This might be a steady blog. Or a one time thing.
I don't really know.
For now, I guess I just need to rant. Maybe ask for opinions.

I can't find a good way to start this, so I'm going to be blunt. What happened at Paris was fucked.
It doesn't matter if it was ISIL, or just a random terrorist, it was absolutely fucked.
I'm not trying to deny the validity of fuckness about Lebanon either. Lebanon was fucked.
Let's just assume, for all intensive purposes, that ISIL was the cause of Paris (which is a fair assumption, in on itself). How do we even deal with that? With the new released school of jihad videos (pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/afghanist..) and videos of the Syrian powers literally telling their "refugees" to rape our women and exterminate the white race (for the life of me I can't find it now), who do we trust?
Surely this is not a black and white topic. I know we can't just bomb the Middle East. But how do we know who supports what side? We can't. So do we just stop all Syrian refugees from entering our countries? Isn't that morally wrong?
Are we at a crisis level where we need to drop our morals yet?
Is this going to be another Nagasaki and Hiroshima where we have no choice but to drop our morals?
I don't know. I'm aware of those who genuinely want peace. The majority of the population. But when the kids are being taught how to kill infedils.. at what point do we say enough is enough, we can't take this anymore?

That's just my two cents on the matter. I guess you can feel free to drop your opinions or suggestions below.
By no means am I claiming to have the answer. I just needed to get that off my chest. Didn't know who to talk to about it, nobody agrees or understands what I'm saying.
Debate in replies, perhaps.

~fear

"That's just my two cents", but you didn't actually say anything. You just asked a bunch of loosely related questions. Paris and Lebanon are "fucked" but the thousands of innocents they kill in Syria and Iraq every year are not even worth mentioning?

You should gather your thoughts and opinions in a more cohesive manner before putting them on the internet. You left nothing to discuss, really.

This isn't new. This is the world. It's not something that just gets fixed.

First: you need to realize that ISIS is a minority group, an extremely weak military force, and someone whose tactics rely on us turning fear and hatred into recruitment tools. They want us to turn on the refugees coming from Syria, because they want them to feel like their only option is to become a terrorist, because all the West wants to do is drop bombs on their country and hope the problem goes away. The fact that we are even considering "dropping our morals" is proof that their tactics are, indeed, affecting people.

Second: Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't a situation where we needed to drop our morals. We had crushed Japan militarily, and the only ones that truly supported further war were the military brass angry over their toys being broken. The Japanese government reached out diplomatically, and we refused repeatedly. We didn't want the Russians sharing Japan with us, so we decided to nuke them. We dropped pamphlets about evacuating cities due to atomic bombs after we nuked two cities, not as a warning, but as a threat. It was a senseless action done as a way of flexing our muscles, it saved no one, killed tens of thousands and irradiated two cities.

Third: yes. Barring people who are escaping persecution from a rebel force which we helped arm (because these rebels are the same ones that the US armed a few years ago) just because the monster we created might possibly sneak in is, in fact, morally wrong. Turning a blind eye to the genocide of the Assyrians and the steady downslide of human rights and livability in the region as we proceed to drop more bombs is, indeed, morally wrong. Assuming that every single refugee coming into other countries is a terrorist because of a piece of propaganda released by a paper tiger so desperate for manpower and resources that they recently resorted to strapping IEDs to chickens is stupid. It's also morally wrong.

We had crushed Japan militarily, and the only ones that truly supported further war were the military brass angry over their toys being broken. The Japanese government reached out diplomatically, and we refused repeatedly. We didn't want the Russians sharing Japan with us, so we decided to nuke them. We dropped pamphlets about evacuating cities due to atomic bombs after we nuked two cities, not as a warning, but as a threat. It was a senseless action done as a way of flexing our muscles, it saved no one, killed tens of thousands and irradiated two cities.

Uh, wat? I am on the fence about the bombings, and I totally see how it can be argued they were premature, but this is all just a stary-eyed attempt to make the morality of the situation seem straight forward. Yes, there are legitimate questions as to whether or not the bombing was necessary to end the war, but that doesn't make this a cut and dry situation.

The Russia question is questionable to begin with because Stalin was invited to get involved in the Pacific War during Yalta. Hell, once the Russians took Korea, they offered to split it with the west. There was a lot of distrust between the Soviets and the western powers, but total breakdown hadn't happened yet.

As for the government reaching out diplomatically... they weren't accepting unconditional surrender, and you have to consider that the entire philosophy of that war was to completely deconstruct the governments that had directly caused it. Politicians in the 1940's couldn't have predicted how the end of World War 2, the Cold War, and eventually Globalization would effect the way major nations behave with each other. From their perspective, being lenient would mean another inevitable world war somewhere down the line.

It is always very tempting to try and repaint shit like that as having fit a very comfortable and very easy place on the moral spectrum, but it isn't and shouldn't be that simple. Making it look like 'Evil America was just eviling and doing evil for evil reasons because evil seemed good and evil.', that is just a weak way to look at things. Hell, you can make the same argument about ISIS. Saying they are evil just to be evil is useless. They seem to see themselves as part of some major struggle, and many of them have legitimate reasons to be mad at the west, while others are just in a fucked up situation. They aren't cartoonishly evil, they are humanly evil. What differentiates them from other people is that they chose to give in to violent impulses caused by their disaffection and answer their problems by lashing out at people who, to them, merely symbolize whatever the fuck it is that drove them to hoist an RPG on their shoulders. And with them, that is the tricky part. They've went too far down that dark path to be handled diplomatically, but trying to nation build with bombs creates too many disaffected people and breeds more terrorists. That's the tight-rope we have to walk when dealing with them - we can kill them, that is self defense at this point, but we can't do so in such a way that negatively effects the people around them. How do you do that? The only other thing we can hope for is eventual stability in the region. But when the fuck is that going to happen? We could always fund their enemies, but we've seen what that does in the past as well...

So that is the problem, OP. This isn't an easy question. I'm not sure if we can answer it.

To keep this relatively short: that area of the world is a fucking mess right now, to no small extent because of the misguided and self-interested actions of Western countries. The vast majority of the victims of that are simply humans, like you or me, whose world has imploded because they are from that area. It is not fair that it happened to them; they are no better or worse than anyone else, and yet they have lost everything. Even if we had no involvement and were nothing to do with the causes of the violence and destruction - which is not the case - the only human course of action is to do what we can for those suffering. As a Brit, I'm disgusted with the current government's pathetic level of involvement and commitment with helping the refugees flooding into Europe.

Paris was a tragedy. Lebanon was a tragedy. Every such attack is a tragedy. But letting it get the better of us, letting fear control our actions more than compassion? That would be the greatest tragedy of all. That's how we lose.

ISIL exists, almost entirely, because of our 'morals.' We left the Middle East never to return, without finishing the job. We left behind a government too weak to hold them off, and refused to support the (legitimate) Syrian revolution for long enough that they were forced to turn to IS. Syria became their call to arms, and they carried it right back into Iraq and murdered thousands of people, and nobody noticed until they started murdering white people, because, you know, we're moral.

The answer has always been the same. Go over there and do bad things to bad people, until the good people have enough breathing room to handle it themselves. But we can't stomach that, nor do we want to. So, get ready for Paris to happen again every 3-5 years (to us, it happens every couple months in the Middle East). Hooray, morality.

We noticed. We've noticed the entire Syrian conflict from the start. It isn't exactly obscure. It's been in the news since it started.

How long of war is long enough? Ten years didn't do it, would twenty years work? Do we need to go for a half-century? How many states do we need to invade in this adventure? It is easy to say that all we have to do is do bad things to bad people, but it would be dishonest to say that it is that easy. In a situation like this, where you are already dealing with massive swaths of village-dwelling Sunni's who sympathize more with the terrorist organizations than they do with westerners, you have a hard time distinguishing who is bad and who is good. When our advisers seem incapable of working with the local culture to build a government that will succeed, how much money and blood do we need to be willing to pour into an inevitable failure of a government before we accept that "Fooled me once, shame on you. Fooled me twice, shame on me."?

So that is the question. We've done police actions before and they don't seem to work in these circumstances, so do we go total war on ISIS? Total war by it's definition means doing bad things to innocents just as much as combatants, so do we want to go down that road? Especially when violence breeds more terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. I'm definitely not saying we can talk this out with ISIS, and I don't think we should ignore the problem all together, but we cannot make a move that contradicts all of the people who actually live there. All that will do is increase western military job security at the expense of a lot of lives on both sides. If we are going to fix this thing, we have to get the other Muslim nations more involved in fixing this problem, which is a problem within itself.

Regardless of what impressions you've gotten from the news, we did a bang-up job in Iraq from 2007-2008. Petreus' 'Surge tactics' cleaned up the country like night and day. It worked. It's easy to say "do bad things to bad people," fine -- it's just as easy to say "we can't win, we never had a chance." The truth is, we could have won, we had a chance, and we let it go. Packing up and leaving has damaged our ability to win -- we're about as credible as a red line in the sand, and everybody knows it, and we can't just make that go away. Now everybody knows -- just wait, and the Americans will walk away. Who in their right minds would work with us now? Iranian rebels tried, they're dead. Syrian rebels tried, they're nerve gassed. Iraqis tried, and they got beheaded for it. Libyans, Afghanis... We don't have the balls to finish what we start, and everybody who throws in with us, pays for it later. "How long is long enough?" As long as it takes. If we can't do that -- and we can't -- then we shouldn't get started in the first place.

So to reiterate -- no, I don't think we should just run over there and bomb people. It's a bad idea, but not for the reasons you're thinking. It could TOTALLY work, we could absolutely win the war and save lives in the process. These aren't boogeymen -- they bleed, they die, they get scared and go home. We've beat the shit out of them enough times, we can always do it again. Hell, the only reason we're talking about ISIS is that Al Qaeda is ashes. Damn straight, we can beat them.... except we can't, because the nation can't stomach it. So anything we do to solve the problem will only make it worse.

This is of the top of my head to the topic. I have not read anyone else comment so i can get this straight out to you @Fear.
I live In New York City, Everyone here feels for Paris and the other countries who were attack. (I speak for the people i know in New York City) The Only thing humans know is war. Its life and to live things have to die. In this case isis want to spread fear to other countries. Doing their best by staying in the news one way or the other. This either makes people want to join them or kill them the American way of course. Back to the point, sorry about that. If ISIS didn't attack/kill/destroy they would fade and lose member's. Its a struggle of trying to live. All of these things/problems comes from trying to stop the problem. I hear ISIS was made because of the war back in 2001. Most Americans believe the war was for oil and the spread of Isis was the effect of the war. (i might of lost my point) Anywho Everything happens for a reason. The people of Isis might have a real reason to hate the world. I think the best way to deal with Isis is to completely ignore them. Let the people who started this mess duke it out. (Just my opinion on the topic, I hope i didn't piss anyone off)(by the people i mean We the problem starters and all of the corrupt government/leaders at that time.)

If the Western world admitted 100% of all prospective Syrian refugees, the amount of lives that would be saved is the same as the amount of lives that would be saved if we admitted none whatsoever: zero.

Europe, the U.S. and other western powers do not send military forces into Syria to collect civilians and then send them to the West. The 'Syrian refugees' we admit are not taken directly from Syria, but from refugee camps in neighbouring nations, chiefly Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. There is no existential threat for the people living in those camps. They are as endangered as anyone else living in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. What's more, the vast majority of these people don't want to be sent off to the West. They want to go back home, to Syria, but to a Syria that is safe for themselves and for their families. The notion that there is a life or death need for the West to admit these refugees, or that by refusing to give them a new life in the West we're somehow playing into ISIS' hands, is false and absurd. If Western governments would like to help the situation in Syria, they can stop creating Islamist organizations in the first place. If that's not enough, they can take the funding they were going to spend on giving refugees permanent accommodation in the West and instead direct it towards providing assistance to international relief organizations operating in the refugee settlements.

I don't think we can deal with Daesh in the same way we can a nation-state. They don't exist on the same principles as Germany, France, the US, or the UK and are a part of a much broader spectrum. So we eliminate Daesh: march into Al-Raqqah and break down their command and take out or capture Bahgdadi. But what do we solve? Not really anything.

The pretense of their activity as militant ultra-orthodox, almost apocalyptic Muslim philosophy still exists. We still got Boko Haram to deal with, Al-Qaeda to contend with, or Al Mourabitoun which encompass a extreme belief that transcends a single group or a perceived nation-identity.

For Daesh at the least, their validity is derived from the idea that the west is out to get them. They believe in and want to instigate a war of the civilizations akin to the Crusades. And they want Muslims in the west to become disenfranchised with their native countries so they become militarized and turn to them; because Daesh becomes their salvation.

In Syria and Iraq as well for the US or western powers to approach them with ground troops and to have a visible presence among the Syrian and Iraqi people again would validate for Daesh the west as being invaders despite their own instigation. This would help them recruit from the local region fighters that would attack us as soon as we get there because they want to kill us. And they want as many of us to approach them as possible.

Really, attacking them will prolong the existence of this ideology by validating it. It's seeking attention from us and we should not give it to them. Accept the migrants so that Daesh has no one to rule and so that they become indebted to us through our charity. Or even: help people out of the occupied territories.

Daesh's authority in the area is only really valid if there's anyone left. Most people that live in the affected areas of Daesh's control tend to flee so cities like Sinjar are often left totally abandoned and anyone who has had the means has left.

If they are to be fought, then it's ideally best - for us at least - to not justify the East vs West clash of civilizations philosophy and get the east to fight the east. Daesh is as much a reaction to the west as Progressive Islam is a reaction to itself.

Let Saudi Arabia fix the mutant afterbirth it enabled.