What Roger said. And thanks to the many other voices of reason who reject knee-jerk bigotry.

In the face of the great shared grief, unleashed by the terrible events in Paris and as we confront the utterly depraved actions of their perpetrators, I find the trend of this thread to be amazingly unrelated to the real situation.

The challenge to each Western country's security, police and judicial services and structures is immediate, will need all their best and wisest efforts to handle and we should wish them every legal success. The real issues, however, are neither Norman's tired jeremiads against globalisation, nor the Pope's bizarre excursion into geometry, still less John's splenetic splutterings about Islam. The real issues are clearly why we have moved from the relatively stable world of two decades ago to this hellish mess and how we should attempt to change it for a better and more stable future.

If we are not to lose - or perhaps that should be re-gain or re-assert - the civilised, pluralist values of the world we had once prized, we cannot get to a better 'there' from here, by further abandoning decency (e.g. by attempting to stigmatise or spurn refugees from the wars we have done so much to create) and legality (e.g. by expanding, still further, policies of 'extra-judicial' killing) - still less by increasing the sum of human misery by more big-power mayhem and macho-bombing. That, it seems, is pretty clearly how we got to 'here'. The 'West' and its over-weaning 'powers' need to recognise their past follies and begin to make real efforts - a tithe of what we currently spend on increasing military 'endeavours' would make a stunning start - to invest in the peaceful reconstruction of the lands and peoples we have savaged. Some symbolic acts of contrition would also not go amiss; surrendering our own alleged war criminals - Blair, Bush and their cabinets for a sensible start - to international judicial process might register a credible stand for the peace and justice which we preach but do little to assert.

For all sorts of reasons, on which it may be comforting to dwell as sources of our personal powerlessness, none of this may be likely to happen any time soon - but it will surely never happen unless those of us still fortunate enough to have the freedom to advance such ideas, do so.

Paul Krugman's article in the New York Times offers a bit of helpful perspective:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/op...ar-itself.html

We're not very good at this, are we? Best go back to writing poems. What we need is Captain Kirk and world government.

Is that the royal we, John?

You and me and all of us here, Roger. Imagine a world run by artists. Nothing would ever work.

No, actually, he's not, and it's disingenuous to claim he is.

"His 2003 nomination by U.S. President George W. Bush to the board of directors of the U.S. Institute of Peace was protested by Islamists, Arab-American groups, and Democratic leaders, who cited his oft-stated belief that victory is the most effective way to terminate conflict.[2][3] The Bush administration sidestepped the opposition with a recess appointment."

"Through Campus Watch, Pipes encouraged students and faculty to submit information on "Middle East-related scholarship, lectures, classes, demonstrations, and other activities relevant to Campus Watch".[14] The project was accused of "McCarthyesque intimidation" of professors who criticized Israel when it published "dossiers" on eight professors it thought "hostile" to America. In protest, more than 100 academics demanded to be added to what some called a "blacklist"."

"According to The New York Times, Pipes has "enraged" many American Muslims by advocating that Muslims in government and military positions be given special attention as security risks and by opining that mosques are "breeding grounds for militants."[35] In a 2004 article in the New York Sun, Pipes endorsed a defense of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II"

"In The Nation, Brooklyn writer Kristine McNeil describes Pipes as an "anti-Arab propagandist" who has built a career out of "distortions... twist[ing] words, quot[ing] people out of context and stretch[ing] the truth to suit his purpose".[18] James Zogby argues that Pipes possesses an "obsessive hatred of all things Muslim", and that "Pipes is to Muslims what David Duke is to African-Americans".[40] Christopher Hitchens, a fellow supporter of the Iraq War and critic of political Islam, also criticized Pipes, arguing that Pipes pursued an intolerant agenda, and was one who "confuses scholarship with propaganda", and "pursues petty vendettas with scant regard for objectivity"."

That's probably enough. One could go on and on, but there's already sufficient evidence to show this figure should not be viewed as an expert in anything, and certainly should not be cited in rational discourse.

Best,

Bill

Albert Camus from Neither Victims Nor Executioners

Modern nations are driven by powerful forces along the roads of power
and domination. I will not say that these forces should be furthered
or that they should be obstructed. They hardly need our help and, for
the moment, they laugh at attempts to hinder them. They will, then,
continue. But I will ask only this simple question: What if these
forces wind up in a dead end, what if that logic of history on which
so many now rely turns out to be a will o' the wisp? What if, despite
two or three world wars, despite the sacrifice of several generations
and a whole system of values, our grandchildren--supposing they survive-
find themselves no closer to a world society? It may well be that the
survivors of such an experience will be too weak to understand their
own sufferings. Since these forces are working themselves out and since
it is inevitable that they continue to do so,there is no reason why
some of us should not take on the job of keeping alive, through the
apocalyptic historical vista that stretches before us, a modest
thoughtfulness which, without pretending to solve everything, will
constantly be prepared to give some human meaning to everyday life.
The essential thing is that people should carefully weight the price
they must pay....

All I ask is that, in the midst of a murderous world, we agree to reflect
on murder and to make a choice. After that, we can distinguish those
who accept the consequences of being murderers themselves or the
accomplices of murderers, and those who refuse to do so with all their
force and being. Since this terrible dividing line does actually exist,
it will be a gain if it be clearly marked. Over the expanse of five
continents throughout the coming years an endless strugle is going to
be pursued between violence and friendly persuasion, a struggle in
which, granted, the former has a thousand times the chances of success
than that of the latter. But I have always held that, if he who bases his
hopes on human nature is a fool, he who gives up in the face of circum-
stances is a coward. And henceforth, the only honorable course will be
to stake everything on a formidable gamble: that words are more powerful
than munitions.

I have been paging through the Frenchman's stuff today and found it amazingly relevant after 70 years. I flip back and forth from his words to the reports of the resistance in Rojava.

http://roarmag.org/2015/03/rojava-ku...ic-delegation/

I understand that my posts about Rojava must seem to be off topic but I believe these pockets of resistance at the heart of the mess to be the key to identifying new categories of ally and enemy that transcend old categories that are becoming more and more incomprehensible. John, if you read about these folks and their varying relations to Islam you will see the utter nonsense of your views.

Andrew, don't hold your breath.