Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris

[AE Bravo]

Keep it short guys, just to conform to the overinflated sense of self worth.

You implied theire was no nine-year-old wife by omission.

No.

Irrelevent - the manner of Christ's death doesn't prove anything other than the fact that he was crucified.

Crucifixion is a sentence reserved for enemies of the state.

You say I'm "breathtakingly" ignorant but you yourself show equal ignorance towards Islam.

The problem with the opposition to radical Islam in the Middle East seems to be its inability to create an alternative narrative to the fundamentalist one You say you're "Left-Wing" but your discourse isn't really all that different to theirs, you just cut out the more extreme bits.

Currently there's an arms race across the ME for counterterrorism and domestic unrest. How's that for narrative. How is my discourse similar to theirs? In your radical world all Muslims are extreme judging from your first post in this thread. Just stop talking, it's a truly ridiculous thing to say.

Also brevity is the soul of wit. If a post on this site is longer than a few paragraphs...

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Must've struck a nerve. You've put a lot of effort this time kid.

[Brenus]

"So much pathos! When I had expessed a similar one two years ago I was blamed as being too emotionally invested. Perhaps you suggest there should be another march which will show to the world that the French are... what will it show, by the way, and what has the CH one shown?" I was waiting for this... I am not disappointed.

If you can't find the answer, sorry, I can't fill your emptiness.

[Gilrandir]

"So much pathos! When I had expessed a similar one two years ago I was blamed as being too emotionally invested. Perhaps you suggest there should be another march which will show to the world that the French are... what will it show, by the way, and what has the CH one shown?" I was waiting for this... I am not disappointed.

If you can't find the answer, sorry, I can't fill your emptiness.

I have found the answer, but you may not like it.

Two years ago I could have posted videos and pictures of thousands of weeping people on Maidan holding candles in their hands and coffins with the fallen on their shoulders. I could have played you the heart-rending song "A duckling is floating" which has turned into a dirge since then and I can't hear it without tears starting in my eyes. But I didn't, knowing the reaction of the likes of you who would have said (as they did when I expressed my emotions): "Those are Nazis. Serve them right" and you pronounced my diagnosis - nationalistic blindness. Well, if I have one, then now I must say we are sharing the same malady.

You speak about France as a shining beacon of democracy, the last stronghold, the Minas Tirith of our times, that protects Franternite, Liberte and yadda-yadda and those are the only reasons the terrorists who are jealous in their hatred of those tenets aimed their venom at it.

This nationalistic babble doesn't give an answer to one simple question: why France? Is democracy worse in Austria or Finland? Are Fraternite and Liberte upheld less in Denmark, Lichtenstein, Great Britain or the Netherlands? If not, then why it happened in France?

The answer is the fact that you referred to: France has the largest Muslim population in Europe. France nurtured a whole generation of citizens who are easily swayed by radicals and are ready to kill THEIR COMPATRIOTS for some mythical ideas. But you want to sell us the picture of France that may have been true 50 years ago and is securely embedded into your consciousness (which you deem so immune to the influence of propaganda)? Wake up, that France is no more. Something is rotten, and this time not in the kingdom of Denmark.

But we didn't play a favorite game of yours: who benefits.

1. ISIS? Well, the atmosphere of panic and fear they wanted to cause will soon wear out, so it will only turn to their undoing and people will start to hate them more. But, frankly, when did they care? They will recklessly go on doing what they are, disregarding any strategies and adversaries.
2. Assad (backed by Russia)? Definitely yes. It is one more chance for him to say: "Hey, you do now know what ISIS is, don'tcha? And who is fighting it? Me! So stop discussing shortcomings of my regime and prop me up as Russia is doing".
3. Le Pen (financed by Russia)? Evidently yes. One more chance for her to say: "I told you so! Elect me and you will have no such nonsense from the filthy immigrants any more."
4. Putin (the president of Russia)? Three times yes. One more chance for him to say: "Forget the Crimea and Ukraine. Remember the glorious time of WWII when our grandfathers fought the Great Evil together. Back then the West wasn't too scrupulous about the Baltic states or Poland. Let's draw our swords together against the new scourge of our time and, please, lift off the sanctions, will ya?"

So it seems that the ultimate beneficiary is Putin. But what help can he render France and whole Europe, forsooth, when the latter have to fight the evil first of all WITHIN their domains where the seeds of terrorism seem to have taken roots and will bear fruit irrespective of the fact the motherplant is crushed elsewhere?

I agree that Europe has a problem with integration. But I wouldn't hold up North America as some kind of shining example. Our integration of immigrants works on a multi-generational schedule.

The USA's history has been the one of immigration, so its kind of inborn to have a knack in assimilating immigrants. But from the outset what those immigrants did was ousting the natives. Europe has a comparatively short history of admitting huge influxes of immigrants and the natives of Europe want anything but get ousted, so different purposes of Europe and the USA in regards to immigrants are obvious.

When was the last time France had an Englishman for Prime Minister?

Henry V?

[Fisherking]

You want to blame someone for the rise of militant Islam? Blame it on the US.

Blame it on Jimmy Carter. Carter wanted to replace the Shah of Iran. That worked well for him, huh? All those smart people couldn’t see that coming?
Then with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Carter sponsored and helped to give a religious focus to the mujahideen. Later it became the Taliban.

The early PLO and groups opposed to Israel were secular in nature but when a more effective weapon comes along, well.

America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where their political ineptitude could not have been better designed to create unrest and opposition.

We can skip over the Arab Spring, I mean no one could have dreamed religious fundamentalists would take over there, could they. But the Syrian uprising was also a part of that, openly supported by the US and calling for the ouster of that government with weapons and training provided to the rebels (only moderates of course).

Frustrated by public opposition to intervention in a Syrian Civil War, as well as strong Russian opposition, the US turned its attention to Ukraine, another brilliant piece of work. Then Surprise!, we have the appearance of IS. Bad Guys so evil they could be taken from a Hollywood script or a bad pulp novel.

Then, after years of war and a brief and ineffective American bombing campaign we suddenly have hundreds of thousands of refugees from most of the Islamic world (not just Syria) converging on Europe. But we are assured they are all peaceful and it is inhuman to turn them away. Of course for some reason no Islamic country will provide aid or shelter for them.

Then, this. Who could have predicted it. Paris of all places. Paris where Khomeini spent 14 years as a political exile, writing, developing his ideas, and teaching sharia law. Time Magazine’s 1979 Man of the Year.

How could French muslims ever have been radicalised.

[Gilrandir]

You want to blame someone for the rise of militant Islam? Blame it on the US.

Then we might as well blame Christopher Columbus since it was he who discovered America and thus triggered the chain of events that led to the Paris tragedy.

Instead my blame is on those who allowed and indeed supported the flow of cheap labor from Muslim countries to Europe and FAILED TO ASSIMILATE the newcomers.

[Slyspy]

Instead my blame is on those who allowed and indeed supported the flow of cheap labor from Muslim countries to Europe and FAILED TO ASSIMILATE the newcomers.

So you do in fact blame the victims of the atrocity for their own killings? Good man, nice to know.

There are two possible ways to react to this issue IMO. Taken at their extremes they are as follows:

1. Accept the odd atrocity because it is still better than sacrificing everything we are.
2. Machine gun the boats and start building the camps.

Which would you choose?

[rory_20_uk]

So you do in fact blame the victims of the atrocity for their own killings? Good man, nice to know.

There are two possible ways to react to this issue IMO. Taken at their extremes they are as follows:

1. Accept the odd atrocity because it is still better than sacrificing everything we are.
2. Machine gun the boats and start building the camps.

Which would you choose?

Until extremely recently we outsourced the second option to our "Allies of convenience" - Gadaffi, Saddam and Assad who between them kept the lid on all this. We mainly spouted hot air and did nothing.

More recently we decided to think with our hearts and got rid of the "baddies". And lo and behold! Thousands if not millions of poor, generally poorly skilled people with extremely different cultural norms view the worst slums over here as much better than what they have over there.

And rather like the rules of war that were chosen by those who were a long way from bettlefields, the rules dealing with immigrants was written by those who started with the assumption that people would have the decency to not come over here so we could be all nice and free.

The birth rates of Africa isn't going down fast enough so even with the net emigration, diseases and wars the population is still going up. Same in Iraq and possibly the same in Syria. Until the countries where these people originate is nice enough that the trip isn't worth the bother they'll keep coming until here is nasty enough not to want to come.

There is no influx into the GCC as they might well machine gun the lot of them; similarly there is the lack of enthusiasm for Russia, or Iran.

Wherever restrictions are placed there will be many people who die just the other side of it due to buildup of people. Now they are in Europe so that is such a moral problem since we now see it on TV. Best we find new puppets to keep this nasty business where it belongs - somewhere else.

[Pannonian]

You want to blame someone for the rise of militant Islam? Blame it on the US.

Blame it on Jimmy Carter. Carter wanted to replace the Shah of Iran. That worked well for him, huh? All those smart people couldn’t see that coming?
Then with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Carter sponsored and helped to give a religious focus to the mujahideen. Later it became the Taliban.

The early PLO and groups opposed to Israel were secular in nature but when a more effective weapon comes along, well.

America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where their political ineptitude could not have been better designed to create unrest and opposition.

We can skip over the Arab Spring, I mean no one could have dreamed religious fundamentalists would take over there, could they. But the Syrian uprising was also a part of that, openly supported by the US and calling for the ouster of that government with weapons and training provided to the rebels (only moderates of course).

Frustrated by public opposition to intervention in a Syrian Civil War, as well as strong Russian opposition, the US turned its attention to Ukraine, another brilliant piece of work. Then Surprise!, we have the appearance of IS. Bad Guys so evil they could be taken from a Hollywood script or a bad pulp novel.

Then, after years of war and a brief and ineffective American bombing campaign we suddenly have hundreds of thousands of refugees from most of the Islamic world (not just Syria) converging on Europe. But we are assured they are all peaceful and it is inhuman to turn them away. Of course for some reason no Islamic country will provide aid or shelter for them.

Then, this. Who could have predicted it. Paris of all places. Paris where Khomeini spent 14 years as a political exile, writing, developing his ideas, and teaching sharia law. Time Magazine’s 1979 Man of the Year.

How could French muslims ever have been radicalised.

We can blame it on Carter, or any host of past actors in this unholy mess. But nothing of that sort will help solve the current problem, which goes beyond what people have done in the past. What's driving things now are what people are doing now. And the most immediate, most relevant driver of these idiots, in the UK at least, is the preachers radicalising the youth and the youths being radicalised. Cut that influence, by restricting who can preach here, and by keeping out those who've gone abroad to be radicalised, and you'll cut out a good chunk of radicalised homegrown terrorism. These idiots aren't the victims of western foreign policy abroad. They were raised here, with our tax money funding their upbringing.

[Gilrandir]

So you do in fact blame the victims of the atrocity for their own killings? Good man, nice to know.

You misinterpret (intentionally or accidentally) what I said. Victims are the people of France, and they have my sympathy. My country has been having similar experience, it is just not that condensed, but rather protracted. Yet Ukraine too suffered from blown up buildings and railroads, peaceful demonstrations were attacked in the same way - and all of these far from the actual fighting zone. So by now we have learned well what is it to be under attack of terrorists (the ones that some people here stubbornly call rioting Russian-speaking populaces of oppressed Donbas). That is why my heart is with the victims and their relatives.

I blame powers-that-be and especially those that were responsible (in their time) for letting such a mass of immigrants in when it still could be prevented.

There are two possible ways to react to this issue IMO. Taken at their extremes they are as follows:

1. Accept the odd atrocity because it is still better than sacrificing everything we are.
2. Machine gun the boats and start building the camps.

Which would you choose?

Neither. But the atrocity is not likely to stay odd, it will happen more often once the terrorists see how easy it is. The boats with immigrants should be towed back to where they belong. Same with those who are now camped within the EU. Coast guard shouldn't allow any to land, and if they do - deport them back. Close the borders for any non-EUnians and fortify them against attempts to break through. If you choose to let the newcomers stay, make sure they are spread all over the country in far sundered places and not collected in one neighborhood all together. Own up to the fact that liberalism practised within the EU will not address the challenges from the outside.

Cut that influence, by restricting who can preach here, and by keeping out those who've gone abroad to be radicalised, and you'll cut out a good chunk of radicalised homegrown terrorism.

Do you think they will come for a permission to preach? Do you think (if they get this permission) they would disclose to you the real content of their messages? They will preach at secret meetings or at legal ones but in an unknown language, so you must be ready to start watching the Muslims (especially the youth) closely and introduce Arabic speaking censors at such meetings. That is if what you suggest is to be efficient.

[Kagemusha]

While i admit that any long term solution will be more then complicated to achieve in the area. For once we have an identified target, unlike with most terrorists.

ISIS has last today threatened that they are going to keep attacking everyone conducting air strikes against them including US and apparently these idiots think that they can scare the West with that.

If we have +30k of these lunatics in a geographically enclosed area. We should get rid of them as fast as possible, sending a message at the same time that attacking us will have its prize. After that we can work more on issues that are plaguing our own societies and try to get more lasting solutions to Middle East as well. I think joining ISIS will become lot less attractive, if it means mostly a certain death.

Hopefully the leaders of the world can set aside their differences concerning this and destroy these jihadist and not fall into apathy like many of us for example. Such apathy will just make these lunatics stronger.

[Pannonian]

Do you think they will come for a permission to preach? Do you think (if they get this permission) they would disclose to you the real content of their messages? They will preach at secret meetings or at legal ones but in an unknown language, so you must be ready to start watching the Muslims (especially the youth) closely and introduce Arabic speaking censors at such meetings. That is if what you suggest is to be efficient.

Yes, I think they will come to us asking for permission to preach, for they are foreigners with no right to abode here. Eg. the guy with a hook for a hand, who regularly preached hatred for Britain and the British. When he finally exhausted our patience and we deported him, he protested that he would be in danger back home, and only Britain offered a safe haven. Too bloody bad. We don't need his type here.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No.

Yep

You said "There's nothing in Scripture about Muhammed having a 9-year old wife" instead of "The Haddiths disagree on how old Aisha was when they consummated the relationship".

Crucifixion is a sentence reserved for enemies of the state.

The fact that Jesus was innocent of the charges is a central plank of Christianity.

He said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". Jesus was not, in his own lifetime, a very important or influential man.

You say I'm "breathtakingly" ignorant but you yourself show equal ignorance towards Islam.

Well, let's see - the main plank of Islam is that Christian and Jewish scripture is wrong so God sent the Angel Gabriel to Muhammed to reveal the correct way to worship God and live one's life and the revalations Gabriel gave to Muhammed are the writings contained within the Koran alongside a biography of the Prophet himself.

How'm I doing?

Let's see...

According to Islam Muslims are descended from from Ishmael, Abraham's son by his slave Hagar (but in the Islamic tradition he marries Hagar) and God then commands Abraham to send Hagar and Ishmael away and, unlike the Jewish tradition, Abraham remains in contact with his son and eventually they (re)build the Kaaba. This story is the basis for the Muslim claim to be "original" monotheists rather than a Jewish or Christian offshoots.

I also know that Muslims, unlike Christians, generally believe that heaven will only exist after Judgement Day and, as I recall, Muslims do not believe in Hell - just that those found wanting will be cast into a pit of fire. I confess I don't precisely understand how Muslims are supposed to get to Heaven but from my reading I understand that, again contrary to Christianity, a Muslim's deed are judged on a balance against a feather. I'm not sure if that's supposed to mean that all Muslims are meant to fail, or if it's actually a very heavy metaphorical feather.

All of this is very different to Christianity or Judaism.

Currently there's an arms race across the ME for counterterrorism and domestic unrest. How's that for narrative. How is my discourse similar to theirs? In your radical world all Muslims are extreme judging from your first post in this thread. Just stop talking, it's a truly ridiculous thing to say.

My radical world? In Christian terms I'm about as boring, stuffy, and old-fashioned as you can get. Anyway, I'm not judging Islam - I'm pointing up the gulf between Muslim and Christian (and thence post-Christian) thought. You seem oblivious to the differences. I recognise that you don't believe in the Gospel story of Jesus as God but you have repeatedly miss-construed or miss-represented his actions as reported by early Christians and their significance. At the same time you gloss over the more violent episodes in the Koran and in Muslim history. The fact is that Christians learned Holy War from the Muslims, one of the reasons the Roman and Persian Empires folded up during the Islamic Conquests (aside from fatigue) is that they were completely unprepared for the way the Muslims fought, and particularly the belief that death in battle was a way to enter heaven - early Christian saints are all conscientious objectors or outright pacifists.

If you look at Muhammed, his companions, and the early Caliphs you see that they're all clever administrators, cunning politicians and accomplished, sometimes ruthless, generals. That is, of course, how they look the Perisaian Empire and two thirds of the remaining Roman Empire in really just a few years.

I have no problem with that - I simple object to Islam being described as a "religion of peace" when early Islamic religious expansion was achieved via military conquest.

[AE Bravo]

If you still want to discuss religious shit take it to the other thread, I'll kindly tell you how wrong you are.

I remember Will T Sherman guy over there saying how everyone's "too comfortable, too soft." I live in Allah country buddy, it's far from comfortable. We lost my cousin a month ago in Yemen fighting Ansarullah Houthis. I have two more years before I get mandatory drafted for the fight. Get off your "texan" (whatever that is) high horse and act like a man for once in this forum.

First off I think it’s fair to say that some EU countries have displayed cowardice in their foreign policy and treatment of the middle east. France’s work in Mali is good work but the way all these western countries conduct intervention is totally counterproductive.

Picking a side after intervening directly leads to anti-western jihad. By supporting rebel groups you are eradicating their legitimacy and cause them to lose the hearts and minds of that country's population, at the same time making yourself a target for Islamists. Islamists revere the Umayyad caliphate. The definition of traitor in the Arab-Muslim world is collaboration with foreign forces against your own people.

"From Caesar of Rome to Muawiya,
We've come to know of what has occurred between you and Ali, and we see that you are more fitting for the Caliphate and so if you wish I will send you an army which will retrieve for you the head of Ali."
and so Muawiya replied to him saying,
"From Muawiya to Hercules,
Two brothers disputing so what right do you have to intervene? If you don't keep quiet I will send you an army its forerunners near you while its rearmost near me, to retrieve your head which I would then give to Ali."

You can question the historicity of this letter but this is the frame of reference for Islamists, especially IS. Neutrality should preclude intervention into Muslim lands, or just don't intervene. PFH believes Islam provides "fertile soil" anywhere in the world for Islamism, that's just ludicrous because these are all politically-charged operations, and the only way to convince someone to strap a bomb to himself is to use shaheed martyrdom for inspiration. It's funny when the west asks "why do they hate us?" when Islamists generally don't discriminate, recently blowing up a mosques in Kuwait and KSA and Turkey. Even Muslims are "sub-humans" to Islamists.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you still want to discuss religious shit take it to the other thread, I'll kindly tell you how wrong you are.

By all means - my, as I said, is that you have a very strong tendency to gloss over the differences.

I remember Will T Sherman guy over there saying how everyone's "too comfortable, too soft." I live in Allah country buddy, it's far from comfortable. We lost my cousin a month ago in Yemen fighting Ansarullah Houthis. I have two more years before I get mandatory drafted for the fight. Get off your "texan" (whatever that is) high horse and act like a man for once in this forum.

From Strike's perspective, from where he lives and where he grew up the UAE is very soft living. As you said, everybody is rich.

First off I think it’s fair to say that some EU countries have displayed cowardice in their foreign policy and treatment of the middle east. France’s work in Mali is good work but the way all these western countries conduct intervention is totally counterproductive.

Picking a side after intervening directly leads to anti-western jihad. By supporting rebel groups you are eradicating their legitimacy and cause them to lose the hearts and minds of that country's population, at the same time making yourself a target for Islamists. Islamists revere the Umayyad caliphate. The definition of traitor in the Arab-Muslim world is collaboration with foreign forces against your own people.

"From Caesar of Rome to Muawiya,
We've come to know of what has occurred between you and Ali, and we see that you are more fitting for the Caliphate and so if you wish I will send you an army which will retrieve for you the head of Ali."
and so Muawiya replied to him saying,
"From Muawiya to Hercules,
Two brothers disputing so what right do you have to intervene? If you don't keep quiet I will send you an army its forerunners near you while its rearmost near me, to retrieve your head which I would then give to Ali."

You can question the historicity of this letter but this is the frame of reference for Islamists, especially IS. Neutrality should preclude intervention into Muslim lands, or just don't intervene. PFH believes Islam provides "fertile soil" anywhere in the world for Islamism, that's just ludicrous because these are all politically-charged operations, and the only way to convince someone to strap a bomb to himself is to use shaheed martyrdom for inspiration. It's funny when the west asks "why do they hate us?" when Islamists generally don't discriminate, recently blowing up a mosques in Kuwait and KSA and Turkey. Even Muslims are "sub-humans" to Islamists.

OK, well first off the letter is a fake - the Emperor at the time was Constantine IV, Heraclius had been dead several decades by the like Muawiya became Caliph. Heraclius is the Emperor contemptuous with Muhammed himself, the title "Caesar" is also anachronistic.

It makes the point as a piece of propaganda, though.

In any case, what I was arguing was that we should have picked a side years ago - we have actually picked a side in Syria though - the side(s) against Assad and IS.

As far as Western intervention goes, though, I can't tell if you're saying the Islamists will see any Muslims we co-operate with as "tainted" or whether you're saying all other Muslims will see it that way. If it's the latter case then that's just ammunition for people who say the Arab world has slid back into the dark ages, because it's foolish to think like that. The only Powers able to help a Liberal or just moderate revolt in an Arab country are Western Powers, or possibly the Kingdom of Jordan if they were inclined. In the future Tunisia and Egypt may become stable democracies but we won't know that for decades and they have their own problems.

If what you're saying is that the Muslim Arab world won't be helped then you're playing into the hands of the people who just want to build a concrete wall around the Middle East and let the whole thing go to Hell - or even further into Hell.

[Montmorency]

Well, let's also highlight that Islamists have their own ideological divisions.

IS are of course the most extreme, the "aggressive AI" version of Islamism. Al Qaeda is another such, but they are notably different in the details and timescales of their operations.

Others believe in "defensive jihad", which most modestly means that you stay out unless there's a casus belli like 'boots on the ground' or less modestly 'Israeli oppression of Palestinians. This is arguably where Hamas and Hezbollah fall, which is why they are currently struggling against (so far relatively small-scale) IS recruitment efforts in the Levant.

The weak-Islamist types are the most prevalent in Europe; they are the ones who don't really stomach direct violence or terrorist campaigns, but do want to displace or overshadow Western cultures (at the very least in the Muslim world) through what we would call "soft power".