France Paris Attacks

WWN's Social Lounge. The place to come and chill out for a relaxed conversation about life and stuff, or some more serious debates.
User avatar
Dragonite
Rank: My face is beaming.
Location: the netherlands(mostly)

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by Dragonite » Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:13 am

It's tension like this how WOI started. Although I doubt Russia will resort to nuclear warfare soon. The taboo on these weapons is strong, and breaching it just to take out Turkey seems like a meager payoff compared to diplomatic havoc that would ensue.

User avatar
Narts
Rank: jätkä on blade runner

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by Narts » Thu Dec 03, 2015 6:54 am

There quickly would be no one left to ensue "diplomatic havoc" with, most likely

It maddens me that people think that just because USSR doesn't exist anymore nukes aren't a serious existential threat.

It's also reassuring how seriously some nuclear powers take the security of their launch systems in light of what a strong taboo there is on them.

User avatar
MysteriousLad
Rank: Mysterious President
Location: In your computer.

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by MysteriousLad » Thu Dec 03, 2015 4:29 pm

Of cause it is England
"i put on my robe and wizard hat" ~Pkdragon
"rocks fall everyone dies" ~HPD
Welcome to the optimistic world of WWN :D

And logic doesn't work on MysteriousLad... ~Kireato
Wait, wait, wait.

Organized crime is selling bagels on television? Since when? ~Dragon Fogel

User avatar
Dragonite
Rank: My face is beaming.
Location: the netherlands(mostly)

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by Dragonite » Thu Dec 03, 2015 8:48 pm

Of course I'm worried about nuclear weapons being used, but threatening and using are ages apart. Even the US didn't use them again in the short time they were the only one who had the weapon. By now I'm aware of the ''realist'' school of international politics. There's a lot of disagreement, but it's commonly believed states value their own safety above all else. Striking Turkey, who holds no real security threat to Russia, would cause the power balance in global politics to get unstable, probably not in Russia's favor. They would be a pariah.The other outcome is escalation into MAD, which is something even hardened politicians like Putin will fear until they are intent going out fighting.

I cannot see what Russia would hope to gain out of nuclear strike(as opposed to the useful tactic of a nuclear scare).
Last edited by Dragonite on Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Narts
Rank: jätkä on blade runner

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by Narts » Fri Dec 04, 2015 3:29 am

That's assuming there would be whole lot of rational thought behind a decision made in the literal 4-6 minute window after early warning (which could be triggered by faulty equipment or poorly analysed data) and the deadline to call off a retaliatory strike.

The risk is not so much someone deliberately launching an attack over petty reasons (though I'm not sure I would put anything beyond Putin - what if he, for example, gets the idea that no one will take his threats seriously until he shows he's actually willing to use nukes) but an accidental launch caused by hasty decisions among rising tensions in a confusing situation, aging equipment or lax safety protocols.

daisy
Rank: literally hitler

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by daisy » Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:17 am

What we need to do is elect a far right bunch of lunatics. That will sort everything out a jiffy. Then we need to drop even more bombs on Syria to get even more refugees to complain about, because we like complaining.

User avatar
Dragonite
Rank: My face is beaming.
Location: the netherlands(mostly)

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by Dragonite » Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:04 am

Don't most refugees cite Assad as the reason they fled though?

daisy
Rank: literally hitler

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by daisy » Tue Dec 08, 2015 6:21 am

I'm sure bombs falling in the street don't help.

User avatar
Dragonite
Rank: My face is beaming.
Location: the netherlands(mostly)

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by Dragonite » Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:58 am

The bombings have helped earlier by forcing IS to be more evasive in their movements, which limits their actions. The US first started bombing last year to cut IS off from slaughtering minorities, but now they aren't as easy to safely single out.I've read the remaining amount of targets is fairly limited, so it's iffy that more bombing would help. It won't easily rout them altogether, at least not with increasing collateral damage to absurd levels. The western coalition at least tries to stick to ''precision'' weaponry, while Russia may not be so subtle. Bombing remains morally gray though..

Yet I'm not convinced of the pacifist argument either. Attacking IS may provoke terrorism from them, but I'm not too convinced they would have left us alone otherwise. What a IS who would consolidate their position would be like is now to far removed from the actual situation to seriously imagine, but I don't think would be good for the citizens either.They already have committed acts of genocide.

History will probably tell what is going to happen next, and it probably will be a nasty struggle for years to come. This situation has many more factors then just the western millitary response.We have Russia's involvement as a ambiguous ally, Turkey seems to be deeply involved with IS, Assad is still in power and able to abuse his ''lesser evil'' factors. Add the traditional religious and ethnic divides to the pot too. With such a tangle of regional and global power politics, the right approach sadly may not even exist at all. And then all what remains is a tug of war between several unsavory options.

ThunderWalker
Rank: Elf
Location: Netherlands

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by ThunderWalker » Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:03 pm

yeah... the fact that Turkey supports IS is a real problem (because IS fights the Kurdic people as well), probably even moreso than whatever Russia is up to. Actually I think Europe/America and Russia could easily agree on terms regarding Syria. However, most of these terms would not satisfy Erdogan who would probably not mind to commit genocide on the Kurdic people if he gets the chance and either Europe or Russia would not be satisfied otherwise.
And no matter what solution is chosen, IS would keep on fighting until they are routed, and Turkey will keep on supporting them because they have a common enemy in the Kurdic people.
My sig is a void.

daisy
Rank: literally hitler

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by daisy » Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:52 pm

Dragonite wrote:The bombings have helped earlier by forcing IS to be more evasive in their movements, which limits their actions. The US first started bombing last year to cut IS off from slaughtering minorities, but now they aren't as easy to safely single out.I've read the remaining amount of targets is fairly limited, so it's iffy that more bombing would help. It won't easily rout them altogether, at least not with increasing collateral damage to absurd levels. The western coalition at least tries to stick to ''precision'' weaponry, while Russia may not be so subtle. Bombing remains morally gray though..
Bombing achieves nothing in the long term. All it does is irritate them and radicalise people, which is what Daesh want. Going back to 9/11 and even before, Islamist attacks on western soil have been provocations - what other purpose do they serve? (inb472virginsyeahyeah) David Cameron wanted to bomb Assad in 2013. Just imagine if that vote went through. Daesh hadn't gone bigtime yet, and in our ignorance we would've been making it even easier for them. Nowadays we're almost talking about Assad as if he's an ally, with an "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality.

Do nothing militarily. That's what Daesh don't want. Imagine if the region didn't have 150+ years of western intervention - things would be a lot better. It will sort itself out. It's not like Europe didn't have to go through a millennium of bloodshed to get to the liberal democratic place it's at now.
Yet I'm not convinced of the pacifist argument either. Attacking IS may provoke terrorism from them, but I'm not too convinced they would have left us alone otherwise. What a IS who would consolidate their position would be like is now to far removed from the actual situation to seriously imagine, but I don't think would be good for the citizens either.They already have committed acts of genocide.
Talk to someone who used to have Islamist beliefs. It's simply nationalism dressed up as religion and functioning as fascism. The religious motivation is secondary - how would you feel if you had Iraqi troops marching down your street? Or if the Afghan government decided, in cooperation with other Arab nations, that part of the Netherlands now belonged to the Kurds? All without asking you?

I still think it's ridiculous for western governments to point the finger and cry "geocide!" when our empires were/are built on the blood of "uncivilised savages." Let them get on with it. Take in refugees who aren't taking the piss and provide aid where needed, but leave it at that.
History will probably tell what is going to happen next,
Probably?

Edit: Urgh, I hate it when individual lives and circumstances are boiled down to simple ir like there's some sort of solution, like people don't have their own motivations and problems. I talk about refugees fleeing the area like they're one collective faceless unit, and I hate it. Take the above as simply my meandering thoughts at 2:30am and nothing more.

User avatar
Dragonite
Rank: My face is beaming.
Location: the netherlands(mostly)

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by Dragonite » Wed Dec 09, 2015 8:48 pm

To be honest, the latter part of my post also fell under ''1:30 AM'' thoughts. >_>

To add a bit on my musings, the west did get heavy criticism because they didn't stop Assad attacking civilians, and he can get away with any offensive he likes as of right now(the infamous barrel bombs, which by all accounts seem much worse then just precision bombing).If we truly let it sort itself out, well... that's worse then any current western aggression. Also, because of other factors this is a unrealistic notion. Israel is there as a permanent point of conflict, and if I look at their propaganda, they are not being very introspective about their own actions causing instability.Aside from the west Russia has a increasing interest in the region,especially Syria's status as a ally, and since the plane bomb they have become more aggressive about bombing. Their types of bombs are also more likely to cause civil damage then the western ones. With Russia's domestic problems, Putin can use this conflict as a means to divert attention for some time to come. The rich oil states also keep money flowing to various factions. I'm skeptical of the religious aspect just being a facade, because several influential people in Saudi-Arabia have been funding groups in support of their Wahhabism, and I've heard things about Qatar as well, although I don't know enough about that. I do believe religion is their core motivation, but I'm interested in arguments proving otherwise. At any rate, if rich groups keep meddling with affairs with their money, it also will keep the region unstable.

Saubi-Arabia being a western ally continues to be awkward on it's own. It's only because of oil, and the strategic interests of the government overlapping with the west, but.. SA got to serve on some UN human rights forum, and proceeded to chew Norway out about not doing enough to counter criticism of Muhammad, with their own terrible record of human rights. The west can't really objectively detach from middle-east politics as long as they specifically tolerate everything SA does.

ThunderWalker
Rank: Elf
Location: Netherlands

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by ThunderWalker » Fri Dec 11, 2015 2:26 am

Yeah, it is very hard to find a proper solution and I am well aware none exists.

An independent Kurdistan in the Middle-East is likely a part of the solution, but Turkish nationalists wouldn't like it. Most other Turkish people wouldn't mind, I guess, but I can't speak for them. Turkey would have to give up a part of its territory for this state, but it is not like the Kurdic war isn't pointless and a huge drain on Erdogan's resources as it is.
It is pretty similar to how Russia had problems in the 19th century because Poland was a part of their territory. Sure, it was additional territory, but the people living there were everything but Russian, resulting in Poland being more of a hindrance than a help to Russian development until it finally became independent in 1918.

However, it would do nothing to stop IS though it would be a decent buffer state, not to mention it takes one of the beehives out of the equation.

Until that time, taking in refugees is the only thing we have to do in Europe. It is our duty.
Especially we - the Netherlands - have a history of refugees entering our country, partially allowing us to rise to glory in the 17th century.
The other reason we could rise to glory was that the rest of Europe was just a warring mess where there was no freedom of religion, and fighting a war puts a big damper on prosperity.
My sig is a void.

User avatar
Joey

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by Joey » Tue Dec 15, 2015 8:22 am

The thing I most worried about after the France attacks was that Muslims would be hurt even more than the attacks hurt anyone in the first place. Now France has elected a bunch of members of an openly racist party and it looks like I'm totally and completely right.
"Unakau has nicked off. And there was much rejoicing."
Image

User avatar
Dragonite
Rank: My face is beaming.
Location: the netherlands(mostly)

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by Dragonite » Tue Dec 15, 2015 8:31 am

The second round didn't go nearly as well for them though.It's partly because the Socialist party did rethreat in a panic, but for now, the people of France are more pragmatic in the second round, There's still some restraint left when it comes down to it.

Wilders has been leading the polls for a while over here. I'm fairly certain he will win a few extra seats in the next election(because last time he lost some), but when the chips are down he tends to drop off at the last minute, not to mention a fair amount of his supporters can't be bothered to actually go and vote.

daisy
Rank: literally hitler

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by daisy » Tue Dec 15, 2015 11:13 am

Pretty much all of Europe, including the UK, has been flirting with the far-right for a couple of years now. (With the exception of Germany because lol they know better.)

User avatar
HPD
Tri-Star CO
Tri-Star CO
Rank: Mentat
Location: The Mountain

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by HPD » Tue Dec 15, 2015 5:40 pm

Pegida begs to differ on that lol

Not even Germany is safe from that
"So when I say the fudge shaman flies he goddamn well flies and that's that." - Narts
"My motto is that there are far too many women in the world to waste time with men." - thefalman
"It's just that I'm not really aware of how a common conversation goes." - Imano Ob, talking on MSN about talking on MSN
"As for FE8, that was IS' variant of Man Spam - Dudes with Swords edition." - Xenesis

User avatar
Dragonite
Rank: My face is beaming.
Location: the netherlands(mostly)

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by Dragonite » Tue Dec 15, 2015 9:49 pm

I guess we can throw Trump on the list too by this point, his rhetoric has some support in the USA, and his recent comments aren't that different from European far-right politicians.It's just weird seeing it happen in a complex two-party system.
Last edited by Dragonite on Tue Dec 15, 2015 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

daisy
Rank: literally hitler

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by daisy » Tue Dec 15, 2015 10:09 pm

HPD wrote:Pegida begs to differ on that lol

Not even Germany is safe from that
Yeah I s'pose. The Germans have been a lot more accepting of refugees though. It'll be a while before we see Pegida get anywhere near the success of FN, Golden Dawn or UKIP.

ThunderWalker
Rank: Elf
Location: Netherlands

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by ThunderWalker » Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:16 am

^^

Depends also on where you are in a country.
For example, look at the Netherlands;
In the southernmost province of the Netherlands, Limburg, Geert Wilders gets the most votes percentually. This number gradually decreases the further you move north; and in the three northernmost provinces, Drenthe, Groningen and Friesland, the number of votes for Wilders is only about a quarter of what he would get in Limburg.

Also a typical fact (once you think about it, it is obvious why, though): The poorest regions in the Netherlands are also the most likely to accept refugees.


In Great Britain, it is different too; I'm pretty sure the Scots are looking different at the refugee issue than the English people are. Just look at how people vote, such a huge difference, even if I don't know the details nearly as well as I do of the Dutch politics.
My sig is a void.

User avatar
MysteriousLad
Rank: Mysterious President
Location: In your computer.

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by MysteriousLad » Wed Dec 16, 2015 6:58 am

Limburg is pretty poor so why are they voting wilders if the like refugees?
"i put on my robe and wizard hat" ~Pkdragon
"rocks fall everyone dies" ~HPD
Welcome to the optimistic world of WWN :D

And logic doesn't work on MysteriousLad... ~Kireato
Wait, wait, wait.

Organized crime is selling bagels on television? Since when? ~Dragon Fogel

User avatar
Dragonite
Rank: My face is beaming.
Location: the netherlands(mostly)

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by Dragonite » Wed Dec 16, 2015 7:22 am

He's from the area himself, it does give him a regional boost.

daisy
Rank: literally hitler

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by daisy » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:22 pm

ThunderWalker wrote:Great Britain
Just as a FYI that you'll probably be interested to know about, "Great Britain" is a geographical term and not a political one.

British Isles: The group of islands
Great Britain: The largest of those islands
United Kingdom: The political union of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (Does not include the Isle of Man)

The Republic of Ireland is it's own thing after the traitor bastards betrayed God, king and country in 1922 or 1937 depending on who you ask. The continued existence of Northern Ireland is still controversial.

User avatar
Linkman
Tri-Star CO
Tri-Star CO
Rank: Master of Fiction

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by Linkman » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:40 pm

What would "Britain" alone mean?
"everytime I try to draw xen I end up drawing a kangaroo smoking a cigar while chainsawing a tree" - Deoxy
"I can't believe I'm the only person who voted Stallone. His appeal lies in watching is movies again and again just to hear what the hell he's talking about." - Kilteh

User avatar
Terragent
Rank: Cussing Aussie
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by Terragent » Wed Dec 16, 2015 2:15 pm

It's often used in ancient history to refer to the island as a whole (medieaval history usually doesn't bother with giving the island a name and just refers to England/Scotland/Wales).

In modern dialogue it's only ever used by the English when they want to acknowledge that Scotland exists but can't be bothered to pretend that they care about it.

daisy
Rank: literally hitler

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by daisy » Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:35 pm

What Terr said. It's generally a shorter name for Great Britain, but it can be treated more ambiguously.

Quick over-simplified history lesson on the British Union! disclaimer I'm tired.
~400AD: Roman withdrawal
dark ages
1066: William I, AKA William the Conquer invades from modern day France (Normandy) and pwns King Harold at the Battle of Hastings. England now ruled by William.
1534: Henry VIII, AKA fatty, wanted to divorce his wife but the Pope was like "no way bro" so Henry was like "fudge you then" and set up his own Church of England to divorce him. England is protestant overnight. The Irish didn't like this revelation because the Irish are like 90% Catholics.
1535: After 500 years of William I's successors being total dicks to the Welsh, the Laws in Wales Acts are signed in 1535 and 1542. No one really asked the Welsh.
"That his said Country or Dominion of Wales shall be, stand and continue for ever from henceforth incorporated, united and annexed to and with this his Realm of England."
1603: James I is crowned king, but lol he's also king James VI of Scotland. Still separate states though.
1640s: English civil wars, Charles I is executed. Scottish link largely gone.
1698: Scotland wants a whole piece of this empire crumpets that the European superpowers have got going on. Darien scheme disaster. Cripples Scotland. Scotland runs to England for help and basically ends up selling itself to England.
1707: Acts of Union 1707, Scotland formally unifies, modern United Kingdom is born.

But where is Ireland in all of this? It's late and tired, but the English/British poked Ireland militarily for hundreds of years and ended up settling there. They never really got over the whole protestant/catholic thing - protestant settlers in the north and catholics in the south. Prots are still loyal to the glorious leader and so that's why northern ireland is a thing.
"Are you a Protestant or a Catholic?"
"I'm an Atheist."
"Are you a Protestant Atheist or a Catholic Atheist?"
The thing to take home from all this is that none of these countries ever really wanted to be in a union with England. They were either "persuaded" or had no choice. That's why you get Scottish independence come up as a political issue every generation. The Welsh sometimes try it but there's so much red tape involved that no one can be bothered. Some crazy Irish terrorists crop up every now and then and try to bomb something or kill someone important but Tony Blair did quite a good job of pacifying them in the late 90s.

ThunderWalker
Rank: Elf
Location: Netherlands

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by ThunderWalker » Wed Dec 16, 2015 10:27 pm

daisy wrote:
ThunderWalker wrote:Great Britain
Just as a FYI that you'll probably be interested to know about, "Great Britain" is a geographical term and not a political one.

British Isles: The group of islands
Great Britain: The largest of those islands
United Kingdom: The political union of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland (Does not include the Isle of Man)

The Republic of Ireland is it's own thing after the traitor bastards betrayed God, king and country in 1922 or 1937 depending on who you ask. The continued existence of Northern Ireland is still controversial.
Thanks. Indeed did not know about that, I thought the island was just called "Britain."

I indeed meant the United Kingdom in my previous post. ^^
My sig is a void.

User avatar
Joey

Re: France Paris Attacks

Post by Joey » Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:43 pm

Y'all should have probably watched this.

"Unakau has nicked off. And there was much rejoicing."
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Multivac [Bot] and 0 guests