Community > Serious Topics

France, surveillance, and the war on terror

(1/9) > >>

scottws:
My heart goes out to the French, especially the surviving victims and the families and friends of those that were lost.  It is a deplorable event caused by a bunch of deranged lunatics and I wish for each one of them to be burned at the stake.

That said, I worry that Western government leaders, especially those in the U.S.A. where I live, will use this event to further expand the surveillance state and trod upon civil liberties even more than they already are.  100% prevention, 100% security is impossible.  Are the surveillance and security actions really worth the diminishing returns, when those actions grossly invade upon my privacy and liberty as a law-abiding citizen?  I do not think that they are.

Unfortunately, this event has already turned the political discourse (during Presidential campaigning, no less) towards what kind of war we are going to engage on ISIS and other violent Islamic extremists.  This despite the fact that the war on terror has been shown to be less than effective and also proven to just earn us more enemies.  I would argue that in many ways, the extremists have already won.  They've succeeded in making our government fruitlessly spend trillions on pointless saber rattling and defense contracts.  They've succeeding in making ours and other Western governments pass incredibly tyrannical laws.  They've succeeded in forcing us to go through nearly pointless and invasive security checkpoints at airports, which have recently proven to be something like 95% ineffective at catching actual dangerous contraband, not to mention the cost involved in the whole TSA apparatus.

The war on terror is pointless and as long as we continue to try to fight it, we've already lost.

Cobra951:
We're not fighting a war.  We're having war waged on us, and then covering ourselves against the attacks as best as we can.  When we decide to actually go on the military offensive against Islamic fascism, we'll see how ineffective it remains.  We have a strong opportunity here, one I fear will be wasted, like so many others.  The Russians could not be more ripe for an alliance, since the loss of their civilian airliner.  The French have now tasted the new normal.  The wake-up calls keep going out like old bell-topped alarm clocks.  And we keep hitting the snooze button.

Our illustrious president called these combatants "criminals" to be brought to justice.  It's the wrong paradigm entirely, one that smacks of burying our heads in the sand.  World War 3 by other means will continue unabated, whether we choose to fight it, or hide from it until it marches ashore.

scottws:
They don't use uniforms.  They hide themselves amongst and as regular civilians.  They attack civilian targets as well as military.  What are we going to do, nuke the Middle East until it is nothing but a glowing pile of rubble?  Even if we did that, extremists already exist within ours and other Western communities.  Besides, such an action would make the situation even worse by breeding even more people willing to take up arms.  But what's the alternative?  What's the magic bullet that is going to change the game?  I think the answer is that there isn't one, at least not one that involves bombs and bullets.  It's a war that cannot be won.

Militarily, what's the move?  Find out who these people are with ever more pervasive and invasive surveillance techniques?  Let's not forget Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  No amount of surveillance and no amount of war waging is going to guarantee us 100% security.  How much of our GDP do we want to spend and how much of our liberty do we want to forfeit to gain a few extra percentage points of security?  We've already gone too far.

Quemaqua:
I agree with both of you. We can't do nothing, or keep burying our heads in the sand, but we also can't just nuke it out of existence. I don't know what the answer to this problem is, and I think nobody does, which is why nothing is being done. I don't think anyone knows what the hell to do.

Cobra951:
Nuking is not the only way to raze enemy strongholds, command and control, and their means of financing and production.  And nuking would prevent an invading army from seizing the territory once the resistance is eliminated.  I don't want any nuking.  That should be only a direct response to a WMD strike by them.

The lack of uniforms doesn't mean we can't locate and exterminate the driving forces behind the enemy movement.  Surviving global cells then become isolated, and they go out via attrition, or intelligence-driven raids.  That will take much longer to exterminate, to be sure--and there will always be isolated acts of barbarism.  However, the extreme-Islamic juggernaut that only grows by the day can only be brought down with overwhelming force.  It's sexy to a lot of disaffected idiots because it continues to succeed practically unchallenged.  Once it is shown to be a (literally) dead end, it won't have the draw that it does now.

This shit has been building for over 40 years--longer than any of you have been around.  I've been thinking about it for about as long.  Talking does nothing.  Negotiating turns out no better than it did for Chamberlain in the 30s.  These people have made up their minds, and we can't talk them out of their lust for blood and death.  Saying we can't do anything is the most defeatist attitude possible.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page