> Ok. So if it indeed can be attributed to them, or if they go out and admit, then fine, send in the tanks - the Paris attack would be an act of war.
They claimed responsibility. As for sending in the tanks, I don't see that happening.
> Oh it can. We have a long way to go from what we have now to what was in USSR or Nazi Germany. I just hope we don't decide to run the distance.
Yeah, but neither were democracies. The Red Scare-era US would be a better example. I really hope it doesn't go this way.
> What worries me more is that the overrection will be aimed at immigrants and minorities who live in Europe. There already are reports of this beginning to happen.
Probably not from the government, but who knows what the population will do?
It's a bit more complex than that. We've reached the point where the Islamic State is a nation-state, which is at war with a number of other states (including France). In this context, how do you differentiate "terrorism" and "act of war"/"black ops action"?
I agree that an overreaction is likely, though considering how crazy the latest security law are, I don't see how much worse it can get in this regard.
Putting pressure on countries being part of the offensive against them is definitely in their interest, which is why it came to no surprise at all when it turned out that they were behind the attack.
You don't even need a Godwin point for that. Nobody was calling Air Marshall Harris, well-known for his strategy of carpet-bombing civilians with incendiaries during WWII, "insane" or "irrational". Instead, they gave him a bunch of medals and made him a baronet.
Is ISIS really linked to Pakistan? I understand there are strong suspicions of connections between Turkey and ISIS (at least pre-bombings). But I hadn't heard of a link with Pakistan until now. I thought Pakistani intelligence was happy coddling the "right" talibans and their home-grown anti-Indian terrorist groups. Do you have any evidence this connection?
Concessions work with people who have "moderate" (asking for more rights or territorial independence) goals. People who are interested in a global caliphate may leave you in peace for a few years if you withdraw from the war (maybe), but they'll be back eventually.
Well, it is possible that ISIS would try to infiltrate operators this way (in fact, they caught a convicted terrorist in Italy hiding as a refugee a few days ago).
Context: the French king Charles X was in a difficult political situation and needed money, so attacking the then-Ottoman-dominated Algeria looked like a good idea at the time. The slave trade had stopped years ago, and the pirate activity, while not over, was way down.
That was a pretty nasty time. The French military tortured and assassinated on very large scale in Algeria (thousands of people). On the other side, the FLN was fighting a guerilla war, combined with terrorist actions (mostly bombings) against civilian targets. To compound this, once De Gaulle announced that Algeria would be become independent, hardliners from the military as well as from the Pieds-Noir community (people living in Algeria of French descent) formed a terrorist group known as OAS, targeting both FLN, Algerian civilians and French authorities (including attempts to kill De Gaulle).
It's irrational if you do it for kicks. It's rational if you expect a strategic advantage for your group/nation-state out of it. Whether it is moral to do is an entirely different discussion.
On the other hand, secret trade deals like TTIP are, according to O'Brien, er, Cameron, perfectly fine.
I suppose it's one way of dealing with terrorists who "hate our freedoms", you just need to take these freedoms away one by one until they have nothing left to hate...
They claimed responsibility. As for sending in the tanks, I don't see that happening.
> Oh it can. We have a long way to go from what we have now to what was in USSR or Nazi Germany. I just hope we don't decide to run the distance.
Yeah, but neither were democracies. The Red Scare-era US would be a better example. I really hope it doesn't go this way.
> What worries me more is that the overrection will be aimed at immigrants and minorities who live in Europe. There already are reports of this beginning to happen.
Probably not from the government, but who knows what the population will do?