I need to vent!

[Trent]

Not even remotely going to try to defend the many stupid actions of the western nations, however while they may explain the actions of IS, it doesn't excuse them

Could you please clarify what part of my discussion gives you the impression that I am excusing these actions?

[GoktimusPrime]

Guh... there's a meme floating around now claiming that the same girl who was at the Sandy Hooks shooting was also at other shootings like the Boston Marathon bombing and now the Paris attacks. If you happen to see this crop up on your social media feed, please don't like/share it because it's a freakin' hoax.

[BigTransformerTrev]

Could you please clarify what part of my discussion gives you the impression that I am excusing these actions?

Didn't say you were mate, I was making a point, not a counter argument. Sorry if I gave an impression otherwise big fella, I know you wouldn't excuse this kinda stuff

[UltimateGalvatron]

Guh... there's a meme floating around now claiming that the same girl who was at the Sandy Hooks shooting was also at other shootings like the Boston Marathon bombing and now the Paris attacks. If you happen to see this crop up on your social media feed, please don't like/share it because it's a freakin' hoax.

I have posted on my Facebook and Instagram about this, warning them they are fakes etc.
Thank you

[Trent]

Didn't say you were mate, I was making a point, not a counter argument. Sorry if I gave an impression otherwise big fella, I know you wouldn't excuse this kinda stuff

All good. I was in a mood yesterday

And it seems like I was right. I have only caught snippets of news in the last few days but I heard that France has already begun "retaliation strikes" against IS targets with more promised. What that is is the French President trying to keep voters happy and be "seen" to be doing something rather than taking a calm, measured approach.

I mean, America bombed the crap out of Afghanistan after 9/11 and that worked? Right?

[jazzcomp]

I guess I have to ask, what is the alternative?

[griffin]

Some advocate diplomacy (talking), but that only works with rational leaders of an established nation.
When you have a rogue nation or a group of people who are not fighting for a recognised country (like IS, Al Qaeda, separatist groups fighting to overthrow a government, etc), there is no rationality, compromise or element of trust.
IS/Daish has the primary goal of eradicating all non-believers in the entire world, either by converting them to Islam or killing anyone who won't convert, because that's their misguided interpretation of Islam. (800 years ago some Christian leaders had the same misguided interpretation of their own religion, believing it was their duty to wipe out the inhabitants of the middle east to create their own holy land, and hold inquisitions to make sure the people were dedicated to the faith... but that was a different time, called the Dark Ages for a reason, and the mainstream Christian religions are not like that anymore - they now focus more on preaching love and forgiveness over fear and punishment)

Others advocate staying out of the conflict because it is not in our part of the world, but as we've seen already, people from all over the world are being indoctrinated to either fly there to fight or carry out acts of aggression in their home country. And it will get a lot worse if IS are left to establish a safehaven area or are given their own lands (country) to act as their base of operations to carry out their primary objective - to eradicate all non-believers.

War is never a good thing, but anti-war advocates and protest crowds need to differentiate between an opponent that can be reasoned with to prevent conflict (like the cold war preventing a nuclear war), from an opponent who is willing to die before they compromise, surrender or cease hostilities (like these state-less groups).

[BigTransformerTrev]

Some advocate diplomacy (talking), but that only works with rational leaders of an established nation.
When you have a rogue nation or a group of people who are not fighting for a recognised country (like IS, Al Qaeda, separatist groups fighting to overthrow a government, etc), there is no rationality, compromise or element of trust.
IS/Daish has the primary goal of eradicating all non-believers in the entire world, either by converting them to Islam or killing anyone who won't convert, because that's their misguided interpretation of Islam. (800 years ago some Christian leaders had the same misguided interpretation of their own religion, believing it was their duty to wipe out the inhabitants of the middle east to create their own holy land, and hold inquisitions to make sure the people were dedicated to the faith... but that was a different time, called the Dark Ages for a reason, and the mainstream Christian religions are not like that anymore - they now focus more on preaching love and forgiveness over fear and punishment)

Others advocate staying out of the conflict because it is not in our part of the world, but as we've seen already, people from all over the world are being indoctrinated to either fly there to fight or carry out acts of aggression in their home country. And it will get a lot worse if IS are left to establish a safehaven area or are given their own lands (country) to act as their base of operations to carry out their primary objective - to eradicate all non-believers.

War is never a good thing, but anti-war advocates and protest crowds need to differentiate between an opponent that can be reasoned with to prevent conflict (like the cold war preventing a nuclear war), from an opponent who is willing to die before they compromise, surrender or cease hostilities (like these state-less groups).

We discussed all this as a class this morning and I had one student who could just not get it. When I likened IS to ther Joker in 'The Dark Night' - as in someone with their own agenda who can't be reasoned with, bullied, bought or bribed - the light of understanding went on in his eyes.

[DaptoDog]

Last year's Lindt cafe tragedy came back to me when the Paris terrorist attacks happened. I work in the city quite close to Lindt. A person in my team learned about the possibility of other bombs across the city so we got the hell out of there quick smart. I now am a lot more aware when walking around the city of others, it is amazing how many people have their headphones on or are fixated on their mobile phones and so are oblivious to what is happening around them.

Also, the thought of children losing their parents or dying themselves as a result of these senseless actions is truly heartbreaking.

[Trent]

I guess I have to ask, what is the alternative?

I never said that military action wasn't a reasonable course of action. It may well be. I'm not a blind flower loving hippy, sometimes violence is the only answer sadly. But dropping bombs on another country 2 days after you have had a terrorist attack in your own, when you don't even have all the details of who/why/how is a little premature and unwise. I suppose at least they are so far limiting it to dropping bombs from afar and not (overly) putting people's lives unnecessarily at risk.

Last year's Lindt cafe tragedy came back to me when the Paris terrorist attacks happened. I work in the city quite close to Lindt. A person in my team learned about the possibility of other bombs across the city so we got the hell out of there quick smart. I now am a lot more aware when walking around the city of others, it is amazing how many people have their headphones on or are fixated on their mobile phones and so are oblivious to what is happening around them.

Also, the thought of children losing their parents or dying themselves as a result of these senseless actions is truly heartbreaking.

I don't get into the city much but wifey and I were near there today. She suggested having coffee there until I reminded her what happened there, then she didn't want to go near the place. I must admit I had some small amount of morbid curiosity about going in there, but we found somewhere else to have a sit.