainly isn’t an acceptable solution so how do we separate out the militants?

Don’t their fellow countrymen know far better who they are than we do?

ibstubro's avatar

I’m shocked at your initial rant, @Buttonstc.
“Perhaps a good starting point would be to expel every single Muslim from France beginning with a “last in, first out” policy.”

So, you’re going to expel a second or third or more generation Frenchman who happens to be Muslim? To where??

If not Nazi concentration camps, it certainly smacks of Japanese-Americans internment camps during WW ll.

Where would you send them to? Into the war zone? How are peaceful Muslims in France any more able to influence their radical brethren than you or I? The whole idea is a ridiculous echo of Trump’s Illegal immigrant plan.

DrasticDreamer's avatar

The Taliban, ISIL… it will never end. Thanks, in part, to the fact that we keep starting wars and sending soldiers over to the Middle East. America is as much to blame for this continuing bullshit as anyone else. Maybe we should stop starting wars for oil? Maybe we should stop supplying countries our government knows are likely to see wars with weapons? Maybe if our government cared about anything other than money things wouldn’t be this bad to begin with.

I’m also kind of shocked at what @Buttonstc said. Not only would that not be possible, it shouldn’t even be considered.

msh's avatar

So, if this be true, then Damn those Pilgrims! If we would’ve sent them back home, then they could’ve pointed out the bad-guys, the not-to-be-trusted bad-guys, those who burned them alive, the wood and kindle seller, the tinder lighter and the Pope?
( not to mention missing any kind of a Thanksgiving holiday!)
Don’t you think that agencies here and abroad have their drones aimed at every volatile individual already?
Are you worrying about the collateral individuals where ISIS purposefully hides their worst amongst currently? There is no one area. Sending groups back, working with the groups through how many middlepeople for what?
Recognition of their own- there are those in the Military who cannot figure out who the people are within the training ranks that are embedded with the intention of turning and destroying.
I don’t understand how they would be best – known to their own? Yellow stars on their clothes again? Purple triangles?
I don’t mean to attack your thought- process. That is not my intention, but I just don’t understand your rational.
What am I missing?

Pachy's avatar

I wish it were realistic, but to me it feels mainly emotional and political.

ibstubro's avatar

It’s hyperbole, @elbanditoroso.

France will support any of its allies efforts to neutralize ISIL to the fullest of their extent.
They’re ‘all in’ at the moment

LuckyGuy's avatar

@Buttonstc offered a potential solution and plan of action. You might not agree with it but it is one solution. I see many peopele here showing shock and dismay but have not seen anyone else offer up something. I’m all ears. What would you do?

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@LuckyGuy So, what was my answer, chopped livah?

funkdaddy's avatar

So sad on this thread.

I don’t think I’ve seen anything where Hollande said France would eliminate ISIS and I doubt he’d ever say France would annihilate them. I’m sure he’s made many statements, but here’s the text of his speech, it’s pretty controlled for a declaration of war. I think he understands what’s he’s saying.

ISIS is estimated to be about ⅓ the size of the Iraq military before the first gulf war. So it’s not some unconquerable force by raw numbers. Especially if Europe, the US, and their allies decide to work together. ISIS certainly doesn’t have the military equipment that Iraq had.

But you’re talking about an invasion and occupation to eliminate ISIS all together. It would be uglier, deadlier, and probably larger than the Iraq war because troops aren’t fighting a nation, they’re fighting individuals spread over a huge area. It’s like fighting a 200,000 member gang. It would take a lot of troops invading and staying for a long time. That’s a problem, but also you have to remember there are governments in place in those areas. Some might be ok with a large “western” force, some will not be.

Unfortunately that will be the solution if ISIS continues attacking civilians. It’s what governments have militaries for. It would probably be for the same reason as the second Gulf War, but no one will mentioned WMDs this time.

I wish we’d decide to show ISIS doesn’t hold the upper hand by doing something other than killing as many people as we can. I know it’s not standard procedure, and it’s a tough sell, but bear with for a moment.

ISIS is growing because it’s showing that disgruntled people can have an effect. Al-Qaida did the same, they’ve been damaged, so their numbers are shrinking. But it’s the same deal, and there will be another group after ISIS if nothing changes. (all my opinions)

What if an organized coalition set up protected areas inside ISIS’s area of influence, their stated “nation”. Places where refugees can come and live in relative safety compared to where they’re fleeing, but not have to flee the area all together. It’s a huge undertaking, but it would probably be less troops, effort, and yes, money, than an invasion and occupation.

If you can make an area secure and protect that, to the benefit of those that live there, and hopefully with the blessing of the national government, you’re not an invading army. You show those considering joining ISIS that 1) ISIS isn’t running wherever they want anymore, they aren’t winning 2) you put doubt that all westerners are out to eliminate your way of life.

The police didn’t eliminate the gang problem in the US, neighborhoods did, one at a time. There are still gangs, but it’s not like it used to be and that’s because it doesn’t have the draw it once did.

There are always going to be extremist, we have to find a way to quit creating them by the hundred thousand.

Pandora's avatar

The problem with terrorist groups is that no one wants to commit to rounding them up. If nato got all the nations involved in moving in, surrounding them and capturing them all; then other groups would think twice before springing up. The problem is we bomb one or two here and there, but theses groups are like hydra monsters. You can’t just keep cutting off the heads. You have to trap and lock up the whole beast. These people are not religious. They are simply violent hateful people who use religion and would use anything to justify their hatred for those who are different. I’m not talking about Muslims, I’m only referring to terrorists. Capture them all and lock them up and peaceful Muslims will be able to go home and rebuild and make a better place for their future and that of their children. I pray the world will come to its senses one day and realize by working together we can make our planet better.

flutherother's avatar

France has been bombing ISIS for over a year so it is a little absurd to declare war on them now. The problem is that ISIS is just another head on the hydra, lop it off and another will appear.

JLeslie's avatar

As I read more answers I’ve decided the way to go is to get a whole bunch of undercover agents working on the project. Really understand how they recruit and why people are attracted to joining and then cut them off at the pass. Lure the people not yet caught up to a better life, and inprison, or kill those who are plotting, organizing, and killing.

As far as rounding up Muslims, I just don’t know what to say. I know good Muslims want the terrorists caught too. Let’s say radical Jewish groups were blowing things up and killing people. That has nothing to do with me, but now I know there is an element that identifies as Jewish that is bad. If they are meeting in synagogues, bug the synagogues, attend the services, I would recognize the terrorists are using the cover of my religion and I might have to give up some freedoms to get them.

I don’t know if the situation is perfectly analogous to the Japanese during WWII. Had Japanese Americans done anything for use to be suspicious? Any Hapanese people just living in the US? Al Qaeda and ISIS do have people in western countries carrying these murderous acts out. I don’t think most of them were on tourist visas. I might be wrong about that. I thought they were either in the countries as residents, citizens, or illegally.

@msh Who is McVey’s Christians? Did he have Christans around him or communicating with him who had the same thoughts and cause? Was he organizing to blow up building around the country and the world? I really don’t know all the details of his story.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

The fact that France calls this an “act of war,” shows either how out of touch of governments are with the fact that war is two sided, or that they have deceptively been lying to us to make us believe we have not been at war.

We, along with countries like France, have been bombing 8 or so Muslim countries for the past 14 years. This means that a 10 year old kid living in the Middle East is now 24. If all the kid knows is drone strikes that kill his family and friends, villages are destroyed, and all you have left is religion, take at guess as to what group he will be joining.
We are so disconnected with what we are doing around the world, and really feel that one thing, and one thing only, can be the solution to many of our problems…. Empathy.

We created ISIS and we continue to grow ISIS.

wsxwh111's avatar

@SquirrelEStuff Due to bad English and shock, are you saying you are a member of ISIS..?

Seek's avatar

Squirrel is saying that the western world is responsible for the fact that ISIS exists. He is not saying he is a member.

wsxwh111's avatar

Okay I got it.

wsxwh111's avatar

Actually I think there’s no winner in every type of war. Even since it begins.
War is not the answer.

wsxwh111's avatar

Now the whole world is praying for paris including me, but you don’t see people praying for the innocent people in Middle Eastern countries while they are being killed.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@wsxwh111 – war may not be the answer long term, but both sides have to agree that war is not the answer.

Right now ISIS is declaring war by its actions. The Western response shouldn’t be “turn the other cheek” because turning that cheek will be ineffective, and possibly fatal.

I think that’s the issue. No one wants to fight a war, but sometimes there is no choice.

Seek's avatar

Well, I’m not praying for anyone.

I am operating at a level of nearly complete disgust for the country I’m forced to live in, and have for years.

Unfortunately, there’s very little I can do about it.

wsxwh111's avatar

@elbanditoroso I’m not saying France shouldn’t declare war.
I just feel sorry all of this happened.

ibstubro's avatar

Maybe you should round yourself up and deport yourself for unAmerican proclivities, @Seek.

si3tech's avatar

The collective sounds of muslims all around the world decrying these atrocities is glaringly absent! And sounds of the same muslims swearing allegiance to the country they’re in is likewise non existent. The silence is deafening!

elbanditoroso's avatar

@si3tech – I can think of several reasons for this:

1) they agree with and support ISIS and in their hearts want an Islamic caliphate

2) they are cowardly and are afraid of reprisals if they speak out

3) they don’t approve of the killings, but they have been brainwashed to hate the West more than they are disgusted by terrorists killing in the name of Islam, so they take a pass.

4) they are just plain stupid and don’t understand the whirlwind that is going on.

ragingloli's avatar

Or, just like christians, they do not feel responsible for the actions of others.

ibstubro's avatar

I don’t think:
1. Traitors
2. Cowards
3. Mindless
4. Stupid
covers the spectrum of Muslims, @elbanditoroso.

I don’t even know a Muslim, and I find that offensive.

Seek's avatar

I have a friend who works for immigration and he says he’s not allowed to deport me. I tried.

Pandora's avatar

@si3tech There are Muslims from around the world condemning these terrorists. Even their top religious leaders.

But along with their condemnations there are others posting beside them about having hatred for All Muslims, in an attempt to drown out their voices. This shuts down those who would speak. If you have an enemy standing to your right and one to the left, most would end up keeping their words to themselves.

If we don’t learn to look past each others differences and unify as fellow human beings, then this world is near its end.

JLeslie's avatar

@si3tech I have heard some Muslim leaders speaking out (on the radio) and asking for other Muslims and Muslim leaders to do the same. However, I agree it seems few and far between, but I have to wonder if that is the medias fault. Certainly, my Muslim friends are appalled and say it openly in Facebook and in person.

I don’t think most Muslims identify with terrorists so they don’t think to say much to denounce it. I think more likely they think, “shit, why does it have to be another Muslim terrorist?” It’s like when a Jewish person does something horrible I just think yuck. As a minority group we are mote likely to have a stereotype or assumption thrust upon us. Muslims are a minority in America, and in Europe, so the expectation is different than if they were part of the majority (Christians).

Another example; my Mormon friends don’t start speaking out when there are reports of those Mormon compounds marrying off 14 year old girls. They know it has nothing to do with how they practice their religion.

I used to complain about Muslims not saying enough after terrorist attacks and then I tried to put myself in their place.

msh's avatar

Timothy McVeigh brought an early terroristic attack to the US by bombing the Federal Building in Kansas City, MO. He gave as his main reason for doing so to be that he was a staunch Christian and that God had told him to do it. He and another man and wife set about to do so with explosives inside a rented van, outside the building, It looked as though the front side of the building was crudely cut off, from the explosion. No warning, no care that there was a nursery school/daycare housed there. I apologize, I misspelled his last name up above.

JLeslie's avatar

@msh I know who he is and what he did. He didn’t start an army of soldiers doing the same all over the country.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@ibstubro -,ok, you took your shots at me.

what are your explanations? Put your thoughts on the table.

msh's avatar

@ JLeslie
He had hoped to. My point was made via: when TM blew up the building saying what he did, we did not blame ALL Christians.
Because of the actions of a facet of Islam, we should not also blame ALL Muslims, as was being done in earlier answers to this question.
Radicals of any faith are just that. You should not blame the whole religion.
Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.

whitenoise's avatar

Wow… I’m impressed.

Took two days for fluther to catch on to this and when we did we responded by ethnophobic propaganda that Goebbels would have been proud of.

Maybe the reason Muslims aren’t heard, is because you’re not listening. Turn in to some other news stations and you may hear them. I did.

Who of you were putting Lebaneses flags on their Facebook last Thursday when an identical attack happened in Lebanon with over 60 dead?

Did you even know about that one?

If this is going to be the line of discussing the world’s problems in Fluther I will leave fluther.

We should be ashamed of this thread.

Stinley's avatar

I have read lots of articles, posts and comments from ordinary Muslim people and non Muslims who are saying that these people are not Muslims and they in no way associate themselves, their colleagues, neighbors and friends with any extremist terrorist action. So just because you have no idea what other people are saying doesn’t mean that they are being silent on the matter. Do your research before making spurious comments

stanleybmanly's avatar

Bluster or not, as the Algerians will tell you, the French are certainly capable of showing ISIS a thing or two about viciousness.

JLeslie's avatar

@msh Very very few people think it’s all Muslims. The ones who do are ignorant. Ask those same people how many Muslims are in the world, they probably have no idea. If all Muslims were murderous terrorists we would be really up a creek. Their numbers are huge. It’s much easier to find peaceful Muslims than violent ones if you go looking.

elbanditoroso's avatar

I agree with @JLeslie – obviously not all Muslims are terrorists.

But… if you look at the terrorist acts over the last 30–40 years, the overwhelming majority of them have been by Muslims, or by Muslim proxies (like the Japanese who shot up Tel Aviv airport on behalf of the Muslims). And Isis is completely a Muslim operation.

I’m getting tired of people saying “but this is painting a whole religion with a broad brush” and “this is collective punishment”. That’s an excuse or a cop-out. It’s a way of asserting that the community plays no role in the action – that the terrorists were just a bunch of guys acting alone. That’s clearly not true.

Israel has for years held the policy that they will destroy the house of a suicide bomber as punishment. That, of course, affects the bomber’s family. I’m not sure that’s all that wise as a long term policy, but it does send a clear message. Maybe that’s what France needs to consider.

JLeslie's avatar

@elbanditoroso I didn’t know of that Israeli policy. Do you think it really helps? I think many of the families support those suicide bombers.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

We did not create ISIS, we just fed and armed them. This barbaric mentality has been around before the USA even existed. We can stop leaving weapons and shit all over the middle east. We can stop allowing ourselves to be soft targets and start taking defensive positions. Not really a lot we can do to stop this offensively.

chyna's avatar

@msh Timothy Mcvey blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, just to clarify.

JLeslie's avatar

@chyna Good catch. I skimmed right over that. I didn’t read his post well since I already know who Tim McVeigh (or however his name is spelled) is, and what he blew up.

@msh I just reread what you wrote. What do you mean “early” terrorist attack?”

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

I think people here should just calm down and focus on the enemy. The enemy is ISIS, not all Muslims. SInce January 1st this year, ISIS has killed over 1,700 people in 64 operations, the vast majority of whom are Muslim. ISIS has stated time and time again that they are here to rid the earth of all infidels and have one glorious Islamic State under God—this includes the majority of people in Europe, beyond the Caucasus to the Pacific, all of the Americas, and most of the people of China and Southeast Asia. This also includes any Muslim people and their governments who deal with the West—moderates, modernists, cherry pickers—the vast majority of Muslims. .

Everyone, all non-Muslims and most of the Muslim world are potential victims of these madmen. Also, you must understand that there is a continuous fluidity between all these jihadist groups: Boko Haram, al Qaeda, Talaban, al Shabaab, al Nusra Front… It was stated in a post above that recently al Qaeda has shown signs of diminishing and become less active. Interestingly, ISIS has simultaneously grown and become more active. There is a connection.

They must be stopped. It can be done. But it requires international cooperation and commitment of resources not seen since WWII. That is a difficult mandate and the world is slow to do this, but if ISIS continues to outrage the West and others with actions such as that of Paris, that mandate could very possibly occur.

Simultaneously, we must stop supporting tyrannical governments in the world who produce these otherwise voiceless jihadists. Have you ever heard of a terrorist from Dubai? No. That is because this oil-rich government shares the revenue from it’s natural resources with it’s people. Everybody gets a check. Everybody has the opportunity for healthcare and education. Rolls Royce’s and Bentley’s sell like hotcakes. Dubai looks like something out of a science fiction magazine from the 1950’s with it’s incredible architecture. Harvard and Oxford degrees are commonplace. They are building one of the finest universities in the world and recruiting the greatest minds to teach there. It is true: Happy people don’t volunteer for crusades.

Focus on the enemy. Stop acting like scared little rabbits from Watership Down.

janbb's avatar

I am seeing many posts on FB and elsewhere of Muslims who are condemning the attacks. There is a Twitter campaign under the hashtag #NotInMyName. People who are not seeing Muslim outrage and condemnation are not looking hard and people who are only focused on the carnage in Paris and not that in Beirut and Africa are Western-centric. And remember the murders in Mumbai a few years back? It can happen anywhere.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The one certainty is that any Western attempt to thwart Isis through “cracking down” on Muslims merely serves to validate the group’s claim that theirs is a religious war.

syz's avatar

The US has a long history of financing, training, and arming the wrong people just because it suits our (usually covert) reasons at the time; it seems to always come back to bite us in the ass.

Look, terrorists are like the mythical hydra; if we invade/bomb/kill, we just create more desperate, unhappy people who are driven to extremes. We can destroy leaders, drive groups underground, and create entirely new organizations (ISIL), but anyone that thinks more guns and more bombs will fix everything is deluded.

In a perfect world, all of the nations of the world would work to eliminate poverty and hunger, to provide opportunity for education for all, and do whatever it takes to reduce desperation and unrest.

But this is not a perfect world and we are not a perfect species. Honestly, in my opinion, we are so short-sighted, grasping, and violent as a species that even if there were no religion to fight over (sorry, John Lennon) we’d still find some reason to kill each other.

But regardless of what we do, who we bomb, how many die, the overt racism and bigotry expressed through knee-jerk reactions are noisome, offensive, and just plain shameful.

But that’s just my two cents.

JLeslie's avatar

@Espiritus_Corvus I find Dubai fascinating. Although, I have heard negatives about the place. Like, don’t be openly gay and get caught by the wrong people. You can wind up in jail. Friends of mine seriously considered going there for their honeymoon, but were too nervous because the wife is Jewish. I don’t know if the Jewish fear is really warranted, but I know I am nervous about going anywhere in the Middle East with my last name, except Israel. Not that I’m not nervous about going to Israel too.

I saw a report on Dubai that many of the immigrants brought in to do construction work aren’t treated or paid very well. Probably not as bad as some, but they don’t partake in the wealth like the test from what could gather.

msh's avatar

Say goodnight, Gracie.
Goodnight Gracie.

whitenoise's avatar

@JLeslie, @Esperitus_Corvus
Dubai has virtually no oil, which doesn’t take away from your reasoning though.

JLeslie's avatar

I think Dubai just has a rich King right? To build up everything. All the infrastructure, many of the buildings? He spent a lot of his own wealth. That’s how I understood it anyway. I know very little, just what I see on TV. It looks beautiful.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@whitenoise You are right, my bad. I just naturally thought their wealth came from oil. Distribution of wealth, healthcare and education are all good, resulting in the opulence I described above, however. Thank you. I stand corrected.

@JLeslie Although the people are very modern in their tastes, Sharia law is enforced, even upon tourists. The US State Department advises women not to ride up front in a taxi, and not to show too much skin as there is a dress code. Kissing in public is a deportable offence. Homosexuality is punishable by death.

Dubai doesn’t export terrorism, but as moderate Muslims living modern lives in a Western-style economy, they are under threat. A couple of years ago, Mossad assassinated an important Hamas leader who, it was claimed, was planning a terrorist attack. It was a very public hit in a luxurious Dubai hotel and the Dubai government was embarrassed such a thing would take place in their country, and of course, they blamed the Jews. The police chief publicly made some very ugly, anti-Semitic comments about not having to check passports to arrest Jews. He claimed he could tell Jews by their physical characteristics alone.

I probably wouldn’t visit Dubai if I were a terrorist, gay, female, a public kisser, or Jewish. Gee, they’re rich and exclusive too! Too much like Vegas, anyway—Vegas without the kissing.


JLeslie's avatar

That’s like a Vegas? I don’t think so. Maybe some very wealthy community in the Bible Belt. Even so, I’m just talking about expectations, not jail and death sentences.

It doesn’t matter how pretty it’s wrapped up if there is horrible things inside.

They kill gay people? That is terrorism against their own citizens.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

@JLeslie I think you should save your outrage for the Aryan Brotherhood, the New Black Panthers, the Jewish Defense League, and the National Socialist Movement (United_States) and the plethora of hate groups right here in your own back yard, before you start pointing your finger at peaceful sovereign nations.

And maybe you should save a little of that outrage for the fact that substance abuse, domestic violence and infant fatality rates on certain Native American reservations in the US and Canada are among the highest in the world. Or may you should be outraged by the fact that shooting of citizens by police in the US is among the highest in all the democracies.

You live in a glass house, my dear.

ibstubro's avatar

Trivia: Columbia Missouri, where the MU President recently resigned because of unaddressed racial tensions, has a sizable Muslim population and a (delicious) Halal restaurant.

Muslims are terrorists in waiting.

Official logo
Detail tiger logo
Beautiful artwork.

Snapshot of Muslims in the Buckle of the Bible Belt, USA.

stanleybmanly's avatar

So cookieman’s posts have vanished? It’s too bad, because they were pretty clear examples why ANY religious adherent can easily arrive at the conclusion that they are victims of persecution. Believe me there will always be enough disgruntled Muslims to provide the suicide fodder for ISIS. And if they can provoke enough of us into accepting this as a war with all Islam, that is what it will become. The problem is, that the longer ISIS is allowed to endure, the closer they come to achieving this.

Mimishu1995's avatar

I only see terrorists as terrorists, no more, no less. I don’t care what they are fighting for, their reason for the attack is not justified. Some highly organized group with the same structure as ISIS might be able to do the same thing, but imagine what would happen if they claimed to do their things for other purpose other than “serving God”? People seem to get outraged when something looks like it’s connected to religion in some ways.

And what if the actual reason for ISIS’s terrorism has nothing to do with their “God”, and religion is just a bait for some frustrated Muslims or even confused people who can’t find their way in life? The ISIS looks more like a group of some power-lust filled people who want to be the king of this entire world, and conveniently use “religion” to justify whatever they are doing (and recruit more “soldiers”, yeah religion can be a very attractive bait). I think anyone who want to find the ISIS needs to see it as the way it is, instead of getting Muslims involve.

Mimishu1995's avatar

Edit: fight not find.

JLeslie's avatar

@Espiritus_Corvus First, I would not describe myself as outraged. That felt harsh to me when you wrote it directed at me. I might be wrong, but it felt like you are assuming I have more outrage towards that country because it is Mulim. That would be an incorrect assumption on your part if that is the case. All I was trying to point out is that Dubai is not a paradise for everyone. Money has helped in many respects in that country, but there still are some fairly scary problems there.

Of course there is horrible crap in our own country. I have written about it many times. Have gay people been harmed and killed here? Yes. But, not by the government. At least not in recent history, except for psychological harm regarding civil rights. Do we still have civil rights issues in our country? Yes. Is there an underground sex slave problem here? Yes. Are immigrants sometimes treated like slave labor, and even our citizens too. Yes. Is there still some antisemitism here? Yes. Again, mostly these negative things are not the governments doing, except to say that the government might sometimes be turning a blind eye, or not addressing the situations to our satisfaction. Things like black people being jailed more often then whites for the same crime I would say is a problem of our government. At least here we have the ideal of equality, even if we have to work at getting there.

I was just trying to give a full picture of Dubai. I’m happy to do the same about America and discuss it as I have on many Q’s. Not here. I don’t want to go down a long tangent.

By the way, I think prosperity will help cure the world of terrorists too. I’ve always agreed that if the Palestinians had better living conditions and opportunity they would likely leave Israel alone. Antagonizing then is probably counterproductive. Helping them might be the better route.

Saudi Arabia has tons of money, but women are still very much second class there. I don’t think all the people believe women are second class, I think the government has rules that restrict women.

Also, regarding women, women have less access and maybe less desire to blow things up, and we birth the babies, we can be abused longer without the result being that we strap a bomb to ourselves. Not that there aren’t women who don’t do such things, but it’s less often.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

“Act of War?????”

This article from 9/27/15 shows France bombing ISIS then. We are so disconnected from the cause and effects of our foreign policy. Why are we so surprised that when we fly unmanned drones and drop bombs on countries, that people maybe, just maybe, fight back????

msh's avatar

@Mimishu1995 – You rock! Great answer, well put!

Response moderated
stanleybmanly's avatar

@Mimushu 1995 but Muslims ARE involved. While I agree that terrorists are terrorists regardless of religious pretext, these particular terrorists are not going to be undermined through surveillance of churches and synagogues. ISIS a setup designed exclusively to recruit frustrated delusional Muslims, and because of it Muslim toes are going to be stepped on often and hard when it comes to civil rights. It’s unavoidable and is certain to enhance the thugs’ bullshit religious war narrative. In other words, Isis has the power to actually FORCE the West to “persecute” Muslims, which is why someone should pick up the ball and crush them in as brutal, degrading, and humiliating a fashion as can be arranged. My vote – have the Russians do it, and be certain that the process is a sickeningly merciless slaughter. It’s the only object lesson that matters as we move on to the next unhappy bunch.

Cruiser's avatar

There are only 2 reasons we have for being directly involved in the Middle East conflicts. Oil and Israel.

Now we have to look at the reasons ISIS has blossomed into the force they have become. In all areas of conflict Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya etc. there are common denominators that encourage Islamic extremism. One is corrupt governments that have done little to take care of it’s own citizens. Extreme poverty, little to no jobs, constant civil wars creates a perfect environment for Islamic fundamentalists to gain prominence in their communities by offering hope for a better life. So after years of living under shit conditions, the promise of 3 squares, a new wife and the chance to kill a few Christians and Muslims who eschew the Sharia way of life and get paid to do this is fertile ground for ISIS and people are eagerly signing up.

It’s a Catch 22 for the Western World as how can you create a stable friendly government in theses countries when chaos rules the day? And in hindsight I think we all can agree things were a lot better with Saddam around to keep things reasonably calm in the middle east and why IMO Bashar al-Assad is still being allowed to stay in power.

If the underlying threats to ordinary citizens’ lives in autocratic Arab-Islamic societies remain unaddressed…from jobs, water and health insurance, to free elections, a credible justice system and corruption…the flow of recruits to movements like ISIS or something even worse will persist and even accelerate. When issues in Arab societies raised by the Muslim Brotherhood were not addressed, we got Al-Qaeda. When issues raised by Al-Qaeda were not addressed, we got ISIS. Disrupting such groups militarily without removing the causes that give them life is a fool’s strategy.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Listening to the news this morning I heard Obama declare that the only viable course involving American commitment to ground forces in Syria involves a more or less permanent presence of occupying troops in both Syria and Iraq. Colin Powell was correct. You break it, you own it, and there’s no giving it back, whether you think you’ve repaired it or not.

Cruiser's avatar

@stanleybmanly An American led occupying force will go over real big with the Muslim Fundamentalists and sure to put an even bigger bullseye on every Americans back both here and abroad. What ever terror plans ISIS already had in place for us just got a whole lot
bigger because of Obama’s statement.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Those plans are in place whether we go there or not. The West is in a position where it CANNOT tolerate terrorists actually controlling land with huge fungible revenue generating assets. And it isn’t only the West which is aware of this

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

I will find a unicorn crapping diamond Tiffany cuff links before they or anyone else defeat ISIS, or any of the other Al-Qaida clones. All anyone will do is invade another nation’s airspace, tear up that nation, leave their people beat back to the Stone Age with a huge bill and the alleged terrorist will have moved into another nation undercover. They will use the drone attacks, the missile attacks, air strikes, and the deaths of their loved ones as proof how evil and heinous those ”infidels” are, and recruit another dozen suicide bombers because of it.

YARNLADY's avatar

It might be that France has declared war for policy reasons. In the U. S., for instance, when congress declares war it free up a lot of money to finance various measures without passing separate bills for each one.

For answers on how to eliminate terrorism, see my question.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The primary goal of Isis is to establish a Caliphate and usher in the events to their version of the “end of the world”. The goal itself is ridiculous, but their means for achieving it, their secondary goal is very obtainable. Isis frankly wants to make life intolerable for Muslims in the West. This goal REQUIRES OUR COOPERATION, and they have every reason to believe that if they continue to murder people and blow shit up, they will get it.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther