Discussion: How 2016 Dems Respond To The Paris Terror Attacks

Discussion for article #242850

“In fact, I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something
that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely and led to
the rise of al- Qaeda and to ISIS,” the senator said.

Bernie, remember the timeline. Bush invaded Iraq after al Qaida attacked us on 9/11. And before that there were the bombing of two Embassies in Africa by al Qaida. So, they had already “risen”. But you are correct in that the invasion of Iraq and the bungling thereafter led to Zarqawi and his version of al Qaida in Iraq. Which ultimately led to ISIS.


This is the problem the Republicans will always have the “easier” “sexyer” simpler soundbite for this discussion. It’s a lot easier to say “we are going to bomb the hell out of them.” As opposed to something else about allies and intelligence with refugee policy.


Yes, Repubs do win the soundbite war here. For a reason. Few Americans right now don’t feel visceral rage about what happened in Paris, and most would like nothing better than a massive–and I mean massive–invasion and complete take down of Daesh/Assad/Al Qaida/Taliban. It’s the same rage that followed Pearl Harbor and 9/11. So Democrats better project the voice of Roosevelt in a time such as this: “A Date Which Will Live in Infamy.”

1 Like

Bernie, remember the timeline. Bush invaded Iraq after al Qaida attacked us on 9/11.

I’m pretty sure Bernie is aware that Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. Given the context, I thought it was pretty clear he was talking about the way the Iraq war facilitated the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and then ISIS. But I can see how his failure to specify “Al Qaeda in Iraq” leaves the statement open to misinterpretation.


Totally true. You could also mention the Cole bombing as something preceding the Bush administration. Even giving Bernie the benefit of the doubt on his phrasing, the terrorists we’re dealing with currently have a long history. You’ve got bin Laden’s anger with the Saudis over the Gulf War, the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets, Sayid Qutb (1906-1966), Israel and the Palestinians, the rise of Wahhabism in the 18th century, the centuries of fraught history between Europe and the Middle East, the civil wars and schisms in Islam in the seventh century—mistakes the U.S. has made are only part of a long and extremely complicated story. We’re not entirely innocent, but neither are we entirely responsible. Both views are simplistic.


"Clinton disagreed with Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) assertion that the Paris attacks showed the U.S. was at war with ‘radical Islam.’

‘I don’t think we’re at war with Islam," Clinton said. "I don’t think we’re at war with all Muslims.’"

This text puts “war with radical Islam” as meaning “war with Islam” and “war with all Muslims” , at least to close enough in meaning to cover an area of disagreement.

It’s not. Although both Clinton, Rubio, and the author of this piece paint it the same way: Clinton, by responding to Rubio’s assertion with her wording, Rubio by letting conflations of Islam and Muslims with Daesh go unchallenged, and the author of this piece as shown.

Whatever we do with Daesh, at least let’s stop using this idiotic construction of Islam, Muslims, and Daesh.

1 Like

It’s refreshing to hear from someone who is aware of history (tip 'o the cap). As @Sooner said (here or on another thread) it’s the tribalism inherent in the mid-east that holds back their governance.


I wish the terrorist attacks in Nigeria or Lebanon or other “brown” countries got wall to wall coverage like we’re giving Paris.


We have our own tribalism going on right now and it sure does militate against getting constructive stuff done. One thing to extend the thought about what history shows is that if there’s anything uniquely naughty and violent about Islam, it’s hard to explain how it could have been one of the organizing principles behind societies that for centuries were far more advanced in any way you might mention than the same period’s violent, ignorant, and generally pretty awful Christian Europe. Hospitals, universities, science, math, astronomy, literature, art, architecture, governance, it just goes on. And the thing is, this isn’t esoteric knowledge. Most liberal arts students are exposed to it. Cruz knows it perfectly well, with his education. SMH


This is where old bernie lost me during the debate.

“Climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,”

OK, yes there is climate change and yes there is terrorism. But attempting to correlate the two? Not buying it. ISIS is not looking for food or water. They are sociopaths bent on annihilating those that don’t conform to or genuflect to their zealotry (sound familiar).

I can’t believe I forgot the debate was on last night.

Do you know what channel it was on? CBS?

I cannot get over the hyping by the media literally insinuating Obama has been feckless and even Colonel Jack Jacobs saying more has to be done but the President won’t do it because it’s not in his plans. This was a terrible attack bit France and the rest pot Europe are easy targets with virtually no border control and they spend 750 million euros on intelligence.


Debate takeaway: Sanders and Clinton both have a politically expedient vote to explain. Sanders’ is his vote for the gun maker liability immunity. Clinton’s is her vote to authorize the Iraq war. The difference is that Clinton has acknowledged her mistake, but Sanders hasn’t.

1 Like

For what it’s worth, it appears that climate change may have in fact played an important role in sparking the Syrian civil war.

Doesn’t mean climate change directly caused the rise of ISIS in Syria – lots of factors there – but it sounds like there’s a good argument to be made that climate change may have been an important contributing factor in the instability that created the opportunity for ISIS to take hold in Syria.


To me the more important difference is that Hillary’s mistake was far more egregious…and far more consequential. But I do agree that Bernie would be better off more clearly acknowledging that his vote for liability protection for gun store owners and gun manufacturers was a mistake. While he’s said he’s open to “taking another look at it” and that there are “some things in the bill that he liked, and some he didn’t like,” that’s pretty wishy-washy compared to his usual no-nonsense approach.

“I think that there are many other reasons why it has in addition to what happened in the region, but I don’t think that the United States has the bulk of the responsibility,”

I’m with Hillary on this one. France already got their wake-up call with the magazine attack last January. Let all countries defend themselves from their own terrorists. The worlds big brother (US Military), shouldn’t be responsible for policing every country, everywhere.

That cold war mentality needs to change to the current terrorism events with all countries being involved.


Exactly! Climate change hasn’t caused the rise of ISIS, a lot of factors have.

Them being sociopaths that want to continue to live in the stone age, and making everyone else do the same, is the number one factor.

1 Like

I’m not buying it either. But there’s a point he could have made if his thinking or speech were a bit clearer. If you take the word “directly” out then yes, climate change has contributed to social instability and will certainly cause much more if not drastically checked. Instability and suffering could certainly create more terrorism. But that’s not climate change “directly” related to terrorism. Might seem quibbling but the argument won’t be an easy sell with regular Americans. Overstating it or using fuzzy wording won’t help.


That’s what I thought too.

And for him to state it that way made him look naïve and uninformed. As I said, ISIS is not looking for food, or water. They are looking to destroy people, period.


Climate change is indeed the real battle. As is capitalism, which is inherently unsustainable. We are more addicted to oil now more than ever. The IEA said in June 2014 that the U.S. was the biggest producer of oil and natural gas liquids. And still, we represent 5% of the world’s population and consume 25% of the world’s energy.

In order to maintain that consumption level we have to go where the energy is. We use the excuse “national security” as our reason but basically America will go to war with any nation in order to maintain our way of life and our economic and military dominance.

That’s the connection. This isn’t just about ISIS but as we continue to kill Muslims around the world, as we have been for more than 50 years in order to protect our “national interest” and way of life, the world will pay the price for our addiction to oil and capitalism. Climate change is the only way out.

1 Like