Mayhem in Paris

Is there even any point in referring to these people as hostages? I mean, the latest rage is after all to make no attempt to bargain and just systematically murder everyone.

It does seem likely that they are going to be killed, but at the same time, why hasn't it already happened? I mean, how does delay benefit the terrorist scum?

I have no idea, really? Maybe they think they get more publicity from executing them slowly and painfully?

It is possible that by killing large numbers of hostages during a rescue attempt that terrorists hope to show the impotence of military and law enforcement authorities against them.

The 9/11 attackers did the same before the attacks.

All remaining hostages freed, according to BBC, though some doubts on numbers. 18 hostages reported dead, plus two wounded Mali Special Forces who stormed the hotel. 30 hostages known to have escaped, so status of others unclear, as is that of the attackers who are believed to be Al-Queda in Maghreb.

The religion of peace living up to its name again, I see.

^Dan, pretend for just a moment you somehow regained your testicles (borrowed them from yourself in an alternate reality where you had some): would you offer them up in supplication to avoid confrontation with people ready to exterminate you?

I.e. what would take for you ever fight back against an aggressor poised to murder your beloved . . . anything.

Not quite what he's arguing against, is it? That's a direct aggressor you can hurt.

Bombing Syria is attacking the mates of the aggressor, plus the people who live down the street minding their own.

Are they then within their rights to kill your next-door neighbours because you killed their kid in "collateral"?

Collateral damage is acceptable if part of a strike against a legitimate military target and is not intentional.

Right, because my question to Dan (that doesn't appear to be you, btw) was triggered solely by the post in question and not the several dozens of other posts written by Dan (over the span of a decade that demonstrate a pathology of supplication bordering on vaginaness) that prompted it.

This article was written by an American infantryman. It's a good article, maybe you should read it.

People are inevitably killed in any armed conflict. However, international law — and the even more basic norms that govern how we fight one another — draw a distinction between legal and illegal casualties. At its essence, the distinction is that legal casualties are casualties among combatants and illegal casualties are casualties among civilians. The term “collateral damage,” while impersonal and in some respects dehumanizing, is often used to describe the unintentional destruction of civilian property and injury or death of civilians.​

That's a nice theory, but it doesn't disprove Dan's graphic.

Dan's graphic is deeply flawed. For one it claims that western allied nations supply the terrorists with military equipment.

The recent Paris attacks featured AK-47s and suicide vests.

I really doubt either of those came from Raytheon..........

What's acceptable to you is, as I think has been clearly proven over the last decade, not necessarily acceptable to actual humans. And often even to psychopaths.

So how exactly did we create ISIS? We didn't rule Syria with an iron fist, Muslims did. We didn't alienate Iraqi Sunnis, Iraqi Shia Muslims did. We didn't train their military leadership, Saddam Hussein did. Certainly Obama and Hillary had a big hand in helping arm ISIS by sending in weapons without any control, but the bulk of the arms and money was sent in by other Muslims. Why are other Muslims armed? To keep from getting overrun by Muslims like ISIS, who absent those arms would now rule much of the Middle East.

And Muslims are sometimes going to do what Muslims do, which is slaughter non-Muslims just as their prophet commanded, everywhere non-Muslims can be found.

I read Dan's posts too. I'm just not prepared to read more pussification into them than some. Hell, my posts would indicate a general aversion to bombing the shit out of nations to assuage our need for vengeance, not matter how we dress it up as "draining the swamps" or "preemptive strikes".

Doesn't mean I wouldn't carve an intruder up if I found him in my house at night. Or stalk and kill anyone who hurt my cat. And you do Dan a possible disservice for assuming he's the same. That said, I would not condemn a man whose policy included non-violence even in the face of death - certainly Ghandi had balls of iron to risk what he did.

What I'm not aligned to is unfocused rage. Bombing nations where ISIS lie is not going to help, beyond some general "hell yeah!" war masturbation. We need Spec Ops on the ground, performing targeted strikes. Yes, it puts our guys at risk. They signed up for that. Innocent victims of drone/air strikes didn't. And if I'd brutally murder someone over a cat, I don't want some kid over here in year or so with a dead mom, a grudge and a working knowledge of IEDs.

That is largely a "conventional wisdom" thing with little or no basis in reality.

Bombing ISIS is what it's going to take to show that they can't have their little warrior caliphate where they can raise tax revenues, celebrate EID, have free apartments and health care, and wage war eternal war against the infidel. If they're going to wage war on the infidel, they'll have to live on a rubble pile eating rats.

Radical Islam exists and has its own objectives, it is not merely a reaction to Western actions. If the West left the entire Muslem world alone, it might get a reprieve from terrorism, but only until the radicals consolidated their control.

We may be caught in a cycle of violence, but it sure looks like the only way to break that cycle is for the West to acquiesce or radical Islam to be thoroughly crushed.

I favor option B.

Oh you hurt a cat and I will put you down like a rabid dog. But true unfocused rage is crazy. Like killing a Hindu because he wears a turban and shit. That said if you are in a situation where people who are no doubt trying to kill you (for whatever reason) you need to get focused and do your job. Nothing personal, just common sense.

We should note the actions of Adel Termos in Beirut

He was out with his daughter when the first suicide bomber struck. He saw the second bomber and intercepted him, saving perhaps 200 people, including his daughter, pictured here.

So I guess taking one hour off to masturbate between murdering each of the civilians was a bad idea.

That's right. Now you too have to suffer the bonds of holy matrimony with your lover.

Buddhism?

Buddhist have been known for violence before.

I remember back in 1998 IIRC I was watching the news at the store and they showed a monastery in Thailand IIRC where fighting had broken out between different factions of monks for control of the drug and prostitution trade centered on the monastery.

It was actually kind of cool watching these bald, robed guys toting AK-47s and taking shelter behind ancient walls as they exchanged fire with each other.