PQ at its best.

BTW, Italy did fight against the Nazis, after 43.
Before that they were part of the Axis.

And Austria was part of Germany - remember the Anschluss Michael is referring to ?

PQ if you want to be frankly disagreable, please read a book before that.

But I prefer when you simply abstain - what is the goal of citing the Nazis here ?

Oh, pariswat, you must be a neophyte on English language forums! ;-) Every single political discussion finally leads to a mention of the Nazis. Everybody knows that.

Sorry. Keep forgetting.

There's nothing like historical wishful thinking.>

Do you know the meaning of analogy - folks like Nazis and Burka Harem in Africa and ISIS_ISIL must be stamped out by an international effort - yes the Nazis did much more carnage on a wider scale but ISIS-ISIL will too if given the chance.

Point was someone was blaming France's politicians for this - it is every civilized society's problem and all should be in the fight - as W said 'you are either with us or against us' in this fight.

Yes Michael others were guilt of complicity too, including some British (a k a German) royal family members and American Isolationists like Henry Ford and Lindbergh and Father Coughlin

I was only reacting to the charge above that France is the problem where it is all our problem. Holland should be just as involved as France and Belgium and U S or they are part of the problem.

The analogy will only work if the historical truth is respected.

"Burka Harem in Africa"

Typo of the day.

My main point is we are all in it together - every country must unite against such scmbags like ISIS/ISIL - societies that condone wanton killing of innocents and medieval barbarism against innocents or anyone.

Who can argue with that?

And yes if original sin is responsible it is the U S of A and George W Bush whose illegal war on trumped up charges with the help of the coalition of the willing - notably the U K and Tony Blair - launched all this but now we are all in together - Europeans, 'non-Europeans' any civilized society including Arab states in the region - you are either with us or against us in the words of war criminal Bush and ilk - Cheney and Rumsfeld and the U.S. Congress, including Hillary Clinton who voted for the war (and now says it was a bad thing based on false or falsified intelligence) - Colin Powell's famous statement about Iraq - the Pottery Barn analogy (some don't know the meaning of this word it seems) "If you break it you pay for it."

This is clearly no place for intellectual debate.

nor intellectuals!

Throwing a bone to PalenQ…

I happened to see Charlie Rose's 11/18/2015 show last night, "The Death of Abdelhamid Abaaoud." Charlie leads a fascinating round table discussion on the Paris attacks with Will McCants, director of the Project on US Relations with the Islamic World at the Brookings Institution, Graeme Wood of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Ian Fisher, Head of Investigations at The New York Times. A video of the program can be seen on Charlie's home page: http://www.charlierose.com/

At some point Charlie steers the conversation to blame, and Ian Fisher said that had the U.S. not overthrown Saddam Hussein, Isis would probably not exist today.

Isis is composed of Sunni Wahhabi/Salafi jihadist extremists who once belonged to Saddam's Baath Party. When Bush and Paul Bremer disbanded the Iraqi Army in 2003, those 250,000 young men had suddenly lost their job with nowhere to turn. These are the men who joined and formed Isis.

Charlie's conversation is riveting, and I highly recommend it to all.

<i>in 2003, those 250,000 young men had suddenly lost their job with nowhere to turn.</i>

That pretty much excludes anyone in ISIS who is less than 31 years old.

@NYCFoodSnob - thanks very much for the link to Charlie Rose. I used to watch him almost every night, but then I started having trouble watching off his web site (I haven't had a TV in years) and got out of the habit. Glad to be reminded, and that's an excellent piece.

Who is Charlie Rose ? A friend of Rick Steve ?

I've always thought the Babylonians and their actions against the Jews should be blamed for this.

Really, I'm not sure where we get off listing the people we could blame.

What would be interesting is thinking about what could be done now?

If all the ISIS people were dead today, who would fill their places? Who would take over and manage the lands they control?

Why are young people still going off to Syria from decent homes? How do we get them to consider a better alternative?

What do "we" want from Syria and Iraq?

I know lots of armies have things to destroy stuff, but do any of them have things to create stuff? Where are the Engineers with their bridge building and their factory laying and their road construction? Will we really end up spending a fortune to make the Carlisle group more profit when everything is bombed flat?

What future does Syria really have? The ancient ruins are amazing (but more ruined that when the Romans left them), yes there will always be a small Christian group of travellers who want to visit (after all why not dine in the room where St Paul is claimed to have been lowered from the walls of Damascus, or visit the village where the locals speak the Language of Jesus)I have, and I guess much of that is gone. But when that is all flattened what other industry will be left.

Those are the plans that will make Europe safe, the feelings of hope and the chance of success are what make people stay and grow.

Now any bright ideas or we just going to snipe at each other.

<i><font color=#555555>"That pretty much excludes anyone in ISIS who is less than 31 years old."</font></i>

You might have a point except the success of their recruiting tactics is very well documented. Isis ad campaigns are Madison Ave quality. Youth unemployment is 40% in some areas of the Middle East. It's 48% in Syria. Isis is offering money, women, and the promise of paradise. Sounds like a dream come true to many young, desperate minds.

<i><font color=#555555>"Really, I'm not sure where we get off listing the people we could blame."</font></i>

Really? Is this statement for real? Whenever someone catches the common cold, blame is one of the first things pondered. I think it's called human nature.

<i><font color=#555555>"we just going to snipe at each other."</font></i>

It's very clear that pariswat is starving for attention. His board activity is like <i>merde sur une chaussure</i>: it probably will never be washed away. Some men like to behave like small, insolent boys. The best one can do is ignore.

"What would be interesting is thinking about what could be done now? Why are young people still going off to Syria from decent homes? How do we get them to consider a better alternative?"

First off, you have only 2 questions above, but 3 question marks. The first line is just a comment, but I agree with that comment; what to do should be the focus.

As for your questions... I assume you refer to the Muslim immigrants (and their offspring) that leave the West to take up a life of terrorism, then return to kill us. I have an idea or two on that.

As Hollande has said, the West is at war with jihadi terrorism. So in short, these people are committing treason; we can and should carry out the harshest of harsh punishments to turncoats - whatever our treason laws permit. For maximum effect on the wannabe terrorists back home who glorify violence, we should be no more humane to these blood-letters than they are to their victims - to the extent that is possible.

First off, anyone who signs on with the enemy does not come back - Muslim or otherwise. And then we take to them the war they hoped for. We do our best to kill off every one of them in Syria or Iraq or wherever, along with every other terrorist we can locate, bombing strike by bombing strike and drone strike by drone strike. Then we provide Charlie Rose some photos of their corpses (if available) and have him showcase each of their failed, pathetic, loser lives. If we have to capture some of them, they come back in chains (and perhaps women's panties,) go to trial, and get executed after a hasty trial. The ones back home will then have clearer choices to contemplate.

But before all that, we block migration from dangerous parts of the planet in the first place. The West has no need to import any more Middle East Muslims or anyone from countries saturated with terrorist ideology. Use the Pew polls - any nation where more than 1% of the population thinks suicide bombings or attacks on civilians are justifiable should be completely blackballed - no immigrants, no visitor or educationsl visas, and no terror cult pockets like we have now. Any immigrants we need in France or the USA or wherever can easily be gotten from more peaceful parts of the planet.

It's an interesting question WHY any immigrant or citizen for that matter would choose to be a traitor. Perhaps they don't understand the notion. Perhaps they aren't educated on the consequences, or the consequences aren't severe enough in practice. I would change the West's habit of hiring ultra-liberal educators who fault their own civilization at every opportunity for all the world's problems. I would make sure that teachers are held to account for upholding the loyalty oaths they swear when they are hired. They're supposed to pass on our civilization - not help bring it down.

Fussgaenger,

Is your rant a "Modest Proposal"?

@Michael - LOL.

'It's very clear that pariswat is starving for attention. His board activity is like merde sur une chaussure: it probably will never be washed away. Some men like to behave like small, insolent boys. The best one can do is ignore.'

Snob

This is a very personal and aimed insult.
Up to now, you have called me stupid, a twit.
Now you go a little bit too far.

It seems that you consider yourself a gorgeous tall actress, intellectual and full of money but I don't see any of this and neither do I see your irony. Your post are just plain, you seem to need to have somebody explain something to you and then you can have an opinion that you can plaster.

Ah, and by the way, in french a Snob is an unsufferable person - don't know if it is less negative in English, but it seems at least you chose your name rightly.

"Up to now, you have called me stupid, a twit.
Now you go a little bit too far."

Go back and re-read your own early posts in this thread. First, you were condescending to the OP, dismissing the attacks as "journalistic exaggerations". Yes, you were at dinner and missed the news, but you defaulted to an arrogant "you don't know what you're talking about" attitude rather than actually getting some real info before responding.

Then, when you were called out on your arrogance and for being wrong, instead of saying I'm sorry, I didn't know what was happening when I first posted, you lashed out at the people who were correct, calling them sordid and stupid and telling them to go to hell.

So if you consider Snob an insufferable person, all I can say is pot, meet kettle.

@Michael - LOL.

Fuss, 1% criteria, I think that will allow just about every country through the door.

Look these crazy guys arn't muslims, they just think they are. Like blaming all Christians for the inquisition

Have a good night guys and happy traveling :-)

If people would like to feel a bit more optimistic about the situation, I have been reading that Daesh is now losing more and more territory as the French and Russians bomb and the Kurds attack on the ground.

The recent Daesh attacks can be considered to be acts of desperation, like a cornered rat.

Let's wait a few weeks and see what happens instead of arguing and nitpicking here when we are all (I hope) basically on the same side.

Time to close this thread?

I will also add that Paris is not under siege, which pleads even more for ending this discussion.

PalenQ, you know how to start good debates, but if you would try to be less inflammatory in your titles in the future, people might write their opinions more reasonably.

Weisser.

Since you join the discussion, let us be clear : we don't like each other much more than Snob and myself, do we ?

Political discussions here are only matched by people judging others. I didn't comment on your 'rant' or your propsal for solving your peoblemn, do me a favour and do the same with me, will you ?

As for being condescending to the OP ? Let PQ answer for that, won't you ? I think he is big enough to give an opinion by himself.

Kerouac,
Amen !

PalenQ, you know how to start good debates, but if you would try to be less inflammatory in your titles in the future, people might write their opinions more reasonably.>

Well the context of the title was just when it was being reported and that's why the title - I was not thinking of starting a debate but alerting folks to a problem and at that time the title seemed very appropriate - again was not thinking of any discussion but that's what entailed.

Cheers!

As for ISIS becoming more irrelevant I think not - they can closed down whole cities like Brussels just by threats, real or not.

All civilized countries have to join together with France, U.S. and such to stamp out this scourge and most experts say that means boots on the ground not just bombings which also kill many civilians and give ISIS more recruits and support.

It is a very very difficult situation, again originally caused by Americans and now everyone's problem.

Personal attacks here are irrelevant - let's all join what has to be done - stamp out ISIS and ilk - let's all strategize how that can be done rather than blame others for inflammatory titles, again justified in original context or ill-given statements originally based on not knowing what had happened, etc.

One of my French son's American tutorees gave him a large vase of flowers to say their solidarity with the French - I have never seen so much pro-French sentiment here and that could be one good outcome of all of this as we all have to work together to stamp out ISIS.

"Is your rant a 'Modest Proposal'?"

When war is thrust on you, there's no room for modesty.

"Look these crazy guys arn't muslims, they just think they are."

YOUR opinion on how muslim ISIS is or isn't does NOT matter. When it comes to letting immigrants into the west, what does matter is whether other Muslims support ISIS goals. Many do.

"One-in-five Muslims in Egypt and Jordan offer support for suicide bombing in defense of Islam, as do 15% of Indonesian Muslims." (Egypt is 95% Muslim. Jordan is about the same.)

http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/...and-hezbollah/

"Fuss, 1% criteria, I think that will allow just about every country through the door."

You couldn't be wronger.

40% of British Muslims want Sharia law - just like ISIS:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...law-in-UK.html

Since the UK is about 5% Muslim, that means 2% of the UK supports Sharia. So my criteria would keep out all Brits as well. Fine with me if we can keep out the monsters that support stoning and other acts of Islamic Barbarism along with the sweet Brits.

Please, let's stop this thread. People whose opinions I value are starting to insult each other.

There's been a lot of interesting discussion up until recently, but now it's become very unpleasant.

Besides, the misspelling in the title has bugged me from the beginning.

Again let's focus on the problem- ISIS not arguing with each other.

Personally, I would be willing to chip in to provide plane tickets for those of you who would like to go implement your solutions and settle this ISIS/DAECH thing once and for all.

Why is it that the guys with bully in their blood are often the biggest crybabies?

And shut down a thread? I'd do just about anything to fight censorship, I don't care how many people disagree with my opinion. If you don't like what you're reading, can't you move on to something else? My favorite are the posters who call for a thread to be shut down and then immediately post something new. What gives?

Perhaps the addicts can't move on. Perhaps the lure to look and to post is too difficult to resist. It's like asking theater goers to stop using their cell phones during a performance. Some simply can't stop, no matter how many announcements are made, no matter how much humiliation they endure.

I guess the subject of addiction might require a new thread.

'If you don't like what you're reading, can't you move on to something else? '

Good advice actually. But not relevant when you're insulting me.

'no matter how much humiliation they endure.'

You really think you're humiliating me ?
You're insulting you, that's different.

T'es gonflée quand même, Snob.
Enfin vaut mieux lire cela qu'être aveugle.

Personally, I would be willing to chip in to provide plane tickets for those of you who would like to go implement your solutions and settle this ISIS/DAECH thing once and for all.>

One way or return?

Ignore. You see how easy it is? :-)

40% of British Muslims want Sharia law - just like ISIS:>

Skimming the article I saw nothing about "just like ISIS" in it - that is your addition- how do you know 40% of British Muslims want infidels heads cut off; folks burned to death in cages; girls not allowed to go to school; slavery to be put in practice; men to have up to five wives; adulterers to be stoned to death; thieves' hands cut off" - fuss - where did you get that from this article.

Sharia law can mean very different things to different folks - I think you misstated and grossly exaggerated your Sharia Law. I bet even 40% of the Muslims living under ISIS law do not condone that type of medieval Sharia Law?

Certain people pushing a different agenda like to come up with polls like that. It's just like the polls in France about 62% of the French being against the hijab. It's all about the way you ask the question. I myself am "against" the hijab as a valid way to practice one's religion but I am 100% in favor of it if somebody feels they need to wear it. Poll questions are generally worded to get the response you are hoping for.

I myself am "against" the hijab as a valid way to practice one's religion but I am 100% in favor of it if somebody feels they need to wear it.>

My feelings exactly but all my in-laws, largely leftist voters, seem to say it is OK to ban the hijab in public and express the sentiment of 'losing French culture - lamenting the wearing of head scarves and supporting banning them in schools. I think your tolerant way is better for all in the long run but I would not question the 62% based on my in-laws.

Do they know the difference between the hijab and the niqab? That seems to be the main reason that these polls are skewed.

Not sure they do - but they have a sentiment that France is losing its 'frenchness' which they lament and which I pooh pooh and tell them so - a culture is most vibrant when it embraces and incorporates others with other traits into it.

One has to think that part of France's Muslim problem - so many going to fight for ISIS (well a small % really but) is that they have not been assimilated but relegated to dismal housing estates where radical immans prey on discrimination many Muslims perceive and the hopeless lives they lead - sky high unemployment - being stuck in poverty and sensing that many if not most French wouldlike them to leave - thanks to Le Pen and ilk rhetoric, etc.

A difficult problem at this point. And there are so many decent Muslims in France too.

Thank you Kerouac for your pictures. When is all of this hate going to go stop.