Massacre In Paris

[Fernando 6,463]

I think the meaning of terrorism for me as to oppose to something else is the act.

What this terrorist did is just something unexpected that took people by surprised and kill many.

A war that says Israel or USA fights at least you have warning. Like we are going to bomb your ass.

I much prefer to know that it's coming then something so unexpected and horrible.

And obviously you got the motives, one is create chaos and confusion. The other to end a conflict even if you don't agree with and innocent lives are lost.

So that is my distinction between the Islamic terrorist attacks, vs the Imperial empire warfare.

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

@Rmpr @xPetrChechx oh... i got it now, that was actually a clever plan.

Yeah... Both had tickets to the main stand.

[herzogian 148]

I dont think you understood my post. There seems to be two schools of thought, and responses to the medieval Middle Eastern death cults such as ISIS. One is 'oh its our fault, creating a power vacuum from neo Colonialism in Iraq, libya etc'. The other is to be gung ho and bomb and kill. Both approaches fuel the young idealistic jihadist God botherers.

Ironically in France and Germany there was a similar vein of thought up until the 18th century that things were ordained by god and that Kings had divine right bestowed upon them from above. To challenge this was heresy.

Cue reasoning, science, and rational thought - The Enlightenment, and revolution. This is the only way forward for human progress.

While I am all for the humanistic approach etc I. just would like to point out that the "optimism" concerning the enlightenment also existed in the 19th century but was completely shattered after the two world wars.

A lot of people shared the optimism that through science and rational thought we could achieve to create a true utopia. Sadly the reality turned out to be horribly different.The idea that progress of science automatically makes humanity better has been exposed as poppycock. Besides all the wonderfull things we got through scientific 'progress', it also brought us automatic rifles, biochemic weapons and atomic bombs which are keeping the world in a weird stranglehold right now. Also, concerning rational thought, there are problems cause there isn't just 'one' rational thought. The Nazi's thought they where very rational when they ordred the endlösung. Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest was hijacked by the Nazi's and used to legitimize the extermination of many people who where considred lesser beings. There was a very rational approach in explaining why these people where different and how they should be killed, and it was accepted by a lot of people whom you propably would classify as rational. Just like science, rationality is subject to our limitations as human beings. This tackles one of the early principles of the enlightenment: that humans are good and rational by nature. Which,sadly, is not the case and which, again sadly, makes "the enlightenment-project" a lot harder.

Don't misunderstand me, I too think that the ideas of the enlightenment are propably the most useful and trustworthy in trying to reach 'a better world' but we may never forget what happened in the 20th century. If we forget that dark note the 'way of enlightenment' will only lead to darkness. ( Apologies for the pathos in the last sentence)

[Leif 6,006]

Favorite member on these forums by far

remember when i stole your life savings and you had to rebuild from the ground up

[Muzchap 8,966]

For me it's all about 'Global Education' and a fair distribution of wealth.

There's no coincidence that people with a high level of education prefer diplomacy to resolve issues, whilst those without education tend to err towards violence.

Yes, the current forms of Govt in the world are not the best, but they are the best we have right now, yes the distribution of wealth is appalling and more needs to be done to resolve this.

But viewing all leaders as corporate puppets is not a healthy view - we only see the public side of the decisions these 'Leaders' have to make, I don't doubt it's a hard job. I have had similar experiences when I was forced to lay off around 30% off my staff at a previous job. I came up with a model that was only slightly more expensive (meant no bonuses for us, no pay rises for a few years and some people dropping to 4 day weeks, to keep ALL employees) - sadly it was rejected and good people lost their jobs. Why? Because the people above me had to reduce the headcount for an acquisition - but couldn't say anything as bound by NDA.

So at first I was furious, then I had to accept that they made the right decision as 70%+ of employees were better off under their approach. You will never get the 30% to agree (well not all of them) that it was the right decision as 'emotions' cloud the issues, a few years on - I still bump into these people and they are all doing well and are happy. I bet if I asked them now, their views would be different.

So a combination of time and intelligence will always triumph (IMHO) the knee jerk reactionary of let's resort to violence or anger.

How the world implements this is beyond my Intelligence - but I'm sure there are people capable out there.

[Dion 2,476]

Questions to any atheist here.

When someone writes pray for peace what does that means to you?

I believe in God and I definitely understand that prayer is communication with God.

What is your thoughts and meaning of such?

Would you get offended if someone told you to pray for so and so?

It means nothing to me. It means this person is wishing for peace and that's it. I might get a little bit offended if a person knows I'm an atheist and says stuff like that directly to me, because I would feel in doing so this person does not respect my position regarding faith and deities, but it wouldn't be a big deal. Other than that I'm indifferent.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

I think you're underestimating a huge fact in the discussion, Nour... which is religious extremists are crazy people.

When no one attacks they'll kill because some small newspaper in France made fun of their faith.

I agree with most of what you said, but Western countries are just taking advantage of something they didn't create themselves and who definitely won't end if they stop funding and attacking. They turned a small thing into a giant and I don't think it's so simple to stop it now.

Even without funding and attacks now, I believe they can still orchestrate any attack (albeit smaller) they want and as those people aren't sane, it doesn't need much for them to feel motivated.

Of course that also has truth in it. Ultimately, the truth always resists simplicity (J. Green) so no analysis can hold all the truth. But I think it's too easy to just look at religious extremists as they are. We're much more likely to understand when we analyze how they came to be. And this is no way justifying what they've become but merely trying to find more solutions.

Even ISIS and Al Qaeda need a rhetoric to recruit people. Religion is a tool; it's an incredibly powerful tool, but ultimately just a tool. It is NOT a/the cause. For example, the internet history of some British citizens who went to join ISIS in Syria showed that their last purchases included "Islam for dummies". And this is similar to a lot of normal middle class Europeans who have went to Syria to become jihadis. In fact, quite a few come from non-practicing muslim backgrounds and as much as a quarter of French jihadis in Syria were not even Muslim! Most probably, the majority of those Europeans did not join ISIS because they are crazy or because they are Muslim, they joined them because they feel for various reasons alienated and unable to be integrated into their societies. Those are very complicated cases to study but ones we have to look at if we're serious about fighting ISIS.

You mentioned the Charlie Hebdo attackers. One of them was actually arrested back in 2008 on terror charges by the French authorities. He was an 'occasional muslim' who drank alcohol and smoked pot. According to the investigation he was radicalized by the invasion of Iraq, particularly the attack on Fallujah and the violations at the Abu Ghraib prison. It is too easy to say that they all are crazy (which in many cases they just are) but all of them are humans who generally need a reason to go from their ordinary lives working in an IT company or running a shoes store or herding sheep to becoming jihadis. And again this certainly is not to justify their awful choices but to stop more people going down that same road.

Onto the 'bulk' of the extremist jihadi movement: the recruits from the middle east, north Africa and middle Asia. What are the reasons and major factors there? Those are what I mentioned in my original post, mainly from a western perspective as there are also many factors that need to be addressed internally here. But lets go through why people join ISIS from some of the main countries: Iraq? The sanctions, followed by the sledge hammer (invasion) followed by the sectarian isolation and non-inclusion policies. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion. Now the majority of ISIS leaders are ex-Baathist (and secular I might add) army leaders who were all sacked after the invasion. North Africa? The invasion and destruction of Lybia with all the arms and money that were thrown into it. Afghanistan? Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. Arabian gulf? The billions of dollars that are being 'invested' to by KSA to radicalize people with their Wahabi version of Islam. Chechnya? The incredibly long Russian oppression of the population. Syria? Obviously there is the brutality of the Syrian regime but arguably more important are the weapons and money thrown in there to bring extremists from all over the region and arm and fund them to fight the regime...etc. Obviously there are many other factors, but those are some of the major ones which can or at least should be addressed.

So will all of this stop the threat of ISIS in days, weeks or even months? Of course not. But the world is where it is at the moment and I struggle to think of more effective means of battling the threat of ISIS. Regardless, if one thing is certain, it is that the usual sledge hammer response of bombing everything you don't like is guaranteed to make things much much worse.

[Laylabelle 9,359]

Sad and scary world we live in at the moment

[Barbara 15,149]

Of course that also has truth in it. Ultimately, the truth always resists simplicity (J. Green) so no analysis can hold all the truth. But I think it's too easy to just look at religious extremists as they are. We're much more likely to understand when we analyze how they came to be. And this is no way justifying what they've become but merely trying to find more solutions.

Even ISIS and Al Qaeda need a rhetoric to recruit people. Religion is a tool; it's an incredibly powerful tool, but ultimately just a tool. It is NOT a/the cause. For example, the internet history of some British citizens who went to join ISIS in Syria showed that their last purchases included "Islam for dummies". And this is similar to a lot of normal middle class Europeans who have went to Syria to become jihadis. In fact, quite a few come from non-practicing muslim backgrounds and as much as a quarter of French jihadis in Syria were not even Muslim! Most probably, the majority of those Europeans did not join ISIS because they are crazy or because they are Muslim, they joined them because they feel for various reasons alienated and unable to be integrated into their societies. Those are very complicated cases to study but ones we have to look at if we're serious about fighting ISIS.

You mentioned the Charlie Hebdo attackers. One of them was actually arrested back in 2008 on terror charges by the French authorities. He was an 'occasional muslim' who drank alcohol and smoked pot. According to the investigation he was radicalized by the invasion of Iraq, particularly the attack on Fallujah and the violations at the Abu Ghraib prison. It is too easy to say that they all are crazy (which in many cases they just are) but all of them are humans who generally need a reason to go from their ordinary lives working in an IT company or running a shoes store or herding sheep to becoming jihadis. And again this certainly is not to justify their awful choices but to stop more people going down that same road.

Onto the 'bulk' of the extremist jihadi movement: the recruits from the middle east, north Africa and middle Asia. What are the reasons and major factors there? Those are what I mentioned in my original post, mainly from a western perspective as there are also many factors that need to be addressed internally here. But lets go through why people join ISIS from some of the main countries: Iraq? The sanctions, followed by the sledge hammer (invasion) followed by the sectarian isolation and non-inclusion policies. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to the invasion. Now the majority of ISIS leaders are ex-Baathist (and secular I might add) army leaders who were all sacked after the invasion. North Africa? The invasion and destruction of Lybia with all the arms and money that were thrown into it. Afghanistan? Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. Arabian gulf? The billions of dollars that are being 'invested' to by KSA to radicalize people with their Wahabi version of Islam. Chechnya? The incredibly long Russian oppression of the population. Syria? Obviously there is the brutality of the Syrian regime but arguably more important are the weapons and money thrown in there to bring extremists from all over the region and arm and fund them to fight the regime...etc. Obviously there are many other factors, but those are some of the major ones which can or at least should be addressed.

So will all of this stop the threat of ISIS in days, weeks or even months? Of course not. But the world is where it is at the moment and I struggle to think of more effective means of battling the threat of ISIS. Regardless, if one thing is certain, it is that the usual sledge hammer response of bombing everything you don't like is guaranteed to make things much much worse.

I understand and agree, Nour.

I'm not focusing on how it became what it is. We all know (or should know) how the process was. While you're focusing on who are the ultimate guilty ones in this and how it came to be, I'm simply addressing that money and attacks fueled people that have little to no sanity on them (which is the overwhelming minority, thankfully). At this point, I think discussing how it came to be is moot. People easily blame the Islam, or the middle east countries and it's easy for people to ignore or not even know the root of it all and as such I understand why you feel the need to bring aspects that aren't known to many people. The thing is, the root of it all doesn't matter anymore - personally I couldn't care less about who's blamed or isn't at this point. Something must be done to stop it - anything as long as it actually stops it. We can have the moral talk, I just feel right now, this isn't as important as addressing the current situation.

And that's the part I disagree with you. It isn't as simple as not attacking or funding them anyone. A monster has been created and I don't think Western countries such as France, England and US can stop the extremists by only stopping funding (US) or attacking (the rest). Which doesn't mean I'm saying they should continue to fund, attack and fuel the conflict. It means it's way more complex than cutting them off financially and 'motivationally'.

And I think what they did in France is as bad as some random groups killing Christians in Egypt, recording, posting and sending threatening messages. Which is why I think you're dismissing the religious aspect way too much. You aren't lying in your points, I agree with them, I just think they're way too moralist (not in a bad way) and enlightening about what really happens in the political aspect, but very much dismissive about the religious aspect, which imo is a big aspect of everything going on. I'm sorry if I believe there way too many problems in the way Islam deals with some subjects. The same way I have a lot of problems with how Europe and the Americas were christianized. Islam became the new Christianity in terms of insane use of violence to get their message through - be it combating a cause like ISIS or being simply religion intolerance like killing whoever isn't what they are. It came to my knowledge recently that it's now part of Islam law (not sure in which countries, if it's a global thing, or in some places) that a man can rape any unclaimed woman they come across and it won't be considered a crime.

I'm very open to all kinds of beliefs and people's freedom to choose whatever, including atheism (my best friend at workplace is an atheist), but I can't help the feeling (and this is simply that, a feeling) it's harder and harder to respect some aspects of things intrinsically linked to the practice of certain degrees of Islam. Which doesn't mean I generalize all of them. Just some practices like the ones I mentioned and many others I won't bother. Maybe I'm way too far in the Western to know all the cultural, local aspects that makes it okay to rape a woman or mutilate her (if it was done to men/children I'd feel the same way), or maybe I'm just a poster child of what some of the propaganda wants to make western people believe about Islam and that is that I associate some degrees of Islam to violence.

I have no problem with muslins (the people or the faith) - the person I have the best and most personal relationship in this forum is a muslin - I have real life friends who are muslins - which is why I don't consider myself an islamophobe. I feel like there are two sides of muslin. The one I call muslin lite (and I don't mean it as offensive, I just can't find another way to describe it and I certainly don't restrict it only to Islam, all religions can be lite or extremist) - which is the ordinary people with their own personal beliefs just like there are ordinary people who are christians, jews, hindi, agnostic, buddhist, atheist. The other group is the more literal people and we also have those in every religion I mentioned above, but I feel like a literal muslin is causing much more damage today than most of the others literals (except maybe the jews, who are also very violent). Those people take part in terrorism attacks, in killing people from other religions, rape women and mutilate them and I'm sure many more things I'm thankfully not aware of.

And that's why it's so hard for me to accept your strong reasoning that all of this was created simply by political moves. That's what Nazism was about, Hittler used only political and psychological strategies to engage people in his plans of killing millions of people and starting a world war. The current situations associated to the Islam can't be only justified by Western opportunism and thirsty for power and money. The literal creed seems to be intrinsically violent but thankfully most people that have the belief don't practice it too literally.

Again, I don't want to offend anyone. The only reason a person could feel offended by my post is if they think it's okay to do what was done to France, to kill and torture people because they have different beliefs, to torture or rape any human being because yours beliefs say it's okay. If that's not the case of whoever reads this post, then my post isn't directed at you. I just felt like by highlighting the political aspect, the religious aspect was disregarded and I believe both are equally bad.

[the wes 7,212]

SAS patrol our streets over fears Britain will be next victim of mass casualty attacks

[xPetrCechx 13,563]

SAS patrol our streets over fears Britain will be next victim of mass casualty attacks

They have a good reason to think like that... unfortunately.

[manpe 10,861]

SAS patrol our streets over fears Britain will be next victim of mass casualty attacks

What is SAS?

[lucio 5,418]

SAS patrol our streets over fears Britain will be next victim of mass casualty attacks

Are they being deployed in NI? I wouldn't have thought that would be an Isis target. Brighton , London , Manchester are probably at risk

[lucio 5,418]

What is SAS?

think it's airforce troops, or something of that nature

[lucio 5,418]

Meanwhile, The Telegraph reports that up to 450 radicalised Britons have returned to the UK from Syria. Scotland Yard is investigating 600 terror cases related to Syria and Iraq.

From "about 750 [british citizens] of interest to the security and intelligence services", who had gone to Syria "about 60% have returned", Charles Farr, director of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism said. He added that people, who can't travel to Syria or Iraq from the UK, have been told by Isis to stay and "undertake attacks".

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/paris-attacks-elite-sas-srr-forces-deployed-uk-streets-counter-isis-terror-threats-1528800

why on earth are they able to come back?

[the wes 7,212]

Are they being deployed in NI? I wouldn't have thought that would be an Isis target. Brighton , London , Manchester are probably at risk

i dont think so mate probably just england

[the wes 7,212]

What is SAS?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Air_Service

its SAS is a english verison of delta force us army

[kobematabryant 400]

Best Article on the Paris Attack

------------------------------------------

The World, at Large — We are in mourning. Again. Indeed, Paris is in mourning, again. For the second time in less than a year, we are all de facto Parisians — with Facebook profiles, casinos, and whole buildings draped in the blue, white, and red of the French flag. Solidarity as sympathy, bien sûr — a most poignant message that humanity stands with Paris — and will act decisively to avenge the “carnage” unexpectedly wrought by those whose motives most will never fall victim to, much less comprehend. Most? Evidently, despite the accumulated knowledge of the entire planet at our disposal through the computer screen, solidarity has escaped some of us. And I am weary. Without question, I mourn for Paris’ recent victims and their families — and I would never claim knowledgeable firsthand experience of the same. But I refuse — despite my partial French heritage — to cloak myself in nationalism of any stripe or star, particularly not now. Because, besides victims in Paris, an incomprehensibly astronomic number of people have been grieving loss of the highest order for some time — in places whose names roll off our tongues as if it’s accepted that violence simply happens there — and a majority likely couldn’t guess the colors on these victims’ flags. You see, I also mourn for those killed mere hours before Paris crumbled into chaos, in strikingly similar attacks in Beirut. I mourn the hundreds of thousands displaced or killed in Syria, no matter their pledged allegiance. No matter their professed religion. No matter. I mourn for the millions killed in ongoing and renewed, illegal United States’ aggression in Iraq — and those facing a torturous demise from exposure to depleted uranium employed in violation of international and humanitarian law — for reasons far closer to ‘American’ and corporate hegemony than compassionate principle. I mourn the untold number killed in the United States’ insidious — and seemingly permanent — war in Afghanistan. And the countless children there who know nothing of peace, much less the feeling of safety it brings. And patients and staff recently targeted, bombed, and then shot while fleeing the Médecins Sans Frontières hospital in Kunduz — and the irony of that humanitarian organization’s French roots. I mourn those forced into human slavery or sex trafficking in Malaysia; and curse the scant hope they escape, now that the massive TPP has garnered U.S. government’s tacit approval of the abhorrence that is human trade. I mourn for Palestinians, whose land was usurped — and whose lives and infrastructure and families and sense of security and HOMES are under siege and occupation by an illegal and actively terrorist State. I mourn the patients and staff at the over 100 healthcare facilities in Yemen that have been BOMBED since March. And the apparently soulless who found an acceptable target in hospitals. I mourn for Yemen. I mourn for the victims of complicit government violence in Mexico, and 43 students and their families who lack answers. I mourn for Chinese men, women, and children working, quite literally, as slaves, so the West can be rude at dinner and take endless pictures — of its narcissistically apathetic self. I mourn rampant genocide — past and present — for the sake of manifest destiny. And empire. And imperialism. And inexplicable and unstated reasons. In fact, I mourn for all victims of terror, whether State or group sponsored, without conditions attached to my grief — no matter location, nor loyalty, nor arbitrary geopolitical happenstance of location of a victim’s birth. And I’m already grieving those soon to be terror’s next victims; since, as French President François Hollande jarringly warned, avenging Paris’ victims just birthed (yet another) “PITILESS” war. As if gentle were somehow a method to employ in waging war. Yes, I mourn for Paris. But I do so while weeping in shame at the deplorable supercilious judgment ensconced in Western reaction to it; for countless pitiable xenophobes and their endless vapid justifications; for arrogant commentary from politicians and their media mouthpieces with their embarrassing post-tragedy clamoring to exploit ignorant heartstrings for the appropriate victims; for the endless War of Terror — and the service members who somehow haven’t yet deduced that this would ALL END if they simply refused to ****ing fight. The fact is, grief on this scale is exhausting. And I’m very nearly out of tears. So keep these victims around the globe in mind — every, single man, woman and child who has, who is, and who will suffer the maiming, horror, torture, and death that’s as necessary to war as those who take up arms — when you next excuse a politician’s stance on war, because the rest of his or her platform seems really promising. Or, at least, seems the lesser of two evils. And shake that flag from your social media profile; and your home; and your thoughts. Because as long as you wear just one flag, your attempt to stand with victims of terror is a most embarrassingly hollow solidarity, indeed. - See more at: http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showthread.php?234213-Shootings-reported-in-central-Paris/page5#sthash.n8UVwvmK.dpuf