Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris

Another shoot out, grenade attack and reports of hostages.
18+ dead

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-1...eports/6940722

And we were so close to getting that Steve jobs

According to the AP its now 26 dead, and the military is now deployed in Paris, this looks like a major terrorist attack.

Hopefully the death toll will not go higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

And we were so close to getting that Steve jobs

---

Arafat was an engineer. Genius/high intelligence doesn't equal good outcomes. It is still dependent on home life. My point was that genes aren't as important as social raising.

And there is only one thing that has nothing to do with this.

Wake up, Europe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34814203

Quote:

---

At least 40 people have been killed in multiple shootings in the French capital, Paris, and explosions near the Stade de France.
French media say at least 15 people have been killed near the Bataclan arts centre, where up to 60 people are reportedly being held hostage.
Some spectators fled the venue after police stormed it. Reports suggested gunmen shot many there.
President Francois Hollande has declared a state of emergency.
He has ordered all France's borders closed.
Paris authorities have asked people to stay indoors.
Three explosions were reported outside a bar near the Stade de France.
Elsewhere, at least one man opened fire at a restaurant in the 11th district of the city, causing several several casualties.
A BBC journalist at the Petit Cambodge restaurant said he could see 10 people lying on the road, either dead or seriously injured.
Police have now arrived and sealed off the area.

---

Seems to be unfolding still at the moment.

That is bad... So, perhaps we can join with the Russians now...

Move the recent comments from the last Paris attack thread in here.

EDIT: thanks

But the kebab shops are worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

That is bad... So, perhaps we can join with the Russians now...

---

Most likely, these where not Syrian citizens, but French. I don't think the jets will have to travel far..

True. The real target should be the Wahabists Saudis and Qatar, but, hey, we are selling them Rafales...

Want to neuter terrorists finance get rid of oil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Want to neuter terrorists finance get rid of oil.

---

Small arms and grenades do not require a massive financial backing. The ability to plan logistics with twitter and burner cell phones does not require some sympathetic oil sheikh with cash to burn.

France lost this war when the sons and grandsons of immigrants were ostracized from society. This chapter has already been written.

Oil pays for the root cause which is the extremist wahabist madras

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Oil pays for the root cause which is the extremist wahabist madras

---

I'm going to assume you know the story of Pandoras box? In any event, these attacks are so far removed from suadi whabbis. To talk about it smacks of moving the goal posts.

Not just the schools or the funding but the leverage fundamentalist areas have because they don't need to learn just pump out oil.

I bet that the most Christian fundamentalists areas in the U.S. on average have more oil fields and minerals then the less fundamentalist ones. Even within a state that's probably true too.

Oil allows fundamentalism to grow because their is no need for STEM to create an open idea knowledge based economy that runs counter to close minded fundamentalists of whatever flavour is local.

The box is open, it's burning, time to think our ways out of the problems.

So we could make like the Romans and crush them, we could remove their financial clout, we could better integrate those that come to our societies, we could stop allying with the ones funding the majority of the terrorists. I'm sure there is more we can do that won't just target the enemies of the nation foremost in funding this problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Not just the schools or the funding but the leverage fundamentalist areas have because they don't need to learn just pump out oil.

---

What is engineering no longer counted as a STEM field?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Not just the schools or the funding but the leverage fundamentalist areas have because they don't need to learn just pump out oil.

I bet that the most Christian fundamentalists areas in the U.S. on average have more oil fields and minerals then the less fundamentalist ones. Even within a state that's probably true too.

Oil allows fundamentalism to grow because their is no need for STEM to create an open idea knowledge based economy that runs counter to close minded fundamentalists of whatever flavour is local.

The box is open, it's burning, time to think our ways out of the problems.

So we could make like the Romans and crush them, we could remove their financial clout, we could better integrate those that come to our societies, we could stop allying with the ones funding the majority of the terrorists. I'm sure there is more we can do that won't just target the enemies of the nation foremost in funding this problem.

---

You were so close, and then you had to bring STEM into it.

STEM has nothing to do with fundamentalism at all - many of the European born terrorists are intelligent and well educated with backgrounds in medicine and IT.

It's all well and good to blame the Saudis but seeds only grow in fertile soil - you have to accept that there was and is an underlying current of hostility that just doesn't approve of the way we do things in the West and has no problem slaughtering Westeners for God.

These Muslims (not all Muslims) see us as sub-human, which is clear in the way they kill us indiscriminately man woman and child.

Slaughter under "justified" circumstances is built into the bedrock of Islam, just look at that argument I just finished with Hit - when it came down to it he felt it behove him to justify the genocide carried out by his Muslim forefathers. You can't excise that from the religion because it's there right at the beginning - sometimes you just have to kill the Unbelievers to protect the Faithful.

Anyway, what's happening in Paris is both horrific and mind boggling - if this turns out to have been carried out by Syrian or Afghan nationals then I forecast reprisal killings and you can expect the entire tone of the refugee crisis to change regardless of the origin of the terrorists.

I'm predicting that the anti-immigration parties will be winning more often than not in the coming election cycles. Just look at Poland.

Edit: something very interesting I came across, from a decade ago: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-369448.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Not just the schools or the funding but the leverage fundamentalist areas have because they don't need to learn just pump out oil.

I bet that the most Christian fundamentalists areas in the U.S. on average have more oil fields and minerals then the less fundamentalist ones. Even within a state that's probably true too.

---

The exact opposite is true. Oilmen in the US are known for being the antithesis of any sort of zealotry. Next time it would be easier just to insult Texas rather than have a paragraph to nowhere.

Quote:

---

Oil allows fundamentalism to grow because their is no need for STEM to create an open idea knowledge based economy that runs counter to close minded fundamentalists of whatever flavour is local.

---

I don't really know what to say to this other than you are making science a religion in itself. By your own admission these men are quite apt at gaining STEM degrees. I would argue that STEM rewards the rigid thinking that most fundamentalists follow. Although, I don't ascribe any special qualities to STEM as a whole.

Quote:

---

The box is open, it's burning, time to think our ways out of the problems.

---

Crush the myth of multiculturalism. Follow an assimilation model or severely limit the number of immigrants taken in.

Quote:

---

So we could make like the Romans and crush them, we could remove their financial clout, we could better integrate those that come to our societies, we could stop allying with the ones funding the majority of the terrorists. I'm sure there is more we can do that won't just target the enemies of the nation foremost in funding this problem.

---

The whabbis have spoken and the madrasas have been built. We can't put the genie back in the bottle. Its also rather myopic to think the whabbis have more influence than any other kind Islamist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

What is engineering no longer counted as a STEM field?

---

Most of those engineers are ex pats or go overseas to get their training. Either way they are a social minority and not the norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hooahguy

I'm predicting that the anti-immigration parties will be winning more often than not in the coming election cycles. Just look at Poland.

Edit: something very interesting I came across, from a decade ago: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-369448.html

---

Remove kebab before kebab removes you.

looks really bad

No politics or 2nd guessing on this one for me tonight fellas. Just an awful lot of sadness. Louis and the rest of my French friends, my heart bleeds for you tonight. Be safe. God bless you and hold you close. You are in my prayers.

Seems to have been really well organised, they must have been preparing this for months. I'll also refrain from comment at the moment this is really horrible.

It's been less than an year since the Charlie Hebdo shooting and indeed, this wasn't some random Ahmed suddenly feeling the urge to do the will of the Prophet, but a very well-organized attack. Looks like a proverbial case of incompetence on the side of the French intelligence.

So will Hollande step up his evil communist plan and invade the caliphate now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Its also rather myopic to think the whabbis have more influence than any other kind Islamist.

---

All Islamists are Wahhabis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So will Hollande step up his evil communist plan and invade the caliphate now?

---

If it was them they probably would have claimed it by now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

All Islamists are Wahhabis.

---

Not necessarily. Talibans, for example, are influenced by deobandism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

The exact opposite is true. Oilmen in the US are known for being the antithesis of any sort of zealotry. Next time it would be easier just to insult Texas rather than have a paragraph to nowhere.

---

Right because only Texas has oil. It is known as having a huge influence over school education books and that is normally noted as adding Creationist ideas to biological text. It is also known that Texas has some of the more easier juries for patent troll approval.

But it is also seen in Western Australia and Queensland which are mineral rich but more religious and paranoid about the other ie One Nation in Queensland vs Western Sydney.

Quote:

---

I don't really know what to say to this other than you are making science a religion in itself. By your own admission these men are quite apt at gaining STEM degrees. I would argue that STEM rewards the rigid thinking that most fundamentalists follow. Although, I don't ascribe any special qualities to STEM as a whole.

---

Science is only one of the parts. Rigid thinking isn't part of science it is the antithesis of it. I'll leave absolute answers to those who need the security blanket of fairy tales.

Quote:

---

Crush the myth of multiculturalism. Follow an assimilation model or severely limit the number of immigrants taken in.

---

That's what the extremists want on both sides. It doesn't help the moderates one bit.

Quote:

---

The whabbis have spoken and the madrasas have been built. We can't put the genie back in the bottle. Its also rather myopic to think the whabbis have more influence than any other kind Islamist.

---

And cutting the funding is a much better to do now then wait for the next generation of mindless drones.

It's kinda funny, people who used to be be upset of things I said are now much harsher than I ever was

Warning, not fun to watch http://www.powned.tv/nieuws/foto/201...oomt_leeg.html

No death but total panic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Right because only Texas has oil. It is known as having a huge influence over school education books and that is normally noted as adding Creationist ideas to biological text. It is also known that Texas has some of the more easier juries for patent troll approval.

But it is also seen in Western Australia and Queensland which are mineral rich but more religious and paranoid about the other ie One Nation in Queensland vs Western Sydney.



Science is only one of the parts. Rigid thinking isn't part of science it is the antithesis of it. I'll leave absolute answers to those who need the security blanket of fairy tales.


That's what the extremists want on both sides. It doesn't help the moderates one bit.

---

Islamists operate on a different paradigm to us "westerners". There is no moderation where there is no common form of communication. The best we can do is control radicalisation. Stop anyone who's been to the radicalisation centres (countrywise) from returning. And restrict who can preach here. If that outrages our ingrained liberal values, so be it. Liberalism cannot function when a group antithetical to liberal understanding or even the roots of liberalism uses liberal loopholes to further their case. As I said a couple of years ago, the USSR was never the same kind of threat that Islamists are because, by and large, we communicated in the same cultural and diplomatic language. They were opponents, but they were never aliens in the same way that Islamists are. And unlike cultural aliens, who are simply different, Islamists seek to impose their state on us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

All Islamists are Wahhabis.

---

"All Heretics are Protestants".

It must be nice to be able to completely divorce yourselves from the monsters who kill in your name.

The Reaction of Hollande has been a little worrying, English translations of his first speech include the word "merciless" with regards to France's reaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

The Reaction of Hollande has been a little worrying, English translations of his first speech include the word "merciless" with regards to France's reaction.

---

Not smart, with things like this you must keep your cools, perfectly harmless muslims could be subject of mob-rule.

Someone should tell that delusional midget to shut the taff up. Somehow, he keeps threatening the terrorists with his righteous wrath and they keep catching him with his pants down.

@Papewaio

I don’t guess you see the fallacy in you argument.

Oil is only a commodity. Your whole argument is off the mark.

The threat is an ideology. Financing source is immaterial.

The wealthy and powerful will always find others to do their bidding.

To destroy the funding source you eventually have to destroy the states which provide the power behind it.

IS just claimed attack. What's worrying is that they according to witnesses were fluent in French. So from ALgeria or homegrown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

@Papewaio

I don’t guess you see the fallacy in you argument.

Oil is only a commodity. Your whole argument is off the mark.

The threat is an ideology. Financing source is immaterial.

The wealthy and powerful will alway find others to do their bidding.

To destroy the funding source you eventually have to destroy the states which provide the power behind it.

---

Or prevent the radlicalisation centres like Pakistan and others from accepting oil money to fund their training camps. Which we have no right to do so as they're sovereign countries. The best we can do whilst minimising the amount of change we have to make is probably the control scenario I described above. It still infringes on existing liberties, but it does so for people who are going to known dodgy countries, and it allows existing Muslims the option of either staying with their western countries, or follow their Islamic identity abroad.

The price of our middle east wars will be these relatively small flowering of violence. It's a tragedy, an outrage and a crime. It's also just a tiny sample of what has been happening in Afghanistan,Iraq and Syria. All those refugees are running from atrocities like this that have destroyed their homes and communities.

Out governments didn't create these groups. They didn't write their ideologies. But they prepared the ground. They fed the soil. And they paid and maintained the systems that brought them into being.

What's my point? That the tough talk, violence and oppression that will be enacted because of this terrible attack will not help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Or prevent the radlicalisation centres like Pakistan and others from accepting oil money to fund their training camps. Which we have no right to do so as they're sovereign countries. The best we can do whilst minimising the amount of change we have to make is probably the control scenario I described above. It still infringes on existing liberties, but it does so for people who are going to known dodgy countries, and it allows existing Muslims the option of either staying with their western countries, or follow their Islamic identity abroad.

---

I haven’t the time ATM to show where your earlier idea is wrong. Maybe later. RL calls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

The price of our middle east wars will be these relatively small flowering of violence. It's a tragedy, an outrage and a crime. It's also just a tiny sample of what has been happening in Afghanistan,Iraq and Syria. All those refugees are running from atrocities like this that have destroyed their homes and communities.

Out governments didn't create these groups. They didn't write their ideologies. But they prepared the ground. They fed the soil. And they paid and maintained the systems that brought them into being.

What's my point? That the tough talk, violence and oppression that will be enacted because of this terrible attack will not help.

---

I wish we don't do any kind of talk at all. No talk of imposing democracy and freedom or other outside concepts in places where we're not welcome. No admission of Syrians or other Muslim outsides either. They can have their world. We can have ours. Whatever happens in their world will have nothing to do with us, whether for better or for worse.

The point is that you can't impose democracy. Democracy is the will of the people. You have to ACCEPT democracy.

When the gazans elect hamas we have to accept democracy and work with it. In Iran we defended a dictator against the democratic will and when that will exploded we were left with the mess that is modern Iran. In Saudi we did the same and created a state that exported radical politicised islam. Etc. It's all so tedious and repetitive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

The point is that you can't impose democracy. Democracy is the will of the people. You have to ACCEPT democracy.

When the gazans elect hamas we have to accept democracy and work with it. In Iran we defended a dictator against the democratic will and when that will exploded we were left with the mess that is modern Iran. In Saudi we did the same and created a state that exported radical politicised islam. Etc. It's all so tedious and repetitive.

---

So let us stop here. Rather tan agonise over what we've done in the past, which we can't do squat to correct, as our every action is considered wrong in some way or other, we should just raise our borders to the Muslim world, which is where most of the trouble comes from. What they do in their world is their business, and none of ours. If anyone then chooses to become part of that world, let them; just don't allow them back. I was raised a liberal, and in most respects I remain one, and I opposed the attack on Iraq. But I'm tired of (far right) Muslims taking offence at our every action, and bleeding heart liberals telling me to be guilty about things I had nothing to do with. I enjoy the many cultures that London contains, and I wouldn't want to homogenise it. But there are some positions that are antithetical to the liberal world that I love. Islamism is one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

The point is that you can't impose democracy. Democracy is the will of the people. You have to ACCEPT democracy.

When the gazans elect hamas we have to accept democracy and work with it. In Iran we defended a dictator against the democratic will and when that will exploded we were left with the mess that is modern Iran. In Saudi we did the same and created a state that exported radical politicised islam. Etc. It's all so tedious and repetitive.

---

Are you going to respect the will of parties that strongly disagree with immigration? Not directed at you but the (radical) left has their 'ground-troops' so to say. Islamism wouldn't be a problem in the west without multiculturalists.

Apparently one of the attackers had a Syrian passport. Like i have been saying from the start in the Isis thread. We cant defend from terrorists who hate everything we are and they are poised to succeed with their attacks every once a while.

Only way to deal with these nazis of Islamic world is to deploy at Syria and Iraq and either bring to justice or kill every last one of these lunatics. More we wait harder it will become.

"France lost this war when the sons and grandsons of immigrants were ostracized from society. This chapter has already been written.":laugh4:
Minister of Justice: Rachida Dhati: Typical ostracized immigrants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachida_Dati
Rama Ayad: Another one oppressed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rama_Yade
Najat Vallaud-Belkacem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Najat_Vallaud-Belkacem

My dear, if the Islamist attack France it is because France represents all what they hate. France embraces life when they embrace death, France values liberty, they value slavery, France values equality, they value discrimination, France values Fraternity, they value racism.
France embraces science, secularism, they prefer superstition and obscurantism.
To summary it, let give me the message from a caricaturist Joann SFAR:
"Friends from the whole World, thanks you for your #pray for Paris, but we don't need more Religion! Our faith goes to music! Kisses! Life! Champagne! Joy! Paris is about life".

They value death, so they attack life

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Apparently one of the attackers had a Syrian passport. Like i have been saying from the start in the Isis thread. We cant defend from terrorists who hate everything we are and they are poised to succeed with their attacks every once a while.

Only way to deal with these nazis of Islamic world is to deploy at Syria and Iraq and either bring to justice or kill every last one of these lunatics. More we wait harder it will become.

---

Syrian pasport means nothing, 500 a pop for a Syrian pasport in Turkey, 600 for an AK in Brussels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Syrian pasport means nothing, 500 a pop for a Syrian pasport in Turkey, 600 for an AK in Brussels.

---

Yes and what does it matter if you can get one cheap? Are you claiming this is some sort of conspiracy to frame IS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Yes and what does it matter if you can get one cheap? Are you claiming this is some sort of conspiracy to frame IS?

---

No Turkish maffia just jumped in, Forged Syrian pasports is big business there, nobody has any idea who's who here. Mutti Theresa invited them and that's really all I want to say right now. My thoughts are at the misery of those who had to see all this right now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HitWithThe5

All Islamists are Wahhabis.

---

Bullshit. Once again, you add nothing of value to the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Right because only Texas has oil. It is known as having a huge influence over school education books and that is normally noted as adding Creationist ideas to biological text. It is also known that Texas has some of the more easier juries for patent troll approval.

---

I don't disagree with any of that but that evangelical streak is found mostly among the poor and has its roots in British immigration that made its way west across the old south and eventually settled in East Texas. The Germans in Central Texas and The Mexicans in South Texas have always found east Texans to be a strange breed.

An oilmans religion is capitalism. The megachurches make their money mostly off of poor whites and recent minority converts, it is one of the reasons why they are pushing Spanish services so hard. The presence of evangelical Christianity and mineral resources does not necessarily go hand in hand.

Quote:

---

But it is also seen in Western Australia and Queensland which are mineral rich but more religious and paranoid about the other ie One Nation in Queensland vs Western Sydney.

---

I find Australian accents grating. #TeamDingo.

Quote:

---

Science is only one of the parts. Rigid thinking isn't part of science it is the antithesis of it

---

Science is very analytical and very rigid relative to other subjects. If this then that easily resonates with a rigid thinker. Once again most terrorists have turned out to be highly educated in STEM fields.

Quote:

---

I'll leave absolute answers to those who need the security blanket of fairy tales

---

.
I could do without the 18 year edgy teenager skipping mass

Quote:

---

And cutting the funding is a much better to do now then wait for the next generation of mindless drones.

---

Cutting the funding won't step any of this. It's a contagion and it's already spread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

So let us stop here. Rather tan agonise over what we've done in the past, which we can't do squat to correct, as our every action is considered wrong in some way or other, we should just raise our borders to the Muslim world, which is where most of the trouble comes from. What they do in their world is their business, and none of ours. If anyone then chooses to become part of that world, let them; just don't allow them back. I was raised a liberal, and in most respects I remain one, and I opposed the attack on Iraq. But I'm tired of (far right) Muslims taking offence at our every action, and bleeding heart liberals telling me to be guilty about things I had nothing to do with. I enjoy the many cultures that London contains, and I wouldn't want to homogenise it. But there are some positions that are antithetical to the liberal world that I love. Islamism is one.

---

All I see here is emotional response. Why do you give a crap what right wing Muslims get offended by? And who is asking you to feel guilty?

Look at the situation rationally. What are it's causes? Then start to work out what needs to be done. The same knee jerk responses are coming out from the same mouths. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again while expecting different results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

All I see here is emotional response. Why do you give a crap what right wing Muslims get offended by? And who is asking you to feel guilty?

Look at the situation rationally. What are it's causes? Then start to work out what needs to be done. The same knee jerk responses are coming out from the same mouths. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again while expecting different results.

---

The causes are radicalised Muslims, often homegrown, but usually passing through radicalisation centres in Pakistan or other places abroad. Once they get to this stage, there is no re-assimilation possible. So cut the trouble at the stage where they get to be radicalised abroad, and cut the sources of radicalisation at home by restricting what can be preached here, mainly by restricting who can preach here.

As for why I should give a crap what right wing Muslims get offended by, it's because it's the trigger by which already radicalised Muslims find the excuse to perform or plan their latest atrocity. There is no rhyme and reason to cutting the sources of offence for such, because it's already got to the stage where they're looking for an excuse, any excuse, to perform their act. Bleeding heart liberals point to what we do or don't do abroad as why we should feel guilty about provoking such actions, but there is no escaping the route down which these idiots have already decided to go. Whatever we do or don't do, is pointed to as evidence of our guilt, both by these radicalised Muslims (and their allies abroad), and the bleeding heart liberals at home. As such, these arguments are practically irrelevant. They do nothing to stop these acts. The only way to stop them is to stop the radicalisation process in the first place, or to keep their adherents from coming here.

Do you suppose that it is realistically possible to conduct a widespread war across a large area of the globe, while keeping your own local corner of the world free from any war like events?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

Do you suppose that it is realistically possible to conduct a widespread war across a large area of the globe, while keeping your own local corner of the world free from any war like events?

---

I'd prefer us not to conduct any war at all. I was against the Iraq war, as I stated above. I was against intervention in Syria. I am against intervention in Ukraine. And everywhere else where people are appealing to our sense of "right". The Iraqis, Syrians, and everyone else can do as they like in their patch of the world; I care not. And in return, I wish that they would not trouble us with their issues; I care not. Do something, as in Iraq, and the west is criticised for doing something. Do nothing, as in Syria, and the west is criticised for doing nothing. I favour doing nothing, and blocking their nationals from entering our land, as at least that would be cheaper and would get the same result of them hating us.

I think you're being emotional and resorting to absolutes.

You are seeing everything in terms of us and them. Neither of which are remotely simple and cohesive groups. The majority of "them" have no interest whatsoever in "us". They get on with their lives.

Warzones generate these groups. Mujahaddin were generated by the Russian afghan war. Taleban by the subsequent civil war. AQ from a mix of the two plus Saudi political oppression. Mahdi army and IS by the Iraq war. Now the Syrian war creates and proliferated more.

Guns, training, propaganda, grievance. Those are the soil and growing conditions for terror attacks. The simplest way to generate all is to create Warzones.

Is it really any surprise that they are targeting Paris?
They blew up a plane with 224 Russians and people asked "Will Putin become more barbarian now?"
Now they killed 150 people in Paris and all of Facebook is changing profile pictures and crying "We are not affected at all".
If I were a terrorist, I'd plan my next attack in Paris to see all the people I hate cry...

Quote:

---

Guns, training, propaganda, grievance. Those are the soil and growing conditions for terror attacks. The simplest way to generate all is to create Warzones.

---

The irony, and the core of the problem, is that the West does not have a monopoly on war.

Strike is correct to call Islamism a "contagion". At this point there is nothing we can do other than to let the violence run its course.

The point is that you can't impose peace. Peace is the will of the people. You have to ACCEPT peace.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Is it really any surprise that they are targeting Paris?
They blew up a plane with 224 Russians and people asked "Will Putin become more barbarian now?"
Now they killed 150 people in Paris and all of Facebook is changing profile pictures and crying "We are not affected at all".
If I were a terrorist, I'd plan my next attack in Paris to see all the people I hate cry...

---

They should target Berlin so that Merkel can use the incident to take on certain emergency powers... :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

I think you're being emotional and resorting to absolutes.

You are seeing everything in terms of us and them. Neither of which are remotely simple and cohesive groups. The majority of "them" have no interest whatsoever in "us". They get on with their lives.

Warzones generate these groups. Mujahaddin were generated by the Russian afghan war. Taleban by the subsequent civil war. AQ from a mix of the two plus Saudi political oppression. Mahdi army and IS by the Iraq war. Now the Syrian war creates and proliferated more.

Guns, training, propaganda, grievance. Those are the soil and growing conditions for terror attacks. The simplest way to generate all is to create Warzones.

---

We've had multiple homegrown groups who've not been involved in any war, but who began radicalisation with extremist preachers here, before completing their extremist education in Pakistan and other radicalisation centres. Some of them gravitate to warzones. Others seek to create a warzone here. Their supposed grievances include things where we did something, and sometimes they include things where we didn't do anything. These grievances are merely the excuse for what they do. What they aim to do is create a headline. They get their desire to create a headline from their radicalisation. If we try to address one grievance, they merely point to the reverse as what we should have done instead, or point to something else as justification for what they do. They're just excuses. Radicalisation is the reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

The irony, and the core of the problem, is that the West does not have a monopoly on war.

Strike is correct to call Islamism a "contagion". At this point there is nothing we can do other than to let the violence run its course.

The point is that you can't impose peace. Peace is the will of the people. You have to ACCEPT peace.

---

Let the violence run its course? Isis are saying that they want to decapitate Obama at the white house, besides using pre puberty girls as sex slaves, burning people alive as witches, chopping off hands for use of cellphones and using ten year old child soldiers as executioners in the videos and you think that they are like ill behaving children whom be nice once again after they have had their fun?

So what's next? The "Endlösung of the Islamfrage"?
Why do we need a solution to this? Around 1k people get shot in the US every year and no one needs a solution.
Some people are crazy, nothing we can do...

We should have never allowed the secular tyrants to be overthrown. I understand the wisdom of it all now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So what's next? The "Endlösung of the Islamfrage"?
Why do we need a solution to this? Around 1k people get shot in the US every year and no one needs a solution.
Some people are crazy, nothing we can do...

---

Actually around 8 or 9k.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

So what's next? The "Endlösung of the Islamfrage"?
Why do we need a solution to this? Around 1k people get shot in the US every year and no one needs a solution.
Some people are crazy, nothing we can do...

---

The US can do whatever it likes. This attack happened in the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

Let the violence run its course? Isis are saying that they want to decapitate Obama at the white house, besides using pre puberty girls as sex slaves, burning people alive as witches, chopping off hands for use of cellphones and using ten year old child soldiers as executioners in the videos and you think that they are like ill behaving children whom be nice once again after they have had their fun?

---

Don't take my words so lightly. The only way to stop killing is to give people their fill of death. After that, only then can we talk about structural or cultural reform.

I am speaking of a region-wide civil war in which millions would die.

Western countries would simply defend their own territories.

...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

Not necessarily. Talibans, for example, are influenced by deobandism.

---

They are all students of Abdul Wahhab, especially after the Soviet invasion of Afghan and OBL. Prince Turki himself had funded the schools and Taliban elders.

This brings great shame to Muslims.

Quote:

---

Cutting the funding won't step any of this. It's a contagion and it's already spread.

---

IS claims responsibility. We all know who made IS. So piss off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The US can do whatever it likes. This attack happened in the EU.

---

In France to be exact, you can't just have your EU when you want to be annoyed and want to leave it otherwise.
The rest of what you posted is coherent though, but not exactly practical or enforceable unless you want to create some kind of DDR border to keep the poor out.
And that still doesn't explain why people from the US tell us to "wake up" or why no one used a Russian or Turkish flag profile picture on Facebook. Is it just because Hollande is more sympathetic than Putin and Erdogan or just because it is closer to home? If deaths far away are more acceptable why do the same people have strong opinions about violence in Israel and Palestine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Don't take my words so lightly. The only way to stop killing is to give people their fill of death. After that, only then can we talk about structural or cultural reform.

I am speaking of a region-wide civil war in which millions would die.

Western countries would simply defend their own territories.

---

Without the backing of the West and East. IS will run over the middle East,North Africa and Arabian peninsula. You want to fight them at that point? They would probably slaughter quite many people in the process, but not reform. It is not as if the Slaughtering millions reformed Nazi Germany either. No it was determined countries who defeated them and forced them into submission.

Same will apply with the extreme islamists. We simply should grant them their wish and deliver them from this world. They are not going to reform.

K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

@Papewaio

I don’t guess you see the fallacy in you argument.

Oil is only a commodity. Your whole argument is off the mark.

The threat is an ideology. Financing source is immaterial.

The wealthy and powerful will always find others to do their bidding.

To destroy the funding source you eventually have to destroy the states which provide the power behind it.

---

As a rule of thumb the more oil in a country the more fundamentalist the region gets.

Compare Singapore vs Malaysia vs Indonesia. Singapore has no oil. It has had to create a smart work force to create wealth. It's neighbors on the other hand have used mineral and oil wealth. Malaysia is not where near as progressive as Singapore, despite Singapore once being part of Malaysia. Malaysia is far more dominated by religious sects as they give legitimacy to their government.

Compare Saudi Arabia vs Iraq vs Syria vs Turkey (North South line, more oil in the South more Fundies too). Turkey is a Muslim democracy, has the least oil. Syria has some but not a lot of oil and has a Secular dictator which by most ME levels wasn't that bad mind you that's comparing to Libya and Iraq. You get into Saudi Arabia and you have a kingdom that has two main things propping it up. The tribe in charge has massive oil reserves and the support of one of not the most fundamentalist sects in Islam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Compare Saudi Arabia vs Iraq vs Syria vs Turkey (North South line, more oil in the South more Fundies too)

---

It's also the foundations of the states. Turkish flag is the traditional crescent, while the Saudi flag is the sword below "No God But God" anachronism. Saudis have successfully characterized Islam as a violent struggle. The country was built by the events almost identical to what's going on in Europe and IS. Breaking shrines, executions, genocide, and conquest.

This is all a result of that revivalist movement that is now the Muslim identity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

In France to be exact, you can't just have your EU when you want to be annoyed and want to leave it otherwise.
The rest of what you posted is coherent though, but not exactly practical or enforceable unless you want to create some kind of DDR border to keep the poor out.
And that still doesn't explain why people from the US tell us to "wake up" or why no one used a Russian or Turkish flag profile picture on Facebook. Is it just because Hollande is more sympathetic than Putin and Erdogan or just because it is closer to home? If deaths far away are more acceptable why do the same people have strong opinions about violence in Israel and Palestine?

---

I'm a Europhile. Despite my banter, I see France as the next closest thing to Britain. The US may be kin, but France is closer in geography and in how we see the world.

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/our_..._at_ourselves/

Quote:

---

They would probably slaughter quite many people in the process, but not reform. It is not as if the Slaughtering millions reformed Nazi Germany either. No it was determined countries who defeated them and forced them into submission.

---

That's what I said, yes. You don't seem to understand the thrust of my statement, which is not that IS should get free reign but that the various competing factions of the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa should be allowed to fight it out until they get tired of the devastation.

Quote:

---

Without the backing of the West and East. IS will run over the middle East,North Africa and Arabian peninsula. You want to fight them at that point?

---

You're confused over what IS actually is. IS is just one more faction in the Muslim civil war, and it serves as a center of gravity around which all the smaller factions can consolidate with or against.

But IS is not the extent of Sunni Islamism - that's much wider. IS is just one iteration of an Islamist anti-Western state-unit, and in the course of any fraternal conflict where an organization exists or what it calls itself is not as important as the fact that it instigates bloody fighting to further its ideology.

Here's an outline of what has happened so far:

A. Economic/ecological instability and cultural frictions reach high point.
B. Maximalist religious ideologies organize to gain control over peoples and territories.
C. Ethno-religious civil war ensues over an extended period of time.

However, what we have seen for the most part has been low-level fighting and endemic violence. Only decisive violence on a massive scale can bring about change-from-within. For example, look at the moderating effect the catastrophic Iran-Iraq war (the last real interstate war of our age) on the Iranian nation and government.

Going by my suggestion for minimal interference from the West, at some point this will go on until several primary antagonists coalesce, i.e. allied front of Salafism/Wahaabism vs. nation-states like Egypt, Tunisia, Israel, Iran, Turkey, Kazahkhstan, Azerbaijan vs. local tribal polities in much of Central Asia, Libya, Algeria, and the Arabian peninsula. The best possible scenario is that the unified Islamists in whatever form take control of an extensive, contiguous, land territory which they govern as a state. Bonus points if they take over Saudi Arabia and try to organize a combined-arms military. This is the best case because it causes maximal death and suffering for local populations - now bear with me - and because it is the stage in which the Islamists leave themselves most vulnerable for systematic and decisive destruction. By explicitly forming a sprawling state, or "caliphate", they neuter their grassroots advantages. Remember that it is straightforward for a state to destroy another state, while we have seen just how difficult it is for a state or states to combat amorphous transnational movements.

In this broad scenario, most peninsular states would be permitted to collapse, and a strong naval presence maintained in the Southern Mediterranean. Before the end-stages, Egypt and Turkey would likely have to deal with their own civil wars and purges, but ultimately can be relied on to maintain national integrity and cooperate to destroy a unified Islamist front. Iran can handle itself, and will look out for its interests in the Gulf and in the Caucasus. Israel can also handle itself, and will be useful as a staging ground and logistical hub. Russia, India, and China can be expected to deal with the situation in Pakistan and Central Asia. When expedient, NATO or the UN (representing the West) could deploy massive conventional military force to assist in the destruction of the Islamist regular force and state structure.

The only real mystery is what role Islam in the Pacific Rim will play in the larger confrontation.

All I am saying is that things need to come to a head, and they are not nearly at that point yet. Is it easier to fish water out of a flushing toilet or to smash a block of ice? The West should stay out until at least the end-stages because of the risk of the West itself falling into fascism and civil war otherwise. If your criticism is that it doesn't get rid of "the bad guys", then rest assured that getting rid of the bad guys is exactly what I am describing here. The only real criticism is from a human-rights interventionist perspective that it would be immoral not to "DO SOMETHING", or from a global corporatist perspective that refuses to give up access to commodities and markets no matter what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/our_..._at_ourselves/

---

Go sit in the corner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Go sit in the corner.

---

If you take issue with the accurate big picture presented in the article, it would seem you're already sitting in one yourself; or maybe hiding in one, to be more accurate.

Attachment 16925
Marianne tears

I wonder when the BUTist will come.
You know, the ones who said about Charlie: BUT...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graphic

If you take issue with the accurate big picture presented in the article, it would seem you're already sitting in one yourself; or maybe hiding in one, to be more accurate.

---

What would you say was the "big picture" presented in the article?

The only accurate claim of substance I could find was the unremarkable claim that the West undervalues Muslim victims of Islamist violence relative to Christian victims.