Paris Terrorist Attacks

Michael Hardner · November 17, 2015

...when they told him they decided to invade Iraq?

I wasn't counting Iraq.

And how much effort was made to bring bin Laden to trial without invading Afghanistan?

I think it would have been pretty difficult to serve Bin Laden with a subpoena. The political reality is that Bush had to act.

eyeball · November 17, 2015

A shining beacon that says they want to fund and train local "moderate" rebels, which has so far proven a complete failure by the U.S. I have no faith that the Trudeau government has any idea what the hell they're doing either, they just took the "middle-ground" approach between the CPC and NDP during the election for political reasons/votes.

I know I know. I see our planes are still dropping bombs over there so...campaign like the NDP and rule like Conservatives.

Hal 9000 · November 17, 2015

...said NATO about the Taliban in 2001.

All it takes is commitment. Osama said "the americans will be easy to defeat because they can't take the blood".

ReeferMadness · November 17, 2015

If we let itself burn to the ground, then we are just as responsible as ISIS for innocent lives and an ever growing problem of refugees. The western Western militarism created this mess, it's up to us to help fix it.

Neil Macdonald wrote a good piece "Paris attacks: Only 2 equally bad options for taking on ISIS".

"Which effectively leaves Western leaders with two options: either continue the current half-baked campaign of airstrikes and military assistance indefinitely, or just disengage and leave."

"Neither option is a good one. One of them would cost us our humanity."

"Everyone knows airstrikes will not decide this fight. And the U.S.-led campaign to arm and train "moderate" rebels in Syria and troops in Iraq has been an embarrassment, to put it mildly."

"Generally, whenever ISIS or its affiliated extremists have shown up, America's proxies have cut and run, often leaving their U.S.-provided guns and hardware for the enemy to scoop up."

"But disengaging and letting the Middle East sort itself out would involve a hideous price for the populations on the ground."

"ISIS operates by its own grotesque set of the Hama rules, and the massacres that would without question follow an ISIS expansion would validate Pope Francis's observation that what we are seeing today is a piecemeal version of World War III."

"There is no Solomonic solution available, and, to make it worse, the brutal truth is that America's so-called coalition of the willing, which invaded Iraq on a false pretext, effectively created ISIS (which, unsurprisingly, has several of Saddam Hussein's former generals among its commanders)."

"The West sowed dragons' teeth, which grew into armed fanatics now bent on taking the battle back to the West. And ahead of them, massive rivers of miserable refugees are trudging toward Western soil."

Neil Macdonald shows a level of honesty uncharacteristic of most mainstream journalism. However, even he falls well short.

If you want to defeat them, follow the money. ISIS pays its 30,000 fighters $500 to $1,000 per month, a fair bit of money in a poor area. In addition to the fighters, it has to buy weapons, ammunition, vehicles and fund its administration. Where does money come from?

- Theft from the territory it conquered, including almost half a billion dollars from the central bank in Mosul

- Government workers are taxed at 50% of their income. Incredibly, the governments of Iraq and Syria are only now ceasing payments to government workers in ISIS controlled regions

- Sale of looted antiquities - like the theft, this is a one time thing and it begs the question - who is buying?

- Sale of oil - this kills me. How the hell do you sell oil in the middle of a desert in the middle of a war zone so that nobody notices? The US has now started bombing oil trucks. ???? It's not like that oil has a lot of places it could go. Check a map. Iraq and Syria are ringed by a bunch of countries who are all supposedly fighting ISIS. Could they not just stop the oil trucks at the border and confiscate them?

- Kidnapping and extortion - they make money at this but it's not going to fund the Islamic state

The US has recently offered a $5 million reward for information "information leading to the significant disruption of the sale and/or trade of oil and antiquities by, for, on behalf of, or to benefit ISIL". wtf? Between satellite surveillance, electronic intelligence, drone surveillance and all of the various armies in the area, they can't figure out where the oil is going? How is that even possible?

And I haven't even covered the issue as to how ISIS is getting ammunition, weapons, trucks and other material for its war effort.

None of this adds up so I have to conclude we're not getting the full picture. The logical conclusion is that ISIS is getting all kinds of assistance and support from someone in the region. Who would that be? Its unlikely to be Iran or Russia, who are backing Assad. So, it's probably individual or state actors within the group of western allies in the region. The hacker group Anonymous, which has recently declared war on ISIS, has called out Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Al Jazeera.

eyeball · November 17, 2015

If we let itself burn to the ground, then we are just as responsible as ISIS for innocent lives and an ever growing problem of refugees. The western Western militarism created this mess, it's up to us to help fix it.

If I actually heard western leaders say that's why we had to go in they'd have my support. But it isn't. There is not a single iota of accountability to be found in any of the rhetorical boilerplate western leaders have hammered into place around western culpability. Its why each attack and each mission and each crisis are treated like separate distinct events that never have anything to do with each other and where cause to modern problems are rooted in the 7th century.

Sure by all means go on in, nothing will burn things to the ground faster than carrying on like we have been.

To paraphrase Neil MacDonald; Western democracies have shown little stomach to look in the mirror.

Edited November 17, 2015 by eyeball

ReeferMadness · November 17, 2015

I wasn't counting Iraq.

Oh. Why not?

I think it would have been pretty difficult to serve Bin Laden with a subpoena. The political reality is that Bush had to act.

The offer was made to extradite. You can claim that it wasn't serious or they couldn't do it. But Bush didn't even bother trying. Instead, he invaded, making a huge mess of the country and didn't even finish the job before he invaded Iraq and made a mess of it. Now the world is paying the price.

Bonam · November 17, 2015

- Sale of looted antiquities - like the theft, this is a one time thing and it begs the question - who is buying?

I'm a bit conflicted on if it's a good idea to try to stop this particular one of the funding sources. Before they started selling looted antiquities, they were just smashing them. A vast amount of priceless historical artifacts and irreplaceable ancient works have already been destroyed, and if some of them can instead be preserved by people who buy these items and keep them safe in collections outside ISIS control, there's definitely an argument to be made for that.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Bonam

ReeferMadness · November 17, 2015

I'm a bit conflicted on if it's a good idea to try to stop this particular one of the funding sources. Before they started selling looted antiquities, they were just smashing them. A vast amount of priceless historical artifacts and irreplaceable ancient works have already been destroyed, and if some of them can instead be preserved by people who buy these items and keep them safe in collections outside ISIS control, there's definitely an argument to be made for that.

I get what you're saying about losing priceless artifacts. However, the trade is no different from blood diamonds and if countries really want to stop ISIS, they would be cracking down on this.

I think the big items are the oil sales and the arms purchases. If ISIS has a lot of support in the region (as they must), then I question the efficacy of bombing or invading.

Smallc · November 17, 2015

I don't believe I'm conflicted any longer. ISIS needs to be stopped through whatever means is necessary.

Bombing doesn't seem to be a means to that end. It does a good job of slowing them down, to be sure, but it doesn't fix much.

Moonlight Graham · November 17, 2015

All it takes is commitment. Osama said "the americans will be easy to defeat because they can't take the blood".

Well the Soviets couldn't take the blood either in the 80's in Afghanistan, to the point where it helped lead to the economic collapse of the USSR. But let's just keep throwing troops and mountains of bombs at a guerrilla war until we're broke and 60k soldiers & millions of civilian are dead until we quit like in Vietnam. Commitment!

eyeball · November 17, 2015

Terrorists don't stop attacking because you don't fight them Eyeball. Its not how they work. If you retreat, if you show weakness, it empowers them.

That's funny because the more we keep fighting the more terrorists there are.

Understand the reality in this attack. They attacked left wing young people, the same people like you who argue they are victims, they only attack people who attack them, they are just misunderstood victims of colonialization.

I too was struck by the apparent younger age of the victims, like that of the attackers. Both are inheriting an inter-generational debt they did not create. The generations most responsible for that have or soon will die warm in their beds far from the front...like generals and other fortunate one's safe behind the distant lines of the distant war they started.

As for the left, the perennially goddamned left no matter what the crisis du jour happens to be, notice that Anonymous is attacking both Daesh and the warmongering bastards from the west that helped create Daesh.

Given the multitude of sides and battle lines being drawn in WW3, seeing them drawn along intergenerational lines is like a breath of fresh air. Young people are definitely aware of a bigger picture and they have a hell of a lot more a stake.

Edited November 17, 2015 by eyeball

Hal 9000 · November 17, 2015

Well the Soviets couldn't take the blood either in the 80's in Afghanistan, to the point where it helped lead to the economic collapse of the USSR. But let's just keep throwing troops and mountains of bombs at a guerrilla war until we're broke and 60k soldiers & millions of civilian are dead until we quit like in Vietnam. Commitment!

Well, you're obviously using a tremendous amount of hyperbole, but the US has the numbers, the weapons and the technology. What they don't have is the commitment. Cameras work for the terrorists, but against the western countries - remove the cameras and the west won't lose.

ReeferMadness · November 17, 2015

Bombing doesn't seem to be a means to that end. It does a good job of slowing them down, to be sure, but it doesn't fix much.

It's not even clear whether it's slowing them down that much.

Follow the money to stop them.

ReeferMadness · November 17, 2015

That's funny because the more we keep fighting the more terrorists there are.

A point that is seemingly lost on the "let's go bomb 'em crowd".

Like we haven't been bombing them enough yet.

Smallc · November 17, 2015

Follow the money to stop them.

That and rigorous de radicalization efforts at home seems to be the best option. In the meantime, we train local people how to defend themselves. I'm not opposed to continuing with bombing as an interim measure.

ReeferMadness · November 17, 2015

That and rigorous de radicalization efforts at home seems to be the best option. In the meantime, we train local people how to defend themselves. I'm not opposed to continuing with bombing as an interim measure.

I wouldn't be opposed to bombing if it were part of an overall strategy that had a chance of working. But I get the sense that bombing is being done because the people making decisions can't figure out what to do. The right wing press and politicians get the public cranked up so governments have to "do something". Bombing is easy because the likelihood that we'll lose soldiers as a result is low.

Meanwhile, the bombing keeps the ISIS recruits coming in the door.

BC_chick · November 17, 2015

None of this adds up so I have to conclude we're not getting the full picture. The logical conclusion is that ISIS is getting all kinds of assistance and support from someone in the region. Who would that be? Its unlikely to be Iran or Russia, who are backing Assad. So, it's probably individual or state actors within the group of western allies in the region. The hacker group Anonymous, which has recently declared war on ISIS, has called out Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Al Jazeera.

Turkey? That was surprising but other than that, the rest isn't really too shocking. The axis of stupid overthrows Saddam and starts a sectarian war in the region. Iraq is basically handed over to Iran and Syria is the only sunni country aligned with shiite Iran so the Saudis and some of the smaller gulf countries back ISIS against what is ultimately a proxy war with shiite Iran.

The question is, once we see how deep the rabbit hole goes, what then? Sadly I don't see how any of this can possibly come to an end.

Hopefully Trudeau won't get bullied into joining the axis of stupid's never-ending war.

ReeferMadness · November 17, 2015

Turkey? That was surprising but other than that, the rest isn't really too shocking. The axis of stupid overthrows Saddam and starts a sectarian war in the region. Iraq is basically handed over to Iran and Syria is the only sunni country aligned with shiite Iran so the Saudis and some of the smaller gulf countries back ISIS against what is ultimately a proxy war with shiite Iran.

I don't know exactly how Turkey sees ISIS but there are a couple of reasons why Turkey may not be in a hurry to see them defeated. First, Turkey is insistent that Assad be removed. If ISIS disappears, that is less likely to happen. Second, the Kurds are fighting ISIS on the ground. There is a Kurdish minority within Turkey that includes a strong separatist element. Turkey regards the Kurdish Workers Party (the PKK) as a terrorist organization. If ISIS disappears, the Kurds will have a chance to consolidate within Iraq and agitate within Turkey (again).

Finally, it turns out that Turkey has been implicated in ISIS oil sales.

Western intelligence officials say they can track the ISIS oil shipments as they move across Iraq and into Turkey’s southern border regions. Despite extensive discussions inside the Pentagon, American forces have so far not attacked the tanker trucks, though a senior administration official said Friday “that remains an option.

”In public, the administration has been unwilling to criticize Turkey, which insists it has little control over the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq and Syria across its borders, or the flow of oil back out. One senior official, calling President Obama’s recent conversations with Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, “sensitive,” said the decisions about what the country will do to counter ISIS “will be theirs to make.”

When I read crap like this, it becomes obvious that there is a huge political game afoot that is mostly being ignored in the media and in official statements. Turkey is neck deep in political games.

The question is, once we see how deep the rabbit hole goes, what then? Sadly I don't see how any of this can possibly come to an end.

Hopefully Trudeau won't get bullied into joining the axis of stupid's never-ending war.

Agreed and agreed. Trudeau is right not to play this stupid game. International politics is a cesspool of hypocrisy and we should have no part in this.

Edited November 17, 2015 by ReeferMadness

Michael Hardner · November 17, 2015

Oh. Why not?

I don't think the rationale for invading Iraq was tied to 9/11, but to 'WMD'.

But Bush didn't even bother trying.

I don't think it was an option, politically. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it just wasn't an option.

Now the world is paying the price.

I agree with you, but there are only a few ways that strongman regimes end, and this is one of them.

Incidentally, as little control as there is over these events some positive things do happen. Tunisia has come through their Arab spring with free elections, and a secular state. Sadly, there are more examples of the unrest of the middle east perpetuating misery.

Moonlight Graham · November 17, 2015

Finally, it turns out that Turkey has been implicated in ISIS oil sales.

When I read crap like this, it becomes obvious that there is a huge political game afoot that is mostly being ignored in the media and in official statements. Turkey is neck deep in political games.

The whole situation is a game, and each player involved has its own interests and ideal outcomes it wants to achieve. Turkey obviously is no different, from your article it seems they benefit from the black-market ISIS oil trade.

NATO wants both Assad out & replaced with a Sunni moderate regime, and ISIS defeated. That's an ideal outcome that's very ambitious, and I don't know if they can achieve all 3. The non-Islamist Sunnis in Syria seem pretty weak in the fighting so far. It would be so much easier to just back Assad, because at least Russia and Iran would be on-board. We could also use backing Assad as leverage in any kind of negotiations on any matter we want with Russia or Iran.

It's pretty clear since WWII that NATO, especially the US, wants to imperially dominate the entire middle-east because of it's strategic oil resource value. Iran and Syria are the biggest threat to Western dominance simply because don't play by Western rules and aren't allied with the Saudi Arabia because of he whole Shia-Sunni rivalry..

Rue · November 17, 2015

Eyeball thank you for that response. I have had so many ridiculous tits and tats with you I am glad to see you write what you did in that way Look we won't agree on this but I will tell you a couple of things because this is not a time you and I need to disagree:

1-no bombing by itself won't end this and it will create more refugees yes and in that sense might make things worse;

2-bombing to me is necessary evil but nota panacea-Canada's jets in the long run were their for symbolic value not strategic difference;

3-the French, US and Russians alone have enough jet power and hey maybe less jets in the area reduces the likelihood of an accident;

4-no I do not want innocent civilians bombed but I think it crucial air strikes be used in certain situations yes;

5-I don't agree with Reefer on a lot of things but I agree the air way is a political exercise, an exercise that says we are doing SOMETHING-it

is a political exercise and its done because yes its true if we sent troops on the ground they will die and the optics back home over the deaths would

not be popular after awhile and it would be awhile, a conventional army suckered into a chase on the ground against terrorists will not work and

its what ISIL is deliberately trying to sucker the West into.

None of us on any side of this debate support terrorism, the killing of innocent civilians, lashing out at innocent Muslims, etc. None of us.

ISIL and terrorists want the West coming in on the ground and getting dragged into an asymmetrical war that can not end and just drag on killing hundreds of soldiers.

They want innocent civilians, as many as possible killed for two reasons-to scare and to increase attacks on innocent Muslims to alienate those Muslims and make them easier to recruit into terrorist cells.

Surely we all know this.

We would hope air missions by themselves are not the only solution. We would hope our intelligence and military are intelligent enough to know all of the above.

The bottom line is what decisions will be made in the days to come we all will not know and yes among other things its worrisome because it will challenge the basic freedoms we take for granted. A debate is now emerging about how much freedom will have to be given up to try prevent terrorism and it will curtail on what we now enjoy as freedom and I worry once we take it away it never comes back.

I do not Eye want to have young people believe I or my generation are war mongers and want them in a war. No one wants a war.

No one, please believe me no one wants to shoot dead anyone. No one event the best trained and most emotionally detached of specialists wants to kill. Its a last resort.

The problem is we are past the point of dialogue. We have to take care not to react in the heat of anger, be precise, and try avoid collateral deaths yes, all that.

All I ask is that we don't lash out at innocent Muslims fleeing terrorists, we don't mistake terrorists as anything but what they are extremists using Islam or other beliefs to kill and we can't be afraid to say that.

We surely are intelligent enough to criticize terrorists who hijack Islam by saying that is what they do. Avoiding saying that is what they are doing only represses or denies what it is.

All that said, Eye I believe Anonymous is a wild card and excuse me if I sound like I romanticize them, but they are idealists, they have transcended all governments and ideologies as we know it-they are a wild card that can and will make a difference. Never before have they involved themselves in partisan politics and for them to declare war as they did you can be sure is as radical a decision as they have ever made. I was shocked by it.

It tells me they believe these were genuine terrorist attacks they traced.

They are a huge wild card. Their power to neutralize the web and paralyze certain terror on line activities ha never been used before. I think they will make a difference. I think they are more powerful in many ways then any elite commando unit on the ground or missile.

That's just me.

There that was my best effort at being non partisan.

Big Guy · November 17, 2015

This attack should be an eyeopener for the West. A family member was in Paris about a month ago. Her greatest negative recollection was the number of fully armed soldiers/police who patrolled the streets groups of 3. France had been warning that it expected a major attack this year and yet - that mission took place successfully.

Whatever it is that we are doing to protect ourselves from the enemy is not working.

Maybe it is time to try to figure out why they are our enemy and are prepared to die for their cause.

Big Guy · November 17, 2015

Looks like the ISIS recruitment mission in Paris is delivering dividends very quickly. In Canada, first we get a firebombing of a Mosque in Peterborough and now an assault in Toronto:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/police-treating-alleged-assault-robbery-of-muslim-woman-near-school-on-monday-as-hate-crime

And that is just in Canada the land of tolerance and acceptance. What do we think is happening in Europe and the rest of the world with those active racist and white supremist groups as well as the already escalating anti-Islam sentiments in the poorer regions?

It sure will not take long to replace those 7 suicide bombers in Paris - That is if they have not already been replaced.

Wilber · November 17, 2015

This attack should be an eyeopener for the West. A family member was in Paris about a month ago. Her greatest negative recollection was the number of fully armed soldiers/police who patrolled the streets groups of 3. France had been warning that it expected a major attack this year and yet - that mission took place successfully.

Whatever it is that we are doing to protect ourselves from the enemy is not working.

Maybe it is time to try to figure out why they are our enemy and are prepared to die for their cause.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Here you go. It's a bit of a read but quite worthwhile.

Scotty · November 17, 2015

It means that the conditions for bombing which had been in place to minimize civilian collateral action have changed.

That means more "collateral action", more really pi$$ed civilians, more radicalized Muslims and more suicide bombers.

And, as for the relentless culture of excuses that persists in portraying these death squads as oppressed and excluded individuals pushed to the edge by an unjust society and forced by poverty to execute young people whose only crime is to like rock music, soccer, or a cool autumn night at a sidewalk cafe, that is an insult to the world’s poor as well as to the dead. I think this is a very intelligent man. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/thinking-the-unthinkable-this-is-war/article27284617/

Get our Canadian jets back home as soon as possible!

Don't hit the bully back because that will just make him angrier has never really been a good working philosophy for those who want the pain to stop.

I was watching CTV last night while they interviewed one of these security experts who was familiar with ISIS. What he said struck me as going completely against your attitude of running away in hopes that they leave us alone ISIS has already said, and this is a quote "Even if you leave we will follow you to the ends of the earth and destroy you in Allah's name"