Terror in Paris
What exactly do the wise persons of the NYT Editorial Board mean when they piosly decalre "This attack will harden the resolve of the French against the savagery of the Islamic State, as it must the world’s"?
From the first three commentors it is obvious that even among the NYT readers the predicable knee-jerk Linsey Graham-esc response of "boots on the ground" will be the dominant reaction.
Supposedly reputable publications like the NYT need to stop with the hyerventilating, irresponsible and polemicizing characterizations like "incomprehensible barberism", which only serve to prevent rational search for solutions.
Virtually every week we have "incomprehensible acts of barbarism" in the US, mass shootings in schools, in the work place, and senseless drive by shootings. The US has committed "incomprehensible acts of barbarism" in Iraq and Afghanistan" which are coldly characterized as "collateral damage".
We, the US, are the primary cause of the instability in the Middle East, which has spawned the terror. We have proven that military action, "boots on the ground" cannot pacify, stabilize, or democratize countries and societies which do not have the internal will or capacity to do so. So let's not make the same mistake we made in Afghanistan, where we thought that "killing Osama bin Laden" would be the miracle cure.
Marcos59
mht NH 23 hours ago
Brave words, Klaus! They suggest that you don't believe that what happened in Paris (or New York or Madrid or London) is barbarism. And you don't want us to "make the same mistake we made in Afghanistan." But you fail to suggest any course of action other than hand wringing about America's responsibility in spawning this Islamic terror (isn't Islamic terror by definition barbaric because it specifically targets innocents?). My question to you is: what now?
@Marcos59
No, obviously, what Islamic fanatics are doing all over the world is barbaric. But you don't respond to barbaric acts of others with barbaric acts of our own - one would hope that that kind of thing was left in the Dark Ages - where, unfortunately, much of the Islamic Middle East still resides.
"What now?", you ask. Well, first, if you have nothing sensible, with any chance of success - "boots on the ground" have been proven not to work - then lets take a breath and THINK a little while before DOING something stupid.
We know, for example, that the roots of fanatic Islam are found in our "ally" Saudia Arabia, and to a lesser extent in Pakistan. Can we perhaps start by being honest with ourselves and with others by putting pressure on our "allies" like Saudi Arabia to stop exporting, fostering and financing fanatic islamists?
There are lots of things short of we ourselves committing barbaric acts which can be done to re-stabilize the Middle East. But bombing the hell out of them is not one of them...
No, obviously, what Islamic fanatics are doing all over the world is barbaric. But you don't respond to barbaric acts of others with barbaric acts of our own - one would hope that that kind of thing was left in the Dark Ages - where, unfortunately, much of the Islamic Middle East still resides.
"What now?", you ask. Well, first, if you have nothing sensible, with any chance of success - "boots on the ground" have been proven not to work - then lets take a breath and THINK a little while before DOING something stupid.
We know, for example, that the roots of fanatic Islam are found in our "ally" Saudia Arabia, and to a lesser extent in Pakistan. Can we perhaps start by being honest with ourselves and with others by putting pressure on our "allies" like Saudi Arabia to stop exporting, fostering and financing fanatic islamists?
There are lots of things short of we ourselves committing barbaric acts which can be done to re-stabilize the Middle East. But bombing the hell out of them is not one of them...
What exactly do the wise persons of the NYT Editorial Board mean when they piosly decalre "This attack will harden the resolve of the French against the savagery of the Islamic State, as it must the world’s"?
From the first three commentors it is obvious that even among the NYT readers the predicable knee-jerk Linsey Graham-esc response of "boots on the ground" will be the dominant reaction.
Supposedly reputable publications like the NYT need to stop with the hyerventilating, irresponsible and polemicizing characterizations like "incomprehensible barberism", which only serve to prevent rational search for solutions.
Virtually every week we have "incomprehensible acts of barbarism" in the US, mass shootings in schools, in the work place, and senseless drive by shootings. The US has committed "incomprehensible acts of barbarism" in Iraq and Afghanistan" which are coldly characterized as "collateral damage".
We, the US, are the primary cause of the instability in the Middle East, which has spawned the terror. We have proven that military action, "boots on the ground" cannot pacify, stabilize, or democratize countries and societies which do not have the internal will or capacity to do so. So let's not make the same mistake we made in Afghanistan, where we thought that "killing Osama bin Laden" would be the miracle cure.
