Reading some reports on the Bataclan attack are saying that the 100 hostages were executed one by one before grenade explosions.
Eyewitnesses said the gunmen entered the venue and opened fire into the crowd. After the initial volley, they started walking the floor and executing the wounded.
Nothing about explosions until the assault team breached.
It sounds like there was nothing the Police could have done, they went in with the intention of executing as many people as possible. Hollande is visiting the scene personally.
No disagreement there. Most of the time there's not much that can be done when a gunman or gunmen decide to open fire on a populated venue.
I disagree. The attacks would not happen if horrible mass murders didn't decide to devout time into planning to kill many people in cold blood. I don't think that it is ok to leave that out. Abstracting it into a political tactic like that makes it seem like they are more than mass murders that murdered lots of people in cold blood.
Well, it's nice that you disagree. You don't have any expertise in the matter, do you?
I'm not sure what there is to gain by just deciding to reduce our understanding to 'horrible mass murderers do murder and it is bad'.
EDIT: Like, yes, it is quite tautologically true that if people did not decide to conduct murders, then nobody would be murdered. I'm not sure how this brilliant insight is supposed to help us understand or deal with the world we live in, though.
All I am saying is that we should be careful when talking about this. I think talk of how anyone but the mass murders are to blame is really dangerous, as is talking about a mass murder as a political move. I think it's important to not lose sight of the individual blame and responsibility that each of the murderers bears or to imply that the murders, together, bear anything less than 100% of the blame. Large numbers of deaths tend to get spoken of in abstract, impersonal terms and I think that is harmful. I think that when discussing an attack like this, the horror of each death and what it represents in hurt to family members and friends should be foremost in our minds, and the way discourse is often carried out tends to lose sight of that.
Scores of people have been killed in multiple gun and bomb attacks in Paris
At least 100 people are reported to have died inside the Bataclan concert hall in central Paris
Others died in attacks near the Stade de France, where France were playing Germany, and at restaurants
France has declared a national state of emergency and has closed its borders
Paris residents have been asked to stay indoors and military personnel are being deployed across the city
Apparently 1,500 extra soldiers have been deployed in Paris. That's all coming from the BBC. They're also reviewing the numbers killed and say all sources seem to agree it's at least 118.
Hollande vows France will fight attackers "without mercy."
Yeah, could have done without those last two words. That's just giving IS the response they want so they can go "See? They hate our religion!"
Total elimination removes the need for weak rhetoric. ISIS cannot defeat France militarily, so rather than being shrinking violets and willing victims, I'd suggest we, not just the French, but everyone in the world who wants a peaceful society that believes in human rights and seeks human development and advancement, take robust measures to destroy ISIS personnel, assets, etc. This attack is the result of a cavalier and half-hearted approach to dealing with extremists who literally hate everything good and decent in the world.
Hollande vows France will fight attackers "without mercy."
Yeah, could have done without those last two words. That's just giving IS the response they want so they can go "See? They hate our religion!"
Total elimination removes the need for weak rhetoric. ISIS cannot defeat France militarily, so rather than being shrinking violets and willing victims, I'd suggest we, not just the French, but everyone in the world who wants a peaceful society that believes in human rights and seeks human development and advancement, take robust measures to destroy ISIS personnel, assets, etc. This attack is the result of a cavalier and half-hearted approach to dealing with extremists who literally hate everything good and decent in the world.
Appeasement doesn't work.
And fucking actually attack them this time, not simply try to herd them against another faction that is disliked.
Hollande vows France will fight attackers "without mercy."
Yeah, could have done without those last two words. That's just giving IS the response they want so they can go "See? They hate our religion!"
Total elimination removes the need for weak rhetoric. ISIS cannot defeat France militarily, so rather than being shrinking violets and willing victims, I'd suggest we, not just the French, but everyone in the world who wants a peaceful society that believes in human rights and seeks human development and advancement, take robust measures to destroy ISIS personnel, assets, etc. This attack is the result of a cavalier and half-hearted approach to dealing with extremists who literally hate everything good and decent in the world.
Total elimination removes the need for weak rhetoric. ISIS cannot defeat France militarily, so rather than being shrinking violets and willing victims, I'd suggest we, not just the French, but everyone in the world who wants a peaceful society that believes in human rights and seeks human development and advancement, take robust measures to destroy ISIS personnel, assets, etc. This attack is the result of a cavalier and half-hearted approach to dealing with extremists who literally hate everything good and decent in the world.
Appeasement doesn't work.
This has historically been a very successful approach to securing peace & stability. Cambodia, Afghanistan (both in contemporary and historical terms), Iraq, Israel, etc.
But no, I'm sure this time killing the bad guys will do the trick and finally make the world better.
Hollande vows France will fight attackers "without mercy."
Yeah, could have done without those last two words. That's just giving IS the response they want so they can go "See? They hate our religion!"
Total elimination removes the need for weak rhetoric. ISIS cannot defeat France militarily, so rather than being shrinking violets and willing victims, I'd suggest we, not just the French, but everyone in the world who wants a peaceful society that believes in human rights and seeks human development and advancement, take robust measures to destroy ISIS personnel, assets, etc. This attack is the result of a cavalier and half-hearted approach to dealing with extremists who literally hate everything good and decent in the world.
Appeasement doesn't work.
Yeah, I'm pretty liberal. Usually against violence... But ISIS needs to go.
I've been reading through the Tweets in French trying to translate them as best I can and check them against news sources. But now I keep seeing people posting photos of friends and family members who were at the Bataclan saying they haven't heard from them and asking for news.
Reminder that the Charlie Hebdo attacks were carried out by French citizens and that's probably at least as likely an explanation for this as "ISIS", based on the very little information that we have at this point. France has a very very real problem with alienated French muslim youth that has been simmering for years.
Reminder that the Charlie Hebdo attacks were carried out by French citizens and that's probably at least as likely an explanation for this as "ISIS", based on the very little information that we have at this point. France has a very very real problem with alienated French muslim youth that has been simmering for years.
This is the third time they've declared a state of emergency. The first one was the Algeria war, the second was the suburban rioting.
Total elimination removes the need for weak rhetoric. ISIS cannot defeat France militarily, so rather than being shrinking violets and willing victims, I'd suggest we, not just the French, but everyone in the world who wants a peaceful society that believes in human rights and seeks human development and advancement, take robust measures to destroy ISIS personnel, assets, etc. This attack is the result of a cavalier and half-hearted approach to dealing with extremists who literally hate everything good and decent in the world.
Appeasement doesn't work.
This has historically been a very successful approach to securing peace & stability. Cambodia, Afghanistan (both in contemporary and historical terms), Iraq, Israel, etc.
But no, I'm sure this time killing the bad guys will do the trick and finally make the world better.
Oh please. You know nothing, Jon Snow. Afghanistan was enervated by the war in Iraq, and then by refusing to use anything approaching strong measures, as the US allowed Karzai to deliberately undermine us, undermined ourselves with pathetically naive attempts at Afghan led security years before such a thing was feasible, and allowed the invisible line that is the Afghanistan / Pakistan border to allow nearly unhindered command and control of deadly terrorists, as well as arms smuggling, to take place from Pakistan.
The lesson to take from Afghanistan is not "you can't kill bad guys to make the world a better place," it is, "You can't win a war without trying to win it."
Though, relevantly, even as egregiously incompetent as our efforts were:
Total elimination removes the need for weak rhetoric. ISIS cannot defeat France militarily, so rather than being shrinking violets and willing victims, I'd suggest we, not just the French, but everyone in the world who wants a peaceful society that believes in human rights and seeks human development and advancement, take robust measures to destroy ISIS personnel, assets, etc. This attack is the result of a cavalier and half-hearted approach to dealing with extremists who literally hate everything good and decent in the world.
Appeasement doesn't work.
This has historically been a very successful approach to securing peace & stability. Cambodia, Afghanistan (both in contemporary and historical terms), Iraq, Israel, etc.
But no, I'm sure this time killing the bad guys will do the trick and finally make the world better.
Well, the options are killing the bad guys or figuring out how to nonviolently assist in a cultural and economic revolution without being seen as imperialists.
But you can't do it with troops, because then you're an invading force.
And you can't do it with civilians, because those civilians would be killed.
And you can't just supply aid, because that aid will be taken by the enemy.
It's a rough situation with no clear answers. But it's easier to be snarky when somebody suggests a military solution to something, so let's do that instead.
Hollande vows France will fight attackers "without mercy."
Yeah, could have done without those last two words. That's just giving IS the response they want so they can go "See? They hate our religion!"
Total elimination removes the need for weak rhetoric. ISIS cannot defeat France militarily, so rather than being shrinking violets and willing victims, I'd suggest we, not just the French, but everyone in the world who wants a peaceful society that believes in human rights and seeks human development and advancement, take robust measures to destroy ISIS personnel, assets, etc. This attack is the result of a cavalier and half-hearted approach to dealing with extremists who literally hate everything good and decent in the world.
Appeasement doesn't work.
I agree with that. Half measures don't work agains
Total elimination removes the need for weak rhetoric. ISIS cannot defeat France militarily, so rather than being shrinking violets and willing victims, I'd suggest we, not just the French, but everyone in the world who wants a peaceful society that believes in human rights and seeks human development and advancement, take robust measures to destroy ISIS personnel, assets, etc. This attack is the result of a cavalier and half-hearted approach to dealing with extremists who literally hate everything good and decent in the world.
Appeasement doesn't work.
This has historically been a very successful approach to securing peace & stability. Cambodia, Afghanistan (both in contemporary and historical terms), Iraq, Israel, etc.
But no, I'm sure this time killing the bad guys will do the trick and finally make the world better.
Aren't those all examples where we didn't kill all the bad guys though?
I think that was the point being raised.
No, those are examples of incredibly complex situations with few clear bad guys and some questionable long term results of military intervention.
The problem with a military solution is that you can't just bomb the problem away. If you kill the bad guys, you also need to address the reason for the bad guys or you're just going to get more.
Hollande vows France will fight attackers "without mercy."
Yeah, could have done without those last two words. That's just giving IS the response they want so they can go "See? They hate our religion!"
Total elimination removes the need for weak rhetoric. ISIS cannot defeat France militarily, so rather than being shrinking violets and willing victims, I'd suggest we, not just the French, but everyone in the world who wants a peaceful society that believes in human rights and seeks human development and advancement, take robust measures to destroy ISIS personnel, assets, etc. This attack is the result of a cavalier and half-hearted approach to dealing with extremists who literally hate everything good and decent in the world.
Appeasement doesn't work.
Marching in and destroying all ISIS personnel and assets is a hell of a lot harder when it isn't country vs. country.
How do you distinguish between 'member of ISIS' 'sympathetic to ISIS' 'unsympathetic to ISIS or opposing forces' 'unsympathetic to ISIS and sympathetic to the opposing forces but in the wrong place at the wrong time'?
And every mistake you make harms innocents and makes it REALLY easy for ISIS or other extremist groups to replenish their ranks. Hating the West is a lot easier to sell when they came in and murdered your grandpa with a drone because he was buying at the wrong market.
I do not think the lack of a 'let's march in and DESTROY THE BAD GUYS' policy is the result of lack of desire to deal with ISIS.
WATCH THIS SPACE.
+32
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
No, those are examples of incredibly complex situations with few clear bad guys and some questionable long term results of military intervention.
The problem with a military solution is that you can't just bomb the problem away. If you kill the bad guys, you also need to address the reason for the bad guys or you're just going to get more.
Total elimination removes the need for weak rhetoric. ISIS cannot defeat France militarily, so rather than being shrinking violets and willing victims, I'd suggest we, not just the French, but everyone in the world who wants a peaceful society that believes in human rights and seeks human development and advancement, take robust measures to destroy ISIS personnel, assets, etc. This attack is the result of a cavalier and half-hearted approach to dealing with extremists who literally hate everything good and decent in the world.
Appeasement doesn't work.
This has historically been a very successful approach to securing peace & stability. Cambodia, Afghanistan (both in contemporary and historical terms), Iraq, Israel, etc.
But no, I'm sure this time killing the bad guys will do the trick and finally make the world better.
Oh please. You know nothing, Jon Snow. Afghanistan was enervated by the war in Iraq, and then by refusing to use anything approaching strong measures, as the US allowed Karzai to deliberately undermine us, undermined ourselves with pathetically naive attempts at Afghan led security years before such a thing was feasible, and allowed the invisible line that is the Afghanistan / Pakistan border to allow nearly unhindered command and control of deadly terrorists, as well as arms smuggling, to take place from Pakistan.
The lesson to take from Afghanistan is not "you can't kill bad guys to make the world a better place," it is, "You can't win a war without trying to win it."
Though, relevantly, even as egregiously incompetent as our efforts were:
Before us:
After us:
...you do know that one of Afghanistan's enduring nicknames from antiquity is "the graveyard of empires", right?
Total elimination removes the need for weak rhetoric. ISIS cannot defeat France militarily, so rather than being shrinking violets and willing victims, I'd suggest we, not just the French, but everyone in the world who wants a peaceful society that believes in human rights and seeks human development and advancement, take robust measures to destroy ISIS personnel, assets, etc. This attack is the result of a cavalier and half-hearted approach to dealing with extremists who literally hate everything good and decent in the world.
Appeasement doesn't work.
This has historically been a very successful approach to securing peace & stability. Cambodia, Afghanistan (both in contemporary and historical terms), Iraq, Israel, etc.
But no, I'm sure this time killing the bad guys will do the trick and finally make the world better.
Look, I understand that the broader solution is one of politics, open arms, mutual understanding and all that, and I think it's important to make sure people understand that these wahhabi extremists are a rotten twig on an unpleasant branch of a perfectly good tree; the Westboro Baptists of Islam.
But sometimes you need to drain the abscess while you treat the disease. Killing the Nazis didn't end racsim, but it was necessary. When a bad idea reaches critical mass, allowing it's adherents to gather and militarize openly just invites more bad things happen.
If ISIS has reached a concentration we can effectively attack, then we absolutely should. As a planet. What they do is not ok, and it angers me a little more every day the world does not stomp their guts out.
No, those are examples of incredibly complex situations with few clear bad guys and some questionable long term results of military intervention.
The problem with a military solution is that you can't just bomb the problem away. If you kill the bad guys, you also need to address the reason for the bad guys or you're just going to get more.
Whats the reason for these bad guys?
Opposing wills. We'll know more details after the French interrogate any attackers they've arrested.
No, those are examples of incredibly complex situations with few clear bad guys and some questionable long term results of military intervention.
The problem with a military solution is that you can't just bomb the problem away. If you kill the bad guys, you also need to address the reason for the bad guys or you're just going to get more.
Whats the reason for these bad guys?
It's not "they hate our freedoms".
+4
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
Reading some reports on the Bataclan attack are saying that the 100 hostages were executed one by one before grenade explosions.
Eyewitnesses said the gunmen entered the venue and opened fire into the crowd. After the initial volley, they started walking the floor and executing the wounded.
Nothing about explosions until the assault team breached.
It sounds like there was nothing the Police could have done, they went in with the intention of executing as many people as possible. Hollande is visiting the scene personally.
No disagreement there. Most of the time there's not much that can be done when a gunman or gunmen decide to open fire on a populated venue.
Granted this is about air raids, but I think it's applicable to this situation. There's literally nothing that can be done to stop a random person from showing up to a populated area and killing a large amount of civilians with a gun or bomb.
Going in and killing people is easy. It's what comes after that which is hard, and when not done right, generates more enemies. The problem is that the people advocating the former don't really care about the latter.
No, those are examples of incredibly complex situations with few clear bad guys and some questionable long term results of military intervention.
The problem with a military solution is that you can't just bomb the problem away. If you kill the bad guys, you also need to address the reason for the bad guys or you're just going to get more.
Whats the reason for these bad guys?
It's not "they hate our freedoms".
It depends on what you mean by freedom...
But you're wrong
Extremist Islam is totally against the kinds of freedoms that France and the United States have
That's what they're opposed to
The freedom to worship who you want, or not to worship anyone at all
The freedom to wear what you want, the freedom to say what you want, the freedom to do what you want
They hate all that
They think it's an affront to God
Yes, they totally have political motivations. Absolutely they do. But they absolutely also hate American/French freedom. Absolutely.
No, those are examples of incredibly complex situations with few clear bad guys and some questionable long term results of military intervention.
The problem with a military solution is that you can't just bomb the problem away. If you kill the bad guys, you also need to address the reason for the bad guys or you're just going to get more.
Whats the reason for these bad guys?
It's not "they hate our freedoms".
A lot of it goes back to people hating the west sticking its dick in the middle east and stiring things up with it, which is something that's been pretty routine from the get go.
IS has some issues with the west since it was founded by remnants of Saddams army (Republican guards?) that was forcibly disbanded by American forces, rather than tried to be reintegrated into the new government.
No, those are examples of incredibly complex situations with few clear bad guys and some questionable long term results of military intervention.
The problem with a military solution is that you can't just bomb the problem away. If you kill the bad guys, you also need to address the reason for the bad guys or you're just going to get more.
Whats the reason for these bad guys?
It's not "they hate our freedoms".
Actually, it is!
Read some Sayyid Qutb. He hated the fact America allowed women to dress how they please. He hated the fact America allowed (racial slurs) to perform their (racial slur) music. He hated Jews and religious freedom. He hated our freedoms, and is an extremely influential figure in modern Islamic terrorism, and even was an Islamic terrorist himself.
No one murders for extremist Islam who thinks it is okay to be a gay secular liberal. They throw people like that off buildings, because freedom is anathema to them.
Edit: @Melkster is right here, and not even in a "that's your opinion, man," way. You can prove this with specific textual citations both from influential (recent) historical figures, and modern texts.
Total elimination removes the need for weak rhetoric. ISIS cannot defeat France militarily, so rather than being shrinking violets and willing victims, I'd suggest we, not just the French, but everyone in the world who wants a peaceful society that believes in human rights and seeks human development and advancement, take robust measures to destroy ISIS personnel, assets, etc. This attack is the result of a cavalier and half-hearted approach to dealing with extremists who literally hate everything good and decent in the world.
Appeasement doesn't work.
This has historically been a very successful approach to securing peace & stability. Cambodia, Afghanistan (both in contemporary and historical terms), Iraq, Israel, etc.
But no, I'm sure this time killing the bad guys will do the trick and finally make the world better.
Look, I understand that the broader solution is one of politics, open arms, mutual understanding and all that, and I think it's important to make sure people understand that these wahhabi extremists are a rotten twig on an unpleasant branch of a perfectly good tree; the Westboro Baptists of Islam.
But sometimes you need to drain the abscess while you treat the disease. Killing the Nazis didn't end racsim, but it was necessary. When a bad idea reaches critical mass, allowing it's adherents to gather and militarize openly just invites more bad things happen.
If ISIS has reached a concentration we can effectively attack, then we absolutely should. As a planet. What they do is not ok, and it angers me a little more every day the world does not stomp their guts out.
-.-
'The Nazis' (and Imperial Japan) were the state administrators for actual countries, with logistics chains that could be attacked, an identifiable front, organized troop movements, etc. These are not at all analogous to the entanglements in the Persian Gulf right now.
Germany was actually invading invading other countries, for example, whereas ISIL's actions more resemble a civil conflict (albeit it's more complex than that because it straddles a border) and is part of a sectarian fight where the other belligerents are no better. It's not even the same as Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, where there was an obligation to go rescue an allied country from foreign occupation.
If we're not sure what a good solution is - and I think this is more or less the overwhelming consensus - then surely saturating the area in munitions and hoping for the best is about the stupidest move one can make. And we've already made that mistake many times, and guess what? This has not ended terrorism or even reduced the number of terrorist atrocities that occur every year.
Arafat, Gaddafi, Saddam, Bin Laden... where is the peace & prosperity that was supposed to materialize after the lives of these men ended? It certainly was promised, and yet it seems to remain elusive. "Well, we just haven't killed enough of them yet!" is not a very convincing argument.
No, those are examples of incredibly complex situations with few clear bad guys and some questionable long term results of military intervention.
The problem with a military solution is that you can't just bomb the problem away. If you kill the bad guys, you also need to address the reason for the bad guys or you're just going to get more.
Whats the reason for these bad guys?
It's not "they hate our freedoms".
A lot of it goes back to people hating the west sticking its dick in the middle east and stiring things up with it, which is something that's been pretty routine from the get go.
IS has some issues with the west since it was founded by remnants of Saddams army (Republican guards?) that was forcibly disbanded by American forces, rather than tried to be reintegrated into the new government.
DAESH is the successor of AQI/AQIZ (Al Qaeda in Iraq), which was under the leadership of a Jordanian until he was killed in 2006.
Another name they went by was ISI, or Islamic State of Iraq.
Posts
No disagreement there. Most of the time there's not much that can be done when a gunman or gunmen decide to open fire on a populated venue.
Yeah, could have done without those last two words. That's just giving IS the response they want so they can go "See? They hate our religion!"
Hollande’s speech from a few minutes ago.
All I am saying is that we should be careful when talking about this. I think talk of how anyone but the mass murders are to blame is really dangerous, as is talking about a mass murder as a political move. I think it's important to not lose sight of the individual blame and responsibility that each of the murderers bears or to imply that the murders, together, bear anything less than 100% of the blame. Large numbers of deaths tend to get spoken of in abstract, impersonal terms and I think that is harmful. I think that when discussing an attack like this, the horror of each death and what it represents in hurt to family members and friends should be foremost in our minds, and the way discourse is often carried out tends to lose sight of that.
Scores of people have been killed in multiple gun and bomb attacks in Paris
At least 100 people are reported to have died inside the Bataclan concert hall in central Paris
Others died in attacks near the Stade de France, where France were playing Germany, and at restaurants
France has declared a national state of emergency and has closed its borders
Paris residents have been asked to stay indoors and military personnel are being deployed across the city
Apparently 1,500 extra soldiers have been deployed in Paris. That's all coming from the BBC. They're also reviewing the numbers killed and say all sources seem to agree it's at least 118.
Total elimination removes the need for weak rhetoric. ISIS cannot defeat France militarily, so rather than being shrinking violets and willing victims, I'd suggest we, not just the French, but everyone in the world who wants a peaceful society that believes in human rights and seeks human development and advancement, take robust measures to destroy ISIS personnel, assets, etc. This attack is the result of a cavalier and half-hearted approach to dealing with extremists who literally hate everything good and decent in the world.
Appeasement doesn't work.
And fucking actually attack them this time, not simply try to herd them against another faction that is disliked.
Speaking of things that don't work...
Its a small thing, that the conservatives will likely expend endless energy to mock, but it means so much.
This has historically been a very successful approach to securing peace & stability. Cambodia, Afghanistan (both in contemporary and historical terms), Iraq, Israel, etc.
But no, I'm sure this time killing the bad guys will do the trick and finally make the world better.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Yeah, I'm pretty liberal. Usually against violence... But ISIS needs to go.
So
I'm gonna take a break for a bit. Back later.
This is the third time they've declared a state of emergency. The first one was the Algeria war, the second was the suburban rioting.
Oh please. You know nothing, Jon Snow. Afghanistan was enervated by the war in Iraq, and then by refusing to use anything approaching strong measures, as the US allowed Karzai to deliberately undermine us, undermined ourselves with pathetically naive attempts at Afghan led security years before such a thing was feasible, and allowed the invisible line that is the Afghanistan / Pakistan border to allow nearly unhindered command and control of deadly terrorists, as well as arms smuggling, to take place from Pakistan.
The lesson to take from Afghanistan is not "you can't kill bad guys to make the world a better place," it is, "You can't win a war without trying to win it."
Though, relevantly, even as egregiously incompetent as our efforts were:
After us:
But you can't do it with troops, because then you're an invading force.
And you can't do it with civilians, because those civilians would be killed.
And you can't just supply aid, because that aid will be taken by the enemy.
It's a rough situation with no clear answers. But it's easier to be snarky when somebody suggests a military solution to something, so let's do that instead.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
I agree with that. Half measures don't work agains
Aren't those all examples where we didn't kill all the bad guys though?
I think that was the point being raised.
The problem with a military solution is that you can't just bomb the problem away. If you kill the bad guys, you also need to address the reason for the bad guys or you're just going to get more.
Penny Arcade Rockstar Social Club / This is why I despise cyclists
Check the death tolls. You dropped more bombs on Cambodia than you did on Japan, and you assassinated the opposing leadership.
I suppose you can always say, "Well, we clearly just didn't kill enough people,"
I would love to see the compelling piece of evidence that supports the idea that peace follows after the application of unrestrained military force.
Marching in and destroying all ISIS personnel and assets is a hell of a lot harder when it isn't country vs. country.
How do you distinguish between 'member of ISIS' 'sympathetic to ISIS' 'unsympathetic to ISIS or opposing forces' 'unsympathetic to ISIS and sympathetic to the opposing forces but in the wrong place at the wrong time'?
And every mistake you make harms innocents and makes it REALLY easy for ISIS or other extremist groups to replenish their ranks. Hating the West is a lot easier to sell when they came in and murdered your grandpa with a drone because he was buying at the wrong market.
I do not think the lack of a 'let's march in and DESTROY THE BAD GUYS' policy is the result of lack of desire to deal with ISIS.
Whats the reason for these bad guys?
...you do know that one of Afghanistan's enduring nicknames from antiquity is "the graveyard of empires", right?
Look, I understand that the broader solution is one of politics, open arms, mutual understanding and all that, and I think it's important to make sure people understand that these wahhabi extremists are a rotten twig on an unpleasant branch of a perfectly good tree; the Westboro Baptists of Islam.
But sometimes you need to drain the abscess while you treat the disease. Killing the Nazis didn't end racsim, but it was necessary. When a bad idea reaches critical mass, allowing it's adherents to gather and militarize openly just invites more bad things happen.
If ISIS has reached a concentration we can effectively attack, then we absolutely should. As a planet. What they do is not ok, and it angers me a little more every day the world does not stomp their guts out.
Opposing wills. We'll know more details after the French interrogate any attackers they've arrested.
It's not "they hate our freedoms".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bomber_will_always_get_through
Granted this is about air raids, but I think it's applicable to this situation. There's literally nothing that can be done to stop a random person from showing up to a populated area and killing a large amount of civilians with a gun or bomb.
It depends on what you mean by freedom...
But you're wrong
Extremist Islam is totally against the kinds of freedoms that France and the United States have
That's what they're opposed to
The freedom to worship who you want, or not to worship anyone at all
The freedom to wear what you want, the freedom to say what you want, the freedom to do what you want
They hate all that
They think it's an affront to God
Yes, they totally have political motivations. Absolutely they do. But they absolutely also hate American/French freedom. Absolutely.
A lot of it goes back to people hating the west sticking its dick in the middle east and stiring things up with it, which is something that's been pretty routine from the get go.
IS has some issues with the west since it was founded by remnants of Saddams army (Republican guards?) that was forcibly disbanded by American forces, rather than tried to be reintegrated into the new government.
Actually, it is!
Read some Sayyid Qutb. He hated the fact America allowed women to dress how they please. He hated the fact America allowed (racial slurs) to perform their (racial slur) music. He hated Jews and religious freedom. He hated our freedoms, and is an extremely influential figure in modern Islamic terrorism, and even was an Islamic terrorist himself.
No one murders for extremist Islam who thinks it is okay to be a gay secular liberal. They throw people like that off buildings, because freedom is anathema to them.
Edit: @Melkster is right here, and not even in a "that's your opinion, man," way. You can prove this with specific textual citations both from influential (recent) historical figures, and modern texts.
-.-
'The Nazis' (and Imperial Japan) were the state administrators for actual countries, with logistics chains that could be attacked, an identifiable front, organized troop movements, etc. These are not at all analogous to the entanglements in the Persian Gulf right now.
Germany was actually invading invading other countries, for example, whereas ISIL's actions more resemble a civil conflict (albeit it's more complex than that because it straddles a border) and is part of a sectarian fight where the other belligerents are no better. It's not even the same as Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, where there was an obligation to go rescue an allied country from foreign occupation.
If we're not sure what a good solution is - and I think this is more or less the overwhelming consensus - then surely saturating the area in munitions and hoping for the best is about the stupidest move one can make. And we've already made that mistake many times, and guess what? This has not ended terrorism or even reduced the number of terrorist atrocities that occur every year.
Arafat, Gaddafi, Saddam, Bin Laden... where is the peace & prosperity that was supposed to materialize after the lives of these men ended? It certainly was promised, and yet it seems to remain elusive. "Well, we just haven't killed enough of them yet!" is not a very convincing argument.
DAESH is the successor of AQI/AQIZ (Al Qaeda in Iraq), which was under the leadership of a Jordanian until he was killed in 2006.
Another name they went by was ISI, or Islamic State of Iraq.