Terror Attack: 130 Dead in Paris

[Viking]

Steven Pinker's opinion on how attacks like this one fit with the supposed general decline in violence:

Certain categories of violence could continue to see statistical declines, Pinker said, including homicide, domestic violence, and rape. But others, notably the use of “cheap, low-depth, high-publicity violence such as terrorism and rampage shootings,” may hold to current levels far into the future.

Reflecting on overall historical trends, Pinker said, “Violence reduction might be like other types of technological progress — that is, not linear and not exorable, but highly likely over the long run.”

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...-yes-actually/

[Shaka_Khan]

Something happened in California. The motive isn't determined yet. Whatever the motive is, it's terrorism for sure.

[Fragony]

Not much is known yet but it certainly looks like it. This is something we will just have go get used to, especially in Europe but also in the USA

[Idaho]

Not much is known yet but it certainly looks like it. This is something we will just have go get used to, especially in Europe but also in the USA

I predict that it could count for as much as 0.2%% of the traffic deaths each year.

[Fragony]

I predict that it could count for as much as 0.2%% of the traffic deaths each year.

Sure, but it does have a greater impact, there is a difference, an accident is just that, but this is senseless murder. Not implying anything yet but you probably know what I expect it to be. For now only RIP victims and condolences to their family and friends.

Edit, more is known by now, it was indeed a radicalised muslim, one at least. Know what you welcome I'd say, not just for us but also for your Turkish baker.

[Idaho]

Salience is everything for humans. If we are bombarded with alarming stories about terrorism, we think it's more important.

Is this terrorism? Yeah of course it is. Just like the hundreds of other US mass murders are. But these are brown mass murderers with muslim names. They are, in media terms, different and more scary.

Personally, if I was American, I would be no more afraid of brown terrorist mass murderers, than the usual sort. In the end they are the same.

[Fragony]

Salience is everything for humans. If we are bombarded with alarming stories about terrorism, we think it's more important.

Is this terrorism? Yeah of course it is. Just like the hundreds of other US mass murders are. But these are brown mass murderers with muslim names. They are, in media terms, different and more scary.

Personally, if I was American, I would be no more afraid of brown terrorist mass murderers, than the usual sort. In the end they are the same.

I don't understand the need to relativate an obvious kick in the nuts. How many do you need before you understand that someone is kicking you in the nuts. Radical islam is just a threat, and more attacks like in Paris (and possibly this one) are just going to happen, especially after that eastblock-workhorse Merkel with her messias-complex welcomed them to travel along

[Papewaio]

Salience is everything for humans. If we are bombarded with alarming stories about terrorism, we think it's more important.

Is this terrorism? Yeah of course it is. Just like the hundreds of other US mass murders are. But these are brown mass murderers with muslim names. They are, in media terms, different and more scary.

Personally, if I was American, I would be no more afraid of brown terrorist mass murderers, than the usual sort. In the end they are the same.

Funny that's how I see conventional vs atomic weapons. You are dead either way.

[Idaho]

I don't understand the need to relativate an obvious kick in the nuts. How many do you need before you understand that someone is kicking you in the nuts. Radical islam is just a threat, and more attacks like in Paris (and possibly this one) are just going to happen, especially after that eastblock-workhorse Merkel with her messias-complex welcomed them to travel along

Ok - I'll run with that analogy.

So it's like this:

KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch - OMG! End of the world! Bomb everything! Catastrophe!
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch

You are only singling out one particular kick in the nuts because it's high on the news agenda, and because it segways neatly into your pre-existing discourse.

[Fragony]

Ok - I'll run with that analogy.

So it's like this:

KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch - OMG! End of the world! Bomb everything! Catastrophe!
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch
KICK - ouch

You are only singling out one particular kick in the nuts because it's high on the news agenda, and because it segways neatly into your pre-existing discourse.

What makes you think I want to bomb everything, I just want a problem to be acknowledged. Better than relativating everything no

[Idaho]

I want it to be acknowledged too. People believe crazy crap all the time. The attackers, however, when their lives are examined, are rarely what you would term "devout". In fact the best description is usually "disaffected".

Indeed I bet the actual ISIS soldiers probably talk a lot of religious sounding talk, but in reality are the same raping, intoxicated, mixed up bunch who are the usual people who find comradeship and purpose in a war.

[Fragony]

I want it to be acknowledged too. People believe crazy crap all the time. The attackers, however, when their lives are examined, are rarely what you would term "devout". In fact the best description is usually "disaffected".

Indeed I bet the actual ISIS soldiers probably talk a lot of religious sounding talk, but in reality are the same raping, intoxicated, mixed up bunch who are the usual people who find comradeship and purpose in a war.

Perhaps 'determinent'? If you let go the idea that islam is a religion of peace it all makes sense.

[Idaho]

Perhaps 'determinent'? If you let go the idea that islam is a religion of peace it all makes sense.

I don't really think of islam at all in my thinking. You are determined to find that it's all about islam. That's your hobby horse. So are you saying if they all converted to Christianity or Hinduism, the problem would go away?

It's nonsense. Let's look at it empirically. If islam causes people to be violent and warring, and the absence of islam removes this and makes people more peaceful - we would expect countries with large islamic populations to be violent and warring. We would also expect the biggest and most violent wars of the last 100 years to be amongst islamic nations.

[Husar]

Something happened in California. The motive isn't determined yet. Whatever the motive is, it's terrorism for sure.

Was there any point during the creation of your post at which you thought about the actual information contained in your videos or did you just want to waste my time?

Not much is known yet but it certainly looks like it. This is something we will just have go get used to, especially in Europe but also in the USA

http://www.theonion.com/article/no-w...larly-ha-51938

[Montmorency]

While Islamic violence is indeed a subset of violence, it would be strange to suggest that any other subset of violence should have its individual characteristics and contributing factors ignored because 'violence is violence, and one sort is not of more concern than another'. What I am getting at is that when studying a subset of violence, you need both the broad and common analysis as well as the deep and comparative analysis.

Otherwise, you simply get the inverted image of the "War on Drugs".

[Pannonian]

While Islamic violence is indeed a subset of violence, it would be strange to suggest that any other subset of violence should have its individual characteristics and contributing factors ignored because 'violence is violence, and one sort is not of more concern than another'. What I am getting at is that when studying a subset of violence, you need both the broad and common analysis as well as the deep and comparative analysis.

Otherwise, you simply get the inverted image of the "War on Drugs".

In this case, it's yet another instance of someone going abroad to one of the radicalisation hotspots, and returning to wreak havok in their host country having been converted to violence. The US are free to draw their own conclusions. But I wish Europe, or at the very least UK, should bar anyone who goes to these areas from returning. If they want to be devout and radical, let them live in devout and radical countries. I prefer the UK and Europe to remain largely secular.

[Fragony]

I don't really think of islam at all in my thinking. You are determined to find that it's all about islam. That's your hobby horse. So are you saying if they all converted to Christianity or Hinduism, the problem would go away?

It's nonsense. Let's look at it empirically. If islam causes people to be violent and warring, and the absence of islam removes this and makes people more peaceful - we would expect countries with large islamic populations to be violent and warring. We would also expect the biggest and most violent wars of the last 100 years to be amongst islamic nations.

I siimply don'f know the nuances, all I got is what other people say

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't really think of islam at all in my thinking. You are determined to find that it's all about islam. That's your hobby horse. So are you saying if they all converted to Christianity or Hinduism, the problem would go away?

It's nonsense. Let's look at it empirically. If islam causes people to be violent and warring, and the absence of islam removes this and makes people more peaceful - we would expect countries with large islamic populations to be violent and warring. We would also expect the biggest and most violent wars of the last 100 years to be amongst islamic nations.

If we look at empirically we would note that, currently, Islamic terrorists are unique in a number of ways:

they usually plan to die in their attacks.

They tend to attack soft civilian targets with no military or strategic value.

They are constantly planning attacks on the US and Europe whether or not we are actively fighting their particular organisation or not.

Attacks aim not only to cause terror, but also maximise casualties.

The closest I can come to this sort of MO would be Communists during the last century, but even then the Isalmic terrorists are not the same.

Remember, from the point of view of Westerners this all started with 9/11, an unprovoked attack which led to a punitive war, which led to another war which lead to more terrorists attacks, breakdown in Iraq, then we had the Arab Spring which we failed to support (and initially tried to stop) and now we have IS.

Islamism has been bubbly in the background though, trying to kill us and establish a new Caliphate, all this time.

So you should think about Islam.

[Pannonian]

If we look at empirically we would note that, currently, Islamic terrorists are unique in a number of ways:

they usually plan to die in their attacks.

They tend to attack soft civilian targets with no military or strategic value.

They are constantly planning attacks on the US and Europe whether or not we are actively fighting their particular organisation or not.

Attacks aim not only to cause terror, but also maximise casualties.

The closest I can come to this sort of MO would be Communists during the last century, but even then the Isalmic terrorists are not the same.

Remember, from the point of view of Westerners this all started with 9/11, an unprovoked attack which led to a punitive war, which led to another war which lead to more terrorists attacks, breakdown in Iraq, then we had the Arab Spring which we failed to support (and initially tried to stop) and now we have IS.

Islamism has been bubbly in the background though, trying to kill us and establish a new Caliphate, all this time.

So you should think about Islam.

They have absolutely no intention of engaging politically with us. The hyperbole has been used in the past to say that Communists and other westernised oppositional organisations want to destroy us, but they always had a political organisation that maintained a voice in the (sort of) mainstream. Not so Islamism, for whom our very being is anathema to them. And while I count myself as a liberal where such norms are reciprocated, I see no point in tolerating people who game the system to destroy our liberal democracy.

[Montmorency]

A comparison to Communists would be sort of like if, instead of taking both violent and non-violent action to foment and enable the revolution of the proletariat state-by-state and across the world, Communist terrorists were looking to cause destruction such that enemy states would collapse with maximum internal damage, with the Select moving in through the rubble under the leadership of Zombie Lenin to absorb fragmented communities and enforce proper Communist rule over humanity.

Another way to put it is that Islamism is the opposite of Communism in terms of parochiality. Islamism is only "international" in the most technical sense of our terminology.

[Pannonian]

A comparison to Communists would be sort of like if, instead of taking both violent and non-violent action to foment and enable the revolution of the proletariat state-by-state and across the world, Communist terrorists were looking to cause destruction such that enemy states would collapse with maximum internal damage, with the Select moving in through the rubble under the leadership of Zombie Lenin to absorb fragmented communities and enforce proper Communist rule over humanity.

Another way to put it is that Islamism is the opposite of Communism in terms of parochiality. Islamism is only "international" in the most technical sense of our terminology.

Communists sought the destruction of the state though, not random individuals who have nothing to do with the institutionalised state. The only way that ordinary individuals would be affected was if the opposing blocs flared into formal war. Other than that, the Communist states kept to themselves, and the capitalist states kept to themselves. Unlike Islamists, who view western civilisation as something against their creed, who hold westernised individuals as representative of the state that they live in, and who randomly but actively target individuals and try to maximise civilian damage.

I'll ask this question: how do we keep from being targets of Islamist militants? If we don't have an answer, and we don't know how to get a definitive answer, that is indicative of the difference between Communism and Islamism.

[Montmorency]

Communists sought the destruction of the state though, not random individuals who have nothing to do with the institutionalised state.

When I was referring to destruction of states, I said "collapse with maximum internal damage", which is to say that the states would be destroyed in order to precipitate a collapse of the society, with concomitant human catastrophe.

So it's basically just what you said. Communists sought to transition - forcibly or not - capitalist societies to (Communist-run) socialist societies. Meanwhile, Islamists at the extreme perceive that they already have their society and the existence of other societies is both an active and passive threat; moreover, there is some motivation to simply accumulate as much territory and as many subjects as possible for the glory (more-or-less).

[Pannonian]

When I was referring to destruction of states, I said "collapse with maximum internal damage", which is to say that the states would be destroyed in order to precipitate a collapse of the society, with concomitant human catastrophe.

So it's basically just what you said. Communists sought to transition - forcibly or not - capitalist societies to (Communist-run) socialist societies. Meanwhile, Islamists at the extreme perceive that they already have their society and the existence of other societies is both an active and passive threat; moreover, there is some motivation to simply accumulate as much territory and as many subjects as possible for the glory (more-or-less).

With the Communist MO, while the capitalist state was still in being (and we now know there wasn't ever any danger of them collapsing), individuals in capitalist states were not individually in danger, other than maybe the odd terrorist attack independent of the Communist institutions (who had open channels with us throughout). Contrast with the Islamist MO, which is to cause as much damage to the softest targets possible. There are some Communist ideals and achievements that I will readily laud, space exploration not least among them (and many other scientific fields). Islamism has contributed nothing to the good of humanity, nor will it ever do. It is entirely destructive in ethos.

[Montmorency]

The nice thing about the Communist frontrunners - USSR and PRC - is that they developed around very anxious and unstable societies, which meant that for most of their history (though of course the PRC isn't likely changing fundamentally anytime soon) their governments were very inwardly focused on managing their internal affairs. Major expansionist periods, such as Stalin's occupation of Eastern Europe and China's reaching out toward Central Asia and the Indian peninsula and supporting the North Korean regime was a dual matter of maintaining buffer zones and economic clients for security and a callback to the maximum extents of the historical Russian and Chinese empires. When they reached out far abroad, it was usually to secure resources for themselves or to balance Western attention away from the core territories - and that's just basic politics since ancient times, really.

[Pannonian]

The nice thing about the Communist frontrunners - USSR and PRC - is that they developed around very anxious and unstable societies, which meant that for most of their history (though of course the PRC isn't likely changing fundamentally anytime soon) their governments were very inwardly focused on managing their internal affairs. Major expansionist periods, such as Stalin's occupation of Eastern Europe and China's reaching out toward Central Asia and the Indian peninsula and supporting the North Korean regime was a dual matter of maintaining buffer zones and economic clients for security and a callback to the maximum extents of the historical Russian and Chinese empires. When they reached out far abroad, it was usually to secure resources for themselves or to balance Western attention away from the core territories - and that's just basic politics since ancient times, really.

These nationalist interests weren't alien to us since, as you said, they've been basic politics since ancient times. Everyone does it, and everyone knows the rules of the game. We know what the boundaries are, which no side will step over, since all sides are orthodox states. Islamism is jihad transplanted into modern society, themselves abiding by rules which we've left behind centuries ago, yet who game our modern society to allow them to inflict maximum damage in areas which we consider off limits by the rules recognised by orthodox states. That's why I despise them, and almost as much, the bleeding heart liberals who genuinely believe that liberal rights apply to these Islamists. No they don't. Rights come with responsibilities. Islamists deny all their responsibilities as a matter of principle, and hold those that value them as their enemy.

[Husar]

If we look at empirically we would note that, currently, Islamic terrorists are unique in a number of ways:

1) they usually plan to die in their attacks.

2) They tend to attack soft civilian targets with no military or strategic value.

3) They are constantly planning attacks on the US and Europe whether or not we are actively fighting their particular organisation or not.

4) Attacks aim not only to cause terror, but also maximise casualties.

The closest I can come to this sort of MO would be Communists during the last century, but even then the Isalmic terrorists are not the same.

Remember, from the point of view of Westerners this all started with 9/11, an unprovoked attack which led to a punitive war, which led to another war which lead to more terrorists attacks, breakdown in Iraq, then we had the Arab Spring which we failed to support (and initially tried to stop) and now we have IS.

Islamism has been bubbly in the background though, trying to kill us and establish a new Caliphate, all this time.

So you should think about Islam.

Eh, let me enumerate your points to give a better structured answer:

1) That is correct and more or less directly owed to the religious teachings they believe in

2) Isn't that one of the hallmarks of terrorism in general? If a group used to try and kill as many soviet or other enemy soldiers we used to call them resistance fighters and if they killed our soldiers they were partisans or subversive elements or whatever but not exactly terrorists. Nowadays the word is thrown around all the time just like Hitler's name.
Besides, the neo nazis who murdered a lot of immigrants in Germany also chose soft targets. The guy who shot up the planned parenthood complex last Friday also chose soft targets, as did other people who had political goals but chose to attack soft targets. I don't see how that is unique.

3) And so do a lot of other people, how is that unique? Besides, they also plan plenty of attacks in other countries in case that distinction was part of your argument.

4) That seems like an artificial point because there is no real distinction in the case of terrorists. The number of victims is more or less proportional to the terror caused and therefore to the achievement of the goal. School schooters nd many other murderers have the same goal. In fact your point applies far more to serial killers who try to kill as many people as possible without getting attention.

Apart from the fact they want to die and go to heaven because of their religion, I do not really see the huge difference.
Paul also wrote plenty of times that he can't wait for the lord to take him to heaven. Not that he was a terrorist, but the wish to go to heaven isn't even unique, only the way to get there seems relatively unique to Islam, but they have to have something special or they'd just be ecumenic, no?

As for communist terrorists, how about Stalin and his secret police? Didn't they kill thousands/millions of people to scare the others into submission?

[Idaho]

Phil and Frag both think that it's all about the Muslims. Is this a perspective they have come to from a sober assessment of the situation? No, I don't believe so. I think their perceptions have been selectively taken to slot in with their own preexisting mental narratives. Phil with his Christianity-in-a-country-gone-secular. And Frag with his overrun-by-darkies fear.

[Fragony]

Communists sought the destruction of the state though, not random individuals who have nothing to do with the institutionalised state. The only way that ordinary individuals would be affected was if the opposing blocs flared into formal war. Other than that, the Communist states kept to themselves, and the capitalist states kept to themselves. Unlike Islamists, who view western civilisation as something against their creed, who hold westernised individuals as representative of the state that they live in, and who randomly but actively target individuals and try to maximise civilian damage.

I'll ask this question: how do we keep from being targets of Islamist militants? If we don't have an answer, and we don't know how to get a definitive answer, that is indicative of the difference between Communism and Islamism.

I don't tnink there is an answer, they are already here and we must find out who is who. Best we can do right now. We should reconsider border policies we have been warned for this for decades, but all they got was ridicule and insinuations.

[Fisherking]

@Idaho, I don’t know if you have tried an objective view of the situation. You seem to think it is a matter of religiosity or racism. The biggest factor is one you don’t seem to have examined.

Here is the rub. Islam and western ideals of liberty are incompatible. All religions have some elements that could be called repressive, to one extent or another but there are grounds for accommodation and a sprit of live and let live, except with Islam. None of the others have as a tenant of their faith that all others must be converted, subjugated, or slain. Others have proven a willingness to live under a secular rule. The other religions do not call for forced conversion.

Many Muslims have also submitted themselves to live in secular countries but in doing so they violate the rules of their faith. The world view of the faith is that the world is divided into two. The lands of the faith and the lands of war.

Our ethics forbid us from assaults on the beliefs of others, while the faith of Islam demands it.
How are we logically to treat this threat to our values? Do we submit to eventual theocracy or do we resist?

[Gilrandir]

Paul also wrote plenty of times that he can't wait for the lord to take him to heaven.

How disillusioned he must feel now.

[MENTION=3769]

Our ethics forbid us from assaults on the beliefs of others, while the faith of Islam demands it.
How are we logically to treat this threat to our values?

Our MODERN ethics is what you say it is. But the initial attempts to interpret the Holy Texts literally resulted in numerous similar assaults from Christians. Since then Christian ethics has evolved through a series of changes to reach the current liberal stage. Evidently, Muslim world has been reluctant to such sweeping changes which eventually amount to divorcing people from reading too much into religious texts and distancing religious practices from real life. So the ultimate goal of those who wish to change the current lay of things should be secularizing Muslim countries as much as possible.