Within days of the attacks on Paris, the news is saying France is being merciless in their bombing of certain sites n Syria. The United States intelligence shared with them, so they knew where to potentially bomb. The news said the United States gave basically a menu to choose from, and Paris began choosing the sites to bomb.
So here is my question, or thought: Does anyone else wonder why more hasn't been done to stop this kind of bloodshed of innocent civilians? In other words, there is a hit list of spots that could be gone after at any time, and now with these attacks, France is going after them hard. Perhaps, rightly so. They are fighting back, and at war.
Without putting any boots on the ground, they are having some impact against their enemies. With our allies around the world and their capabilities, what am I missing here? I admit to being ignorant about a lot of these things, but some things seem very clear. If there are sites that are able to be bombed in order to prevent further loss of innocent life in freedom loving countries everywhere, why are some of these other facts remaining as they are? I imagine France is responding in kind, and hitting innocent civilians. All of this while there is talk of a third world war with the necessity of boots on the ground possibly. Why? How do you see things? I am very curious and want to learn whatever it is that I am missing here. Thanks.
The problem of trying to bomb targets in a terrorist war is that the terrorists hide among the civilians. That is why you are seeing the mass exodus of Syrians from Syria. The other problem with the bombing of terrorists hiding among civilians is the collateral damage and anger it creates with the innocents left behind grieving for their family members. France is pissed and it wants to lash out. I just hope it doesn't back fire on them even greater.
I hear you, and thought the innocent civilians were the main reason. When I heard about the list the US shared with the French, it made me think again for some reason. If the civilians are a large part, and this is the only reason, then there is that. The strange thing there though, is that in essence, what is being said is that other country's civilians are ok to be targeted and killed. (LIke the French and the US, Australia, etc.)
I wonder if it may not backfire now as much as usual though, because many of the civilians are fleeing so much to other countries as refugees. Maybe France is thinking that if ever there was a time, it was now? Besides just being so angry? Just thinking about the different parts of this.
As usual, the terrorism in this world is not fair, for obvious reasons, but its still very difficult. Its like the world leaders don't want to deal with terrorism on a real level, when it begins to be a case of irony of having to die, for esteeming political correctness over other innocent life lost. Maybe leaders world over need to see just how serious the terrorists are in regards to hurting large numbers of those closest to home, before they realize they have to make super unpleasant decisions. I don't know, but it was on my mind and I thought it good to discuss.
I agree with you on the difficulty of this problem. What concerns me most is the homegrown terrorists who are either born into or naturalized into our societies. These individuals are turned so easily and determined to harm as many as they can. How do we root them out and after can they be turned back? Conventional warfare seems to have little affect on the problem as once we wipe out a significant number of terrorists they regroup and come back even stronger.
I think an anti-terrorist terrorist group headed by the counter intelligence agencies around the world including elite and mercenary personnel might be needed to root out the worst and eliminate them without exception. Maybe if you take out enough of them and put the fear of death in them on their own level it might cause some pause and others to cooperate so as not to be included in their accomplices lunacy. Fight them on their own level so to speak.
I agree about the concern for the homegrown ones. I am not totally sure what you meant by once rooted out, can they be turned back? I can take the meaning a couple ways, and wonder the same either way.
As for the second part, yes perhaps you are right. It makes sense. I heard one person share the idea that part of the goal is to get some to give up fighting them and just join them, if they aren't ever going to lose anyway. (Scary tactic.) It seems it must be answered or we will see more of the same and more attempts of the same like we just did since Paris.
There are so many dynamics going on when something like the Paris attack happened. i just wish more could be done without having to put boots on the ground, AND without having to wait till many more are basically slaughtered again. Which is what seems to be France's response. France has been so kind to them too. So PC, so assuming the best, so wanting it all to work out without issues, etc. It has got everyone thinking I think, and rethinking. I think, rightly so.
"I am not totally sure what you meant by once rooted out, can they be turned back?"
What I was trying convey is can a radicalized terrorist be turned around? I have seen racists, and gang members turned around so is it possible to do it with a terrorist?
It is a shame that the innocents are at the mercy of the terrorist who hide among them. War has historically taken a heavy toll on civilians. This is only different in that it inherently creates casualties as part of the cure. The more we want to help the worse it gets.
But this never was about helping anybody but us. We chose our allies and wrapped our financial existence up with them and it is impossible to extricate ourselves easily. Saudi Arabia wants our help and we need their wealth to back our solvency. This terrorist war cannot be won with conventional means. It is in need of a political solution.
Sorry for the delay...
I think the possibility of being turned around depends upon the reason they are doing what they are doing in the first place. What is it rooted in? What are the beliefs that would have to be given up, if any? These are a big part I think.
Not sure what to say about the answer being a political one, though I know you are not wrong. I would hope that maybe an eye opening of conscience could occur for some reason, and that could provide some hope. This way of life is destructive not to just the innocent lives they take, but to their own and their families. The deception involved is unbelievable. Talking about these various ideas can only help, and hopefully some will see how they are on an incredibly evil and destructive path. These are some of my thoughts.
The Geneva does not apply, these terrorists if nothing else are suicidal and cowardly. They know what the act of war in Paris will bring to civilian populations among who that they choose to hide. I can't help but to think less of them and their cause as a result. The West will receive more criticism for indiscriminate bombing, leaving bodies all over the place. These people are neither allies nor sympathisers, they are just there. Where are all these 'crack' units from the military that can employ surgical strikes against the leaders of these movements, chopping off the head, as it were? Can we avoid blanket civilian casualties, the very ones that are driving all the refugees to Europe?
I doubt that any power in the West targets innocent civilians. Unfortunately, innocent civilians will be in the line of fire during acts of war. Wouldn't it be nice if terrorists spent more time targeting military sights and not innocent civilians.
Yes, and well of course it would be much better. The terrorists don't seem to care about the innocent in cases like Paris, so what is the solution? Its unbelievable they think so little of even their own civilians, and not just their enemies innocents. I guess no one wants to be the super power any more, and this is quickly becoming a world where terrorists can thrive due to what a given country esteems over their own innocent life.
This sounds like very strong wording, but its what often comes down to, or turns out to be. (Following points in the form of questions.) So its a lose lose for all involved? Since things are the way the are, I guess terrorists win, ongoing? A tough time to be a world leader, for sure. I hope all that are vying for positions understand how crazy hard the future will be and need to be up for the task. A lot is on them either way it seems.
One more thought.... If a leader could consider that his own family might be gone after, and compare the rest of the civilians in their own country to those closest to them, maybe they would really want to do more in that case? Again, with civilians fleeing, perhaps this is why France is doing what they are doing?
What is the solution? No one apparently knows.
I will say that one problem I have with the violence in the world is the belief that 'patriots', 'heroes' and 'martyrs' step up to the plate to perpetrate these acts of violence. I think patriots and heroes and martyrs are those who believe violence to be the last resort, not the first, second, third..........two hundredth.
I agree its not good to perpetrate a problem, especially one such as this. Understanding the different mentalities being dealt with can only help.
I think what current world leadership is struggling with is what is the best option, of the not so great options, that will protect the innocent civilians they are serving.
I don't know. Most times, I doubt world leaders worry about the innocents. Rarely do we rise up in arms, in this country, to protect innocents abroad. All I hear is protecting us, here. I wouldn't mind boots on the ground to avert a potential genocide. I'm not so much interested in protecting oil fields and such; and it does appear that American involvement begins only when regimes stop playing ball in a manner that adversely affects corporate interests.
Governing people in America at least, is at its core about life first. Everything else is secondary. I am speaking practically here, not even ideally, and I did consider that I might have been. Some countries in the world have shown that their leaders are not about protecting the lives of the innocent, but its at the core of most moral human beings in leadership. They might run a campaign "faking" the idea they are there to serve, but they will state it all the same. You see it come out in speeches and debates, interviews, etc.
I think all moral leaders of any free country would like to save the world's innocents, but that is not what I am even speaking of. Its a real struggle for leadership because there isn't a 100% foolproof option that satisfies all parties. Therefore, my comment. That is where I am coming from. Even for the super greedy, nothing else really matters iff they are about to die, and sudden fresh perspective is usually seen at that point.
As much as the US does help abroad in the past and now, if we are overcome by our enemies, further help for sure wouldn't be there to give. I don't usually see terrorists doing much to help the loss of life of innocents, and often the opposite, for example. Destroying capability from the air, without boots on the ground like we see Russia and France doing is going after world enemies, and not having more loss of innocent life from their two countries, again, as an example. They have already lost so much innocent life, and we have had our share, etc. Thus, the tough decisions. If nothing is done, more of the same is sure to occur, and even be encouraged. This is why it must be stopped.
Amazing too, that since this thread started, more terrorists have been caught trying to get into our country, and abroad, and more terrorism has happened. Even as we speak, it is.
Since the first part of the twentieth century America has been the big brother of the western world , A fact - far misunderstood by isolationist's in America !, Imagine the amounts of money being spent by the US government on the offensive of terror supporting , - rouge nation ,friendly dictators , and to provide vigilance against these threats ?
Most anti- military , anti- war supporters within the US have no clue !
Question , Are we ready for terrorism to arrive here ?
Are Americans so naïve as to not expect that ?
I believe American military , police sources are WAY ready for this to arrive here .
Although I do understand the reasons we felt compelled to take the position of Big Brother; I do not believe it is our obligation to be such. I do think that we lost the moral high ground when large corporations began to own our government and were able to successfully lobby to set policies which benefited them; to the detriment of the American ideal most of us hold.
I have served in the military. I am not anti military. I am anti hawkish behavior where we tend to believe anyone who steps foot on foreign soil is somehow a hero. We can easily be pro USA without backing every decision the government makes.
But, I agree that our government is actively attempting to thwart terrorism within our country and, it appears they have done a stellar job thus far.
Ahorseback, what did you mean by, "I believe American military , police sources are WAY ready for this to arrive here."
I wanted to respond then thought I might be assuming something. I think you are right,t hat some have no clue. Its as if they are testing the reality of their thoughts and beliefs, and may not realize they are wrong until they lost a LOT, and very close to home.
Sometimes one has to wonder if the egocentric nature of many people has so overcome some people, that nothing matters unless its happening right then, to them. THEN, would they maybe wake up, and if so, why not just wake up in advance?
by The stallion14 months ago
People all over the world think that we Pakistanis are all terrorists. I beg to differ! I know that recently there have been quite a few terrorist activities around the world which were supposedly associated with...
by Deforest4 years ago
The US officially removed the MKO (people's Mujahedin of Iran) from its blacklist of terrorist organizations. The same ones who recently killed Iranian scientists. The same organization that was trained, that is funded...
by Steven Escareno6 years ago
In an effort to create more fun and unique forums for all of us to discuss, I found out hubpages had this little sub category "state sponsors of terrorism." yeah...who knew? therefore, why...
by Ralph Deeds7 years ago
Do you agree with Lynn Cheney and Bill Kristol's criticism of 7 Justice Department lawyers who provided legal representation to accused terrorists, calling them "The Al Qaeda Seven"? Here's a link to the...
by dadibobs5 years ago
If your country was invaded, would fighting to free your people from occupation make you a terrorist?, therefore being feared, hated and eventually punished, or would you become a public hero, reaping the benefits along...
by Deforest3 years ago
For me, it would entail the coalition of an elite and a government to terrorize a third group, the people. For instance, the collusion of Mandchurian candidates and the CIA to attack totally randomly the Boston Marathon...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.