Slashdot Mirror
Explosions and Multiple Shootings In Paris, Possible Hostages (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Multiple sources are reporting that at least 18 people are dead across three shootings in central Paris. The Associated Press reports as many as 26, as of this writing. Some victims were at a restaurant, while others were at a nearby theater. Early reports indicate there may be a hostage situation with more people at that theater. Police have also confirmed an explosion at a bar near Stade de France stadium, where a football match was underway between France and Germany. There are reports of other explosions heard at the stadium as well, but no details yet. "The attack comes as France has heightened security measures ahead of a major global climate conference that starts in two weeks, out of fear of violent protests and potential terrorist attacks." The attacks occurred not far from where the Charlie Hebdo shooting happened in January. "French news media reported that Kalashnikov rifles had been involved in the shootings — a favored weapon of militants who have attacked targets in France — and that many rounds had been fired."
Or... mass deaths in non-warzones are seen as more newsworthy than mass deaths in say... Syria.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
This attack is currently ongoing, latest reports estimate about 60 people killed. Who is attacking and why is currently unknown. The most plausible rumors talk about a continuation on the attacks of the Charlie Hebro attacks(Wikipedia it).
France is one of the top 5 arms exporters in the world (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31901493), they have a history of racial tension against immigrants (https://news.vice.com/article/france-is-getting-more-intolerant-and-racist-according-to-human-rights-report). You treat those beneath you like shit, and occasionally, people fight back. Those would be two motives, I'm sure there are more.
They want a caliphate across the ME, Africa and into Europe and beyond.
Exactly, if this is an Islamic terrorist attach, this is going to make the lives of Muslims in Europe so much harder! There has already been an uptick in the number of extremist groups with anti-Islam tendencies.
France is getting a large influx of muslim immigrants, and France enacted laws that pretty much amount to "hey, you live here? be French Arab, not Arab". That doesn't sit well with the Caliphate Crew, so they're attacking Paris until Paris conforms to Sharia.
And this is supposed to help the immigrant cause how?
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Why are they attacking France? What do they hope to achieve?
Caliphate. Sharia.
They say as much. Hard to hear them when you listen exclusively to Blame America First crap, though.
A few more of these and it'll finally get through. So no worries; you'll get it at some point.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
I'm not passing judgement on the act, just stating possible why's that come to mind.
Curious, have any EU anti-immigrant groups actually attacked Muslim immigrants yet? Seems to me they are a rational reaction to what's happening.
Incite the white french to attack muslims, thereby making french muslims open to radicalisation which is what the idiots in the M.E. want.
Of course, whites will target muslims to get the muslims angry so that they attack, starting a race war too.
Both sides have the arseholes that want a war, because they think they are "right" and the other "wrong" and therefore they will INEVITABLY win the conflict.
When they can't, they then drag in other groups as "instigators" and "aiding and abetting" the terrorists of the other side, because, like I said, they KNOW they are in the right, therefore if they aren't winning, SOMEONE must be preventing it.
France participated in Operation Desert Storm aka "Operation_Daguet", which is probably reason enough for any jihadist. More recently with the large influx of North African Muslims there's been conflict with France's largely atheistic culture. See the Charlie Hebdo incident -- militant Islam lacks anything resembling either a sense of humor or respect for human rights.
To the point, militant Islam really, really wants to be in charge, which makes pretty much everyone in the world either an immediate target or a future target. It's odd that you don't seem to recognize that.
Unlike other religions, in Islam the act of KILLING is considered as honorable!
That is why throughout the world moslems are killing people - from Nigeria to Syria, to Kenya, to Paris, to WTC of NYC, to China, to Indonesia ... everywhere the you find moslem they kill
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Actually, it just circles back to giving excuses to justify terrorism.
There are no reasons. Terrorism isn't an effective tool to achieve goals. No one converted their religion because of it (the general kind. I'm not talking about gun to head conversion).
Repeated terrorism does put economic pressure on countries suffering from it, but I am hard pressed to think of a single case where that produced any effect that was productive to terrorism.
Clearly aim directed terrorism might have some effect (Irish underground attacks on Britain comes to mind), but those are not the kind of terrorism we typically see today.
So asking "why" is claiming there is a rational reason. That is flawed to its core. Assuming this is an Islamic terrorist attack (we don't know yet, but it seems like a reasonable assumption), this is more likely a clash of cultures than an aim directed campaign.
Shachar
Moslems kill for 'allah'
The more infidels they kill the moslems are being told that their 'allah' will reward them with more virgins
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Despite popular belief here in the USA, putting a gun on your hip will not turn you into John McClain. Source: Reality.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
> this is going to make the lives of Muslims in Europe so much harder!
Death toll is currently 60. I find my sympathies lie more with the murdered.
To the point, militant Islam really, really wants to be in charge, which makes pretty much everyone in the world either an immediate target or a future target. It's odd that you don't seem to recognize that.
Militant Islam isn't a single entity, it's an ideology followed by many competing groups. The attacks happened because someone, or some group thought it would further there goals. They thought it would be a better use of resources than attacking the US, or Hungary, or keeping fighters in Syria (and they might be correct, or they might not be correct, but they thought it would be a good idea).
So the real question is, who are these people making decisions, and why did they make those decisions? It's odd that you don't seem to recognize that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It is the moslems who are doing the fucking killings !!
Can you liberals please wake the FUCK up?
I've enough of the stupidity of you liberals ! The shooters are yelling "Allahu Akhbar" and you goddamn liberals are blaming the French !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
For your edification, the 9/11 attacks were "from the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up dept". They've been keeping it classy for a long time. At least, nobody back then whined about it.
Repeated terrorism does put economic pressure on countries suffering from it, but I am hard pressed to think of a single case where that produced any effect that was productive to terrorism.
Beirut Embassy Bombings. El Salvador guerrillas in the 1980s. Maoist fighters in Nepal. There are plenty of example.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yes. Your point being?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As the person who wrote it, I can guarantee there was not a shred of levity in it. Where I come from, "keep your head down" is synonymous with "stay safe" -- something I fervently hope any hostages are able to do. Since some people are apparently able to misinterpret that, I changed it.
I don't know if you're a troll or not, but you are going out of your way to pick a fight on the internet and projecting some serious ill intentions on somebody you don't know.
Yeah, that will surely endear the refugees to Europeans who already think that too many are coming. That's sure going to swing the mood here.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Terrorism isn't an effective tool to achieve goals.
What? It's right out of the Big Muslim Playbook. That's exactly how Islam spread across large parts of the world once upon a time - through sheer, terroristic violence. You know that neighbor of Frances' ... Spain? Yeah, once upon a time Islamic terrorists overran that next door neighbor and set up shop there for quite a while. Islam doesn't take over and become the ruling force in a country by offering nice health plans and a school for everyone. It happens at the point of the sword, and always has. They lost their mojo a long time ago, and have been culturally butt-hurt about it ever since. That seething anger is all about getting it back.
Unfortunately for them, they're now up against modernity. Fortunately for them, they're up against politically correct pussies in most cases, which means they can take advantage of things like massive movements of immigrants over-running Europe to place thousands of hardcore fighters right where they want them, complete with free housing and food while they gear up. It was never that easy the last time they rolled in - I'm sure they're laughing their asses off, this time. It's so much easier when the culture you want to crush holds the door open for you.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
In the New Testament killing is never portrayed as honorable
On the other hand in the koran killings are portrayed as an honorable service to 'allah', as long as the one getting slaughtered are the infidels
I am a Christian and I do read my Bible, and unlike you, I do read the koran as well to see the big contrast among the two
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Yeah, in Germany. Makes sense to bomb France, then, doesn't it?
Geography doesn't seem to be a strong part of the terrorist curriculum...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Curious, have any EU anti-immigrant groups actually attacked Muslim immigrants yet?
Yes, some neo-nazis have firebombed Syrian refugee shelters in Germany. Mainstream Islamists need to distance themselves from these folks. Otherwise, this will get really ugly, really soon . . .
I would really like to see a parade of Islamists, who are saying "we aren't supporting terrorists!"
But I am afraid, I will have to wait a long time for that . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Terrorism isn't an effective tool to achieve goals.
Except when it is. We'll see if there was any "clearly aim" terrorism present today.
....so you think a terrorist attack is going to cause a country to collapse? Terror attacks have been going on for as long as governments have been around. They're meant to sway policy not topple governments.
...of SWAT is? Would be outrageous for them not to have something in place after the last thing, and regular cops should be armed as well.
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
I have to agree. The downfall of some liberal countries is that they become *too* sensitive, and when confronted with a true enemy, they don't realize or recognize it.
When someone is out to destroy you, you cannot simply be polite and act like it's a dinner party where someone had bad manners.
The "mission accomplished" was in reference to defeating Sadam's regime. It had nothing to do with terrorism as a whole.
Terrorism is impossible to completely defeat. There will always be someone who will commit an act of terrorism in the name of some group. Some people will always see wrongs that need to be avenged. The best we can hope for is keeping it to a manageable level.
Yep. Refugee shelters are being burned in multiple countries, and in particular a neo nazi went on a stabbing spree in a school in Sweden just a couple of weeks ago.
This is what gets me, is that countless people are going on TV, engaging in pearl-clutching and dog-whistle racism, acting horrified about "violent Muslim extremists" possibly crossing their borders. They effectively incite people to go burn these people out of their refugee shelters, Kristallnacht-level shit that hasn't been seen since Germany in the 1930's, marginalizing the refugees or immigrants and pushing them directly towards extremism as a defense mechanism.
Then, when an attack does finally happen - most often due to people who have been provably not part of the refugees coming into the EU in the first place - these very same racists then turn around and shout almost joyously, "SEE?! I TOLD YOU THEY WERE VIOLENT!", continuing the same pattern of racism and violence.
I've heard quite a bit about that actually. Sad and tragic accidents to be sure. But not exactly the same as people willfully murdering civilians en masse in the streets of a major European capital city.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Don't you have a 'war on Christmas cups' to cry about? Simple minded religious lunacy is even worse when they involve violence.
Ah, anonymous coward, we meet again. Those migrants are in safe camps in Turkey, but they choose to risk life and limb in order to move to a rich country (their own words). Saw a bunch of them in my hometown yesterday, angrily protesting because the rooms in their emergency housing don't have tvs. And they don't like the local cheese and butter.
The Parisien victims did not choose to risk life and limb when they went to a restaurant, or to Bataclan to see a hardrock band. 100 hostages, 40 dead, and counting. But I guess you think they deserve it.. because they're white, right? You sound like a fucking campus totalitarian. Why don't you log in and at least show us your nick, you despicable coward.
Why are they attacking France? What do they hope to achieve?
Terror
That's why they call them "terrorists", Kent,
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Odd. It seems we are far better at that than they are. At least looking at the globe I get that idea.
What great "feats" did they accomplish? Take over a more or less useless and destroyed part of the middle east, devoid of infrastructure and centralized authority. Gee. That sure strikes fear in my heart.
Seriously, that three year old next door with his sling is more of a threat. Simply 'cause I can't even cap that little fucker without getting arrested for it. Unlike, say, some idiot screaming something in Arabic while kicking my door in.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, but something like this should happen soon, or it will indeed get very ugly very soon.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So I'm not allowed to hate both equally? What kind of false dichotomy is that? "You're against the US destabilizing whole regions, so you are for IS"? If anything, US doing away some of the stabilizing factors in the area made the whole shit possible in the first place.
You know what? I'm from a country that was sitting between the two power blocks back in the days of the cold war. We're used to being wary of BOTH sides and being wedged in between. We can deal with that. Bring it on, whoever wants some can come and get some.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why are there 90+ comments to a 45 minute old story?
You statements are simplistic, naive and just wrong.
Read a damn history book. No country in history has ever "become the ruling force in a country by offering nice health plans and a school for everyone". The Visigoths who were defeated by the Muslims conquered the country through force after they finished sacking Rome. Every country has blood on their hands. Stop being simplistic.
I feel like you want to believe that human history and interaction is a series of simplistic events, carried out by caricatures rather than by complicated human cultures, each with their own desires, fears and circumstances. It's never that simple. NEVER.
"They told me it was impossible. I replied with maniacal laughter." http://www.mydailyrant.com/
No the best hope for is that through education, and caring you can limit the numbers who support it.
The Iraqi government made of shia sidelined the Sunni minority. In response the Sunni minority turned to Isis for support. Sunnis stepped aside for isis military advances. Isis then used that to take over both groups and reprsess the Sunnis even farther.
Einstein said it best. You can't achieve peace through might of arms but through understanding. Understanding takes time.
Saddam was ho!ding shias and even Isis style groups in check through brutality. By eliminating him, we gave Isis style groups the free reign to push outward.your management made it worse.
Peace won't happen now for centuries.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
You forgot to supply the productive part.
Fine.
Beirut Embassy Bombings - Got the US soldiers from the UNF out of Lebanon.
El Salvador guerrillas - they got significant power in the government. The current president of the country was a guerrilla commander
Maoist fighters in Nepal - King was stripped of political rights, and the maoists got power in government.
You could have easily looked these up, don't be lazy.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Islam initially spread because it was very liberal (in the original meaning of the word). It is also why there were huge advances in science and culture. Eventually like most systems with riches it became corrupt and collapsed.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
You need to read up more. Yes, that is *EXACTLY* what a lot of these idiots think, that one terror attack is going to collapse a country.
They live in such a bubble they can't believe the rest of the world doesn't see things exactly like they do.
Take a look at how many nutcases are arrested for shootings in the U.S. who were "trying to start a race war" -- as if one shooting is going to start civil war.
That asshole in Norway was trying to trigger a war against Muslims in Western Europe.
How many "preppers" are there in the U.S. that believe the West is going to collapse into ruin any day now. All it will take is just the right spark to start the race/culture/religious/civil war.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Kill murder and rape, then play the victim card.
Terrorists gain access to illicit materials and arms through an international network on a level beyond the scope of the average criminal. Beyond that a few armed citizens, with no experience dealing with a crisis and insufficient training, would not only do little to help but could make matters worse, which is why the police even in the U.S. urge citizens not to fire unless absolutely necessary. Try to find a street rat criminal with a gun in Canada. They're exceedingly rare.
Should all Christians be lumped in with Anders Breivik.
There are two: the RAID (police forces) and the GIGN (gendarmerie - the army).
And yes they are involved at least in one of the ongoing attacks (the Bataclan concert hall).
People forget that Syria was once a French colony. The Syrians have not forgotten that.
Clicks?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Accidental deaths are always less newsworthy than intentional killings of the same scale. That shouldn't surprise any person with functioning cognitive faculties. There's no political motive behind a boat capsizing/bus crashing/whatever. Nobody has planned it and done it for a reason. There's just an accident cause and perhaps blame dodging to report on. Not to mention that there seems to be an ongoing hostage situation in this case. Furthermore, anything which happens frequently becomes "meta news" instead of unique events to report. There is no more of a double standard than perhaps that what happens closer to "home" (in our case on /. the Western world) is more interesting to us. Or do you think that this is covered just as extensively in Bangladesh and Mongolia as it is here?
This means that we must have actually nailed Jihadi John.
Time for Europeans to round up the 'refugees' and ship them back. The coast of Libya would not be a bad place to dump them.
Why are they attacking France? What do they hope to achieve?
One could say that Paris is the NYC of Europe. It's also much closer and easier to get to than NYC. Also, France has its hand in everything, especially North Africa, too. Who invaded Tunisia and decided to call it "France"? Who was pumping all of Saddam Hussein's oil? Who was really driving European intervention in the North African Arab Spring in Libya?
Fair enough. I was following the events as they began to unfold and they involve people like me doing things that I like to do in places similar to the ones I go to. My partner went to see the Eagles of Death Metal the other day. It could have been her. It could have been me. In that light, "Keep your head down" felt like an unnecessary flippancy in a society where guns belong in the history books not in the news.
I'm sorry for calling you a cunt. And a ballbag. See. Civilised conversation on the internet isn't dead. All the best.
How am I supposed to imagine that? "Stop the bombing or Mecca gets it"?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I have family in Paris; what has happened (and appears to be ongoing) is indeed an outrage.
Just as what is going on in Syria (and Ukraine) is an outrage.
There is a reason why desperate people risk their lives, and those of their children, and are drowning in their hundreds.
It's because what is happening in their "major cities" in many, many times worse than what's happening in Paris.
That's exactly how Islam spread across large parts of the world once upon a time - through sheer, terroristic violence. You know that neighbor of Frances' ... Spain? Yeah, once upon a time Islamic terrorists overran that next door neighbor and set up shop there for quite a while.
Generally the Muslims in Spain were more tolerant of others than the Christians were. After the reconquista, Muslims were required to convert to Christianity or be exiled. This (along with a similar 'conversion' of Jews) led to something called the Spanish Inquisition, which was not the biggest display of Christian tolerance (but you expected that, of course).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I have said it before and I say it now: This current flow of asylum-seekers to Europe is unsustainable and is destroying Europe. This terrorism is just one example of it.
Several European countries are on verge of war. Angela Merkel and the foreign minister of Luxembourg have both said this, although I disagree with their idea that allowing the flood continue would prevent those wars. Letting the flood continue just makes problems worse.
The other thing is the the flood is so heavy that in many countries there isn't free buildings available anymore. And the costs of providing social security etc is going to cost enormous sums of money which simply is not available for long term. And we know that the employment rates of these immigrants are extremely low even during good economic times and at the moment economy in not in that good shape, unemployment rates are already high etc.
Indeed. It's just a little workplace violence from the "JV team."
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Except for your house, pretty much the entire country is a gun free-free zone. You can own a gun and keep it at home, but you can only carry it to and from your Army training, courses by government-authorized firearms organizations, gun shows (which are also highly regulated), or to sell it.
You can't have your gun at a movie theater just in case James Holmes or a Jihadist appears.
Who the fuck is ignorant?
The shooters are yelling "Allahu Akhbar" ...
There's your sign.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
The "mission accomplished" was in reference to defeating Sadam's regime. It had nothing to do with terrorism as a whole.
From Navy people I know, not even that. Every time the carrier comes into port from it's six month (?) tour, it flies the Mission Accomplished banner. It just so happened that this time the President decided to fly in, have a press conference, and take advantage of it.
So, to not believe in your fairy tale I have to join the douchebag crowd? I can't simply not be part of either group of loonies?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Beirut Embassy Bombings - Got the US soldiers from the UNF out of Lebanon.
At attack on military forces? Occupying a foreign country? It could be argued that was an act of terrorism itself. Still, I'm not sure how that produced anything in the way of a real goal for the Lebanese. Can you elucidate?
Maybe it made the Syrians and Iranians who were behind it happy, but I don't see the productive part. Certainly not in the long run, especially not for Syria, and hardly so for Iran. You'll have to say how.
El Salvador guerrillas - they got significant power in the government. The current president of the country was a guerrilla commander.
Hmm, no, the El Salvador civil war was actually ended by a peace treaty. And given that the terrorism was on both sides, it's hard to say what worked. Instead, I'd say it gave people a reason to stop fighting. And he did get elected, rather than seize power. So not terrorism in the end.
Maoist fighters in Nepal - King was stripped of political rights, and the maoists got power in government.
Another case of being ended by peace treaty after mutually reprehensible acts. Really, I'd say this two cases of giving up terrorism, rather than practicing it, and one not particular productive case of arguable applicability.
You could have easily looked these up, don't be lazy.
My ability to look things up is not the same as you actually speaking your own words. There is an important distinction to it, so don't be lazy yourself. Or resentful that somebody tells you to make your case in full, rather than handwaves it.
By denying the evilness of islam and accusing those who dare to oppose the cruelty acts of moslems as 'evil' the liberals are actually lending a helping hand to those moslem terrorists
I live in Paris, 10 minutes away from some of the attacks. And I have one thing to say: you are dumb as a bag of bricks.
And that's insulting to a bag of bricks. Nuff said.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Fortunately for them, they're up against politically correct pussies in most cases
It's the gun toting macho pussies that I'm more worried about. The ones who react to stuff like this by arming themselves, increasing "security" (i.e. reducing freedom and privacy) and generally being afraid of anyone with dark skin and the wrong religion. Those guys are the real threat to our democracies and way of life.
The last thing we want to do now is militarize Paris. I was disgusted to hear a British MP on the TV tonight using these attacks as justification for the Snooper's Charter spying laws he wants to introduce. I'm not afraid, I will walk down the street without clutching my sword, and I don't need weak minded idiots who buy into all this "over-running Europe" crap protecting me thanks.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
These "chaos" attacks where a handful of attackers with light infantry weapons (IIRC, the Kenya mall attackers had an RPK or some kind of light machine gun) are proving very effective as terrorist attacks.
Where will it happen next? The US?
Frankly, I'm kind of surprised it hasn't happened in the US -- between vulnerable infrastructure, easy freedom of movement and even relatively easy access to guns, I'm really surprised that one of these kinds of attacks hasn't happened.
I would imagine beyond the sheer terror aspect, an attack during "Black Friday" might possibly cause a pretty serious disruption to the economy if an attack happened at a shopping mall. You could potentially scare away mall customers right when business wants them.
Think again.
So who is doing the shooting? A bunch of white Christian Europeans?
I understand why terrorists attacked the WTC, because America was a major power in the middle east (both militarily and culturally, and the terrorists hate both). Furthermore OBL hoped to increase his reputation by pushing around the US military.
Why are they attacking France? What do they hope to achieve?
OK, reality check: France is pounding ISIS in Syria right now. Yes, they (we) also pounded Lybia. Terrorists consider France an ally of the USA (which it is).
These guys are simply using terrorism everywhere, because that's the only thing they know how to do.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
It's never that simple. NEVER.
How much more complicated are militant Islamists than they come right out and SAY they are? Your desperate search for nuance in a movement that's entirely about (and making headway in) re-establishing a sprawling retrograde, medieval theocratic thugocracy is the perspective that's lacking historical relevance. Wake up. It IS that simple. "Let's go kill a bunch of young French people to show how much we hate exactly what those young be do, are, and want the world to be." Done. That simple. And that will provoke the necessary response, which the extremists will cite as proof that their cause is just, and, and they'll ramp it up even more.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
No the best hope for is that through education, and caring you can limit the numbers who support it.
I'm still hoping I can learn how not to die. Would be a useful life skill.
Peace won't happen now for centuries.
Something that fragile never existed in the first place.
Islam initially spread because it was very liberal (in the original meaning of the word). It is also why there were huge advances in science and culture. Eventually like most systems with riches it became corrupt and collapsed.
I wonder if all of the people who were killed at the birth and initial expansion of Islam would consider their deaths to have been appropriately "liberal."
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It's "News for nerds; stuff that matters". I believe this falls under "stuff that matters". At least, it's the sort of stuff that matters to most of us.
Are you really saying that because the crazy Catholics also sucked that the crazy Muslims weren't really so bad?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
France is a bigger power then the US is Muslim countries due to it's continued political dominance of it's former colonies in North Africa. Those states have as many Muslims as the US-aligned bits of the Middle East, and while pro-American Middle Eastern dictators risk coups for being too pro-American, anti-French North African leaders have a long tradition of being exiled by their own militaries at France's request, and replaced with someone who understands that while his title may be the same as the French Presidents, he is still de facto a colonial governor.
Moreover, France actually has a pretty large Muslim population who feel extremely isolated from the French state. They (along with the UK) are one of the biggest sources of recruits for ISIS, and in 2005 they rioted.
So the shocking thing here isn't that a group of them were so pissed that they wanted to shoot up some shit, it's that a) the French security state didn't detect their cell earlier, b) they got Kalishnikovs into a country with much stricter gun control then us.
...make the lives of Muslims in Europe so much harder!
Then they can leave.
Uhm, the people who took down the WTC were all from Saudi Arabia...
France is getting a large influx of muslim immigrants, and France enacted laws that pretty much amount to "hey, you live here? be French Arab, not Arab". That doesn't sit well with the Caliphate Crew, so they're attacking Paris until Paris conforms to Sharia.
Until Paris conforms to Sharia? You must be dreaming dear...
The Moslem population is anywhere from 5% to 8% to the total French population. Not gonna happen anytime soon.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
I'm saying you can't look at how people were 500 years ago and extrapolate that to assume they are the same today.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I have to agree. The downfall of some liberal countries is that they become *too* sensitive, and when confronted with a true enemy, they don't realize or recognize it.
When someone is out to destroy you, you cannot simply be polite and act like it's a dinner party where someone had bad manners.
Ah, yes the evil that PC liberals do.
You are so full of sh*t. France is right there bombing ISIS in Syria. That's why these attacks are taking place.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
How many "preppers" are there in the U.S. that believe the West is going to collapse into ruin any day now. All it will take is just the right spark to start the race/culture/religious/civil war.
There's a big difference between preparing for the possibility (you don't seriously believe there will never again be war in North America, do you?), versus believing you can bring it about yourself. Preppers recognize the reality that stable, peaceful societies never last forever and often devolve quickly without enough advance notice to avoid the fray. Terrorists believe they can cause that devolution.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
No, that was another shooting.
Unfortunately I have to guess as the article doesn't appear to say what the outcome was.
France participated in Operation Desert Storm aka "Operation_Daguet", which is probably reason enough for any jihadist. More recently with the large influx of North African Muslims there's been conflict with France's largely atheistic culture. See the Charlie Hebdo incident -- militant Islam lacks anything resembling either a sense of humor or respect for human rights.
To the point, militant Islam really, really wants to be in charge, which makes pretty much everyone in the world either an immediate target or a future target. It's odd that you don't seem to recognize that.
Except, of course that there has been surveys done of French Moslems (by the Pew Research Institute if memory serves well), that tend to prove they are the least radicalized and best integrated of all European Moslem communities.
You really have no idea what you are talking about, so please just STFU.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Fortunately for them, they're up against politically correct pussies in most cases, which means they can take advantage of things like massive movements of immigrants over-running Europe to place thousands of hardcore fighters right where they want them, complete with free housing and food while they gear up.
Or, most importantly, they're up against politically correct government that cannot, because morality of well-developed countries, use their full wrath to punish and exact revenge to those infidel killing our good citizen (aka nuking the shit out of them).
That may be why some dumbass like Trump are leading in presidency those day : http://www.businessinsider.com...
Elok
How do you come to that conclusion?
What about the Constitution of Medina do you find to be "very liberal" for example? It seems to be entirely theocratic, which is antithetical to liberalism.
http://www.constitution.org/co...
My theory: They wanted to take revenge for the killing of Jihadi John, by mounting a terrorist attack. Of course, he was killed by US forces, and not french ones, but I don't think the IS cares. After all, there is quite good media coverage of the incident worldwide. It seems their top priority here was to strike fast. They wanted to show "see how fast we can take revenge". And perhaps they've used france because there they already had prepared terrorists waiting for the call to strike. And I guess that preparing a terrorist attack is easier in france than in the US, at least right now.
To the point, militant Islam really, really wants to be in charge, which makes pretty much everyone in the world either an immediate target or a future target. It's odd that you don't seem to recognize that.
Militant Islam isn't a single entity, it's an ideology followed by many competing groups. The attacks happened because someone, or some group thought it would further there goals. They thought it would be a better use of resources than attacking the US, or Hungary, or keeping fighters in Syria (and they might be correct, or they might not be correct, but they thought it would be a good idea). So the real question is, who are these people making decisions, and why did they make those decisions? It's odd that you don't seem to recognize that.
That's like asking why the Nazis chose to invade Poland when they did, looking for some deep meaning or hidden complexity. They wanted to control it - along with everywhere else in the world. It was an easy target, so they hit it. When the goal is total subjugation of all targets, the rationale for which targets are selected first is sort of irrelevant.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
"Never" is a very long time.
Will there be a war next week? Probably not (99.999%).
Next month?
Next year?
In the next 10 years?
20 years?
50 years?
Have you died of old age or heart disease or such by that time?
100 years?
200 years?
500 years?
I thought when it came to the war on terror, it was mission accomplished.
Since they're still attacking American and European targets 14 years later, would that possibly suggest that our existing strategies are not working?
Well... It's a possibility!
(Much funnier if you take a Mel Blanc voice to read the above line)
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
but do the Muslims do that . . . I think not!
Many of them do, it just doesn't get the same kind of airplay wherever you get your news. For example, you have to scroll to page 6 on that Google search to find the first result from Fox News, and it is a segment asking when Muslim clerics will denounce ISIS, posted several months after Muslim clerics were denouncing ISIS.
In case you still believe that all Muslims support things like this, just walk up to one and ask their opinion, see what they say. Ask them if running into a restaurant and killing a bunch of people inside is or is not sanctioned by Islam. They will probably think that it's a fairly stupid question, exactly the same as if you walked up to a Christian and asked them if killing dozens of school children was sanctioned by Christianity. They probably just sort of assume that you already know the answer to that question, and wonder how you became so confused that you even have to ask.
There is an apparently large number of people who are willing to commit violence and self-identify as Muslims, but I think that you'll find that the majority of Muslim scholars will be happy to point out why Islam forbids what they're doing.
I'm not trying to defend any of these people, innocent or otherwise, I'm just responding to your claim that "you think not" that Muslims do not disassociate themselves with terrorists. If you pay any attention to the news, for example, you'll notice that ISIS and other terrorists are killing Muslims right now, in addition to anyone else that they think is not religious enough or doesn't otherwise correspond to the so-called correct way to live. It's the same thing that has been going on forever. "You think differently than me, so I'm going to kill you." That has been happening ever since there were 2 people who disagreed.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
I would hesitate to call islam "evil" and thereby brand every muslim as an evil person as well. I have muslims amongst my friends and colleagues, and even the more devout ones are guys like you and me, who just want to get along and get on with their lives, and who are just as appalled at these attacks. The less devout ones will happily share a good scotch or go out for beers after work. Not real muslims? If they call themselves that, they are (even it it means a mighty struggle against their more hardline brethren).
That does not mean that there are some pretty bad things in the qur'an itself (just like the bible, I might add). We should be careful to call every individual muslim to task for the literal text in the qur'an without knowing what their stance is, but we should also not shy away from criticizing the bad things coming out of islam or islamic cultures: genital mutilation, violence against homosexuals, nonbelievers, and apostates, or oppression of women, to name a few. Sadly in Europe the debate is pretty black and white it seems: it's either "muslims are bad", or "you're an imperialist intolerant lowlife for criticizing minority cultures". There is a middle ground, and it's not a compromise, but it is recognition of the fact that not all muslims are alike. Don't condemn the group, condemn the atrocities, the actual violation of human rights, and those who do the violating.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
...of SWAT is? Would be outrageous for them not to have something in place after the last thing, and regular cops should be armed as well.
Take tour pick: RAID or GIGN. Google them. They are badass, and according to the latest reports, they already killed 2 terrorists.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Well, listening to CNN right now . . . I heard the story of a guy who dragged out a bloodied teenage girl out of the concert . . . is this what Islam is all about!? Any Muslims are encouraged to answer!
You are a complete idiot. STFU.
Seriously, just STFU. And go and read about Ahmed Merabet. That guy was a courageous Frenchman.
Oh wait, you are probably too stupid to read anything that's not on Fox News. My Bad, Carry on being an idiot.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
France has really stringent gun control laws. That did not prevented Charlie Hebdo. That also did not prevented 11/13/2015 events in Paris.
What's your point? Do you want to go over the number of mass shootings in the US that also were not prevented by armed citizens?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Do you really think france will just abandon their tradition of a very liberal atheist society because of a few terror attacks? "Welp guys, it was a good run for the last few hundred years, but now its time to give sharia a try. Can't afford any more dead bodies!".
No. the only objective of terrorists is to bring terror. They do this so that they can divide the populace, and push un-radicalized muslims over the edge to make more terrorists. They want the non muslims to hate the muslims MORE by these actions (if it even was islamists, we dont know at this point). So your really just playing into the hands of the terrorists by spouting your islamophobias, and joining them on the hate train.
The correct solution is to treat this as a crime, like any other and punish those responsible. Don't go trampling on the rights of ALL muslims / citizens because of a few extremists. That is the objective of terrorist acts!!
But that's how the french would/should deal with it. Americans would deal with it by over-reacting, invading countries, and creating more terrorists in the middle east. See how well that worked for you guys? No worries, you'll get it at some point. You cant fight terrorism with more violence. It's a never ending cycle, and thats exactly what the islamists want!!!! perpetual instability.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
That's like asking why the Nazis chose to invade Poland when they did,
There was a lot of strategy involved. If they had invaded too early, for example, they risked being stopped by the allies of WW1.
When the goal is total subjugation of all targets, the rationale for which targets are selected first is sort of irrelevant.
It's definitely not irrelevant. If Germany had hit France before they had sufficient force to win, they wouldn't have pushed Britain out of the continent. Moves must be made after they are prepared.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
France has really stringent gun control laws. That did not prevented Charlie Hebdo. That also did not prevented 11/13/2015 events in Paris.
Has somebody noticed that tragedies in free gun zones occur not when people are not armed, but when the right to bear arms is limited. Because criminals do no care about zones.
My dear imbecile: you can kiss my ass.
Go back to watching Fox News, you are a complete idiot.
Pick a country and kill people in the name of Islam
Cause hate against non millitant/radical Muslims in that country.
Non militant/radical Muslims become militant and radical from the new hate.
?????
Profit!
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
They provided a 'fair' trial, and had at least some systems of law in place.
Indeed, it was fair. For example, anything you said while you were tortured had to be affirmed again after the torture was over, otherwise it was considered invalid. Of course, that might mean you would get more torture, but details!
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Those terrorists do not represent all Muslims in the world. Just as Breivik does not represent all Christians in the world. You asked me to show you where Muslims condemned ISIS actions and I did; or didn't you read the linked article. There are also many Muslims fighting ISIS right now.
Sorry if the facts don't coincide with your world view.
Lets check your reasoning:
Some terrorists are Muslims
Therefore
All Muslims are terrorists.
Oh, look. It seems you just flunked Logic 101.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
"Never" is a very long time.
Will there be a war next week? Probably not (99.999%). Next month? Next year? In the next 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Have you died of old age or heart disease or such by that time?
100 years? 200 years? 500 years?
Who knows? Destabilization happens fast, and the prelude is usually only obvious in hindsight. The prepper philosophy is to admit that nobody can answer your question and to take some degree of precaution as a hedge against the risk.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
I am very disappointed that this is currently modded +5, Insightful. While I very much agree that we - as a modern, liberal (in the true European sense of the word - not the American caricature of a rich elitist sipping Chardonnay from the backseat of a limousine) society are confronting a medieval, barbaric, religious-whacko movement that wants to apply religious law (as does Ben Carson, etc., BTW) to everyone in the world, just where in the hell do you get the idea that NOT just declaring all of muslims as evil who should be exterminated becomes "Blame America First"? What kind of disjointed, fucked-up thinking can lead from one to the other? Let me guess - you watch Fox News almost exclusively and keep talk radio tuned in all the time. Try expanding your thought process to be able to hold 2 separate thoughts in your head at the same time. Trust me, it can be truly liberating to think independently.
Have you died of old age or heart disease or such by that time?
The problem with this idea is that military conflicts are not evenly distributed.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
BTW, according to some sources, ISIS is saying on Twitter that the next targets will be Rome, London and Washington. According to some news sources, the attacks in Paris have killed several hundred persons.
Fortunately for them, they're up against politically correct pussies in most cases
It's the gun toting macho pussies that I'm more worried about. The ones who react to stuff like this by arming themselves, increasing "security" (i.e. reducing freedom and privacy) and generally being afraid of anyone with dark skin and the wrong religion. Those guys are the real threat to our democracies and way of life.
The last thing we want to do now is militarize Paris. I was disgusted to hear a British MP on the TV tonight using these attacks as justification for the Snooper's Charter spying laws he wants to introduce. I'm not afraid, I will walk down the street without clutching my sword, and I don't need weak minded idiots who buy into all this "over-running Europe" crap protecting me thanks.
Yep. I am having deja vu to 9/11. When here on slashdot, several commentators accurately predicted the largest fallout would be restricting our own freedoms.
Fuck that shit! I will take a stastically insignificant attack by deperate nobodies who are doing pointless insignificant attacks because they know they have already LOST, over losing our freedom.
I think that you'll find that the majority of Muslim scholars will be happy to point out why Islam forbids what they're doing.
Like most religious books, you can use them to excuse any kind of behavior. That's why religion must be stamped out. It doesn't matter if it's Islam or Catholicism or Moronism (it's not the angel Mormoni...) it's got to go.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Couple of other things you didn't mention:
1. Muslims are simply going to force the "natives" to become the minority via population control.
With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations
2. The silent majority ARE the problem.
3. Major US News Station are also part of the problem, such as Faux News. i.e. CNNi put together an award winning one-hour documentary on the use of internet technologies and social media by democracy activists in Bahrain and then refused to show it on CNNi. (CNNi "officially" give the excuse it was only "commissioned for CNN US")
That asshole in Norway was trying to trigger a war against Muslims in Western Europe.
No, he attacked the main government building and the youth organization of our largest party that he felt was selling out the country to Muslim immigrants. While there were also some immigrants killed, most were ethnic Norwegians he deemed to be traitors. If the primary target had been Muslims, there would have been many other targets with far less collateral damage like a mosque. He wanted to incite "true Norwegians" to a revolt to end multiculturalism and return us to a white, christian, patriarchal mono-culture to prevent a future religious and cultural war. Not start one.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
France's culture is mostly christian catholic with a lot of protestant. Then come muslim in number, and maybe atheist and jew at the tail end. You are confusing France's secularism with atheism. The state is separated from religion , but that does not mean the society is atheistic.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Well, I can't say I find your reaction to be astonishing myself. Rather the opposite. It's rather expected and predictable.
Yes. I'll bet you'll find people often have that opinion of you lol
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You are confusing terrorism with armies. Those who overran spain back in , what, the 8th century were armies, just like went sent whole armies in their land to conquer it (remember the crusade? By your own definition it was pure christian terrorism - especially knowing how they massacred the locals christian, jew and muslim alike on their way there).
Citation needed : terrorism having vainquished a modern country and a horde of terrorist having the power. Muslim terrorist have no chance whatsoever to conquer a country like France. The best they could achieve is trying to frighten people, but even back decades ago when tehy were setting bombs in the RATP people were not afraid. We were just mightily pissed off that all trashcans were welded shuts.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Here's the deal. Islamic terrorism is not a "fringe movement" or a group of "isolated loners". This makes it different from the Charleston church shooting kid, the Colorado movie theater kid, the unabomber, and even the Oklahoma City bombing. It's an international movement and is the express goal of many nations, Muslim sects and people around the world. Search Twitter for 'allahu ackbar' to see all the people around the world celebrating this attack. A person who reflexively rejects any attempt to understand or protect against a worldwide message of hate and violence has his head in the sand.
Has somebody noticed that tragedies in free gun zones occur not when people are not armed...
Yes, a bunch of Fox News nitwits have beaten you to the punch trying to correlate that, and they were unsuccessful also.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
all those families who are grieving
Its a shame the $DIETY you invoke could not have used her omnipotence & benevolence to prevent the tragedy and their grief entirely.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
There are terrorist attacks bigger than this every day. Keep this shit in the idle section. Oh wait, it's because white people got killed.
The death toll (8PM EST) is now 140, making it the deadliest attack in Paris since the second world war.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Nice try at avoiding the point.
The issue isn't whether there will be another war in North America in 200 years. The issue is whether there will be a war in North America IN YOUR LIFETIME.
No. If that were the case then they wouldn't be known as "preppers". They'd be regular people with a few cases of food (MRE's or such) and water. Because they know that civil authority will be re-established within days or weeks after an emergency.
Similar to how many Americans claim to be christian. But how and why vary dramatically.
It depends on where you are as to how black and white the religion thing is. In many countries religion is not an important aspect of culture. In others it is very much so. You can go from "do not care much" to rampant Catholicism with protestants along the way.
In the UK we are technically Protestant as the Church of England was set up to allow Henry VIII to ignore the pope. Other countries in Europe have similar wierdnesses. Most due to politics many centuries ago. None of the countries enforce a religion on people. Some take it seriously, Some do not.
When you give people a choice it seems that getting on seems more important then religion.
In which since some believe in creationism, some don't like abortion under any circumstance, some get worked up over a coffee cup color, and some are anti-gay, but we always lump all of them together, anyway. Ok to generalize Christians, wrong to generalize Muslims. Thems the rules.
I'm not even a christian and I recognize that bit of cognitive dissonance in society.
Yep. I am having deja vu to 9/11. When here on slashdot, several commentators accurately predicted the largest fallout would be restricting our own freedoms.
Instead of limited our freedoms, how about we go kick in the teeth of anyone who doesn't support peace, anyone who promotes violence, and anyone who doesn't denounce this?
At the time that CmndTaco posted that, the full extent of the situation was not know.
That may be true if you take the whole XX century, but if you limit your sample to the last 25 years and take the number of victims, Islamic terrorism clearly come first. Can you mention an attack in Europe from a left wing group making more than 50 dead like London in 2005, Madrid in 2004 or Paris in 2015?
Until Paris conforms to Sharia? You must be dreaming dear...
The Moslem population is anywhere from 5% to 8% to the total French population. Not gonna happen anytime soon.
How many percent in Mosul support Daesh? How many of the Germans were truly Nazis and had a bone to pick with the Jews? The problem with militant fundamentalists is that they're willing to chop the head off anyone who sticks their neck out. And they're willing to sacrifice others to achieve their ultimate goals. If militant Islamists can cause enough terror to provoke counter-attacks by anti-immigration extremists you have 5-8% of the population caught between a rock and a hard place. When enough bad blood is spilled it doesn't matter, after WWII people hated all Germans even the ones who never took any part in the war and never wanted to. Strength in numbers is nice in a democracy, but when you're talking more or less an occupation cruelty, willingness to die and organized effort against individuals that want to be left alone means a small minority can set the agenda.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I'm saying you can't look at how people were 500 years ago and extrapolate that to assume they are the same today.
Well that's your mistake. The Catholics certainly aren't acting like they were 500 years ago. But groups like ISIS are in fact happily taking up the mantle of medieval Islam, and using all of the techniques, for all of the same reasons, that they did centuries ago. And look: it's working. Just like it did before.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It is perhaps distasteful to choose this time to be pedantic and even less tasteful to choose this moment to sling mug at fellow leftists but... people who choose to senselessly sacrifice freedom in the name of empathy with Muslims call themselves progressives. No true liberal (or Scotsman, for that matter) would do this.
And not every self-described progressive does this, obviously, but we do have a new term that has been recently been coined to describe them: "regressive left" or simply "the regressives."
Immigrants have a history of racial tension against native french. Muslim immigrants have a history of racial tension against jews. Muslim immigrants have a history of racial tension against christians. Muslim immigrants have a history of racial tension against black immigrants. Muslim immigrants have a history of racial tension against cops, women, cartoonists, other muslims.
Just a little sample
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As for motive, ISIS has repeatedly called on muslims to attack on French soil, and has already claimed this massacre on social media.
http://www.ibtimes.com/paris-b...
Yep I am sure they are all pointing their army issue guns at each other to dissuade muggings. Or perhaps it is a remarkably state controlled system. Fascist or Communist by your judgement of how things actually work. After all the guns are registered. The population is tracked. Even down to ensuring that they get enough shooting time at the range.
Because people will never miss an opportunity for a political dogpile. You gotta get your $0.02 before the facts can say otherwise.
No the best hope for is that through education, and caring you can limit the numbers who support it.
So you're likely in support of the use of force to stop the systemic destruction of schools and murdering of school teachers, right? No? Because the people that you think need to be educated out of their medieval world view and violence are very happy to use force in order to prevent that education from happening. And they operate in the middle of large numbers of more "moderate" fellow Islamists who don't lift a finger to stop them, because that would be rude.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
On the other hand, France hasn't had mass school shootings in quite some time.
P.S. Switzerland is not part of the EU.
Well that's your mistake. The Catholics certainly aren't acting like they were 500 years ago.
Your second sentence there supports my point. I wonder if you can see that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
France hasn't had mass school shootings in quite some time.
By "Quite some time" of course, you mean "Earlier This Year".
With over 100+ dead France has easily surpassed years of American innocents being shot, and France is not done yet (well the shootings aren't anyway).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
France has been bombing terrorists in Iraq and Syria. Just last week they announced they were sending their aircraft carrier in for another tour.
Exactly right. IS is striking back at France in retaliation of France's attacks on them in Syria.
See http://www.theguardian.com/wor... for example.
Note that I'm not trying to justify anything.
With that said, I do not think that it makes any sense whatsoever to try to fight religious lunatics by killing them. These people dream of being "martyred" in battle, because they think it will secure them a better spot in their afterlife. When we think that killing the Islamists will work we are projecting rational thoughts and motivations onto people who are motivated by irrational beliefs.
If we should to do something rash here in Europe (which I'm not sure we should) internment camps like the ones the US put US-Japanese citizens in during WW2 would be a much better idea. The Islamists do like their freedom as much as the rest of us. God's powers apparently do not extend inside the walls of prisons.
Without necessarily disagreeing with anything in your post whatsoever, can we please get a little discrimination of ideas and of people? You blurred these lines, and they really need to be un-blurred.
A Muslim police officer was killed while responding to the Charlie Hebdo shootings and a second Muslim helped hide Jews when those same jihadis went on another rampage in the following days. It's important not to forget that. It's also important to not forget that Muhammad killed people right and left, only pausing now and then to rape a nine year old or talk about the importance of kissing a magic rock embedded in Borg cube.
It's an evil and stupid book. People who have completely disagreed with me have gone on to do wonderful things, build wonderful things, advance the cause of physical sciences and history tremendously, etc. etc. disclaimers etc.... can I stop now? Is it ok to simply criticize people and ideas from the seventh fucking century now?
Assuming you are in the USA, the statistics suggest that the killers of white people are white 84% of the time. But to answer your original question maybe they didn't point out that it was Muslims because it's not really helpful to draw the link because people like you can not understand that "All muslim terrorists are muslim" is not equivalent to "All 1.6billion muslims are terrorists".
Yep. I am having deja vu to 9/11. When here on slashdot, several commentators accurately predicted the largest fallout would be restricting our own freedoms.
Instead of limited our freedoms, how about we go kick in the teeth of anyone who doesn't support peace, anyone who promotes violence, and anyone who doesn't denounce this?
Unless there is a specific state or organization behind something, you can't really retaliate in a meaningful way.
I assume you think you know who is behind it, and that is who you want to "kick their teeth in" of without further evidence, and probably just by association rather than actual being in any way responsible. In other words you are probably proposing to become what you yourself what are denouncing. So should we kick your teeth in?
>> Do you really think france will just abandon their tradition of a very liberal atheist society because of a few terror attacks?
It's already happening.
March 2015 - "France swings to the right as Europe retrenches"
http://news.yahoo.com/french-p...
Don't forget about the refugees who staged a protest by refusing to leave their bus after the Swedish government (who has literally run out of all space after taking in a ridiculous number of refugees and is now temporarily housing people on the floors of random government buildings) tried to relocate them to a town that was too isolated and insufficiently warm during the winter:
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
Sorry for the horrible right wing propaganda source, but it's the best I could find.
Fuck that shit! I will take a stastically insignificant attack by deperate nobodies who are doing pointless insignificant attacks because they know they have already LOST, over losing our freedom.
Erm, while I do agree with your point for the most part I would like to point out that, to the 100+ people who died tonight, these attacks were hardly "insignificant".
Yes they are. 9/11 was 10x bigger and was not even remotely a significant threat against anything except our perception of security and therethough our own freedom.
You think you're funny and clever of course...
How about we start with this guy:
http://nypost.com/2015/03/23/i...
When Ayatollah Khamenei comes out and says publicly that attacks on civilians are unacceptable and he publicly denounces all terrorists and calls for no attacks against civilians, then I'll be impressed...
That is an indication that maybe you should change, focus on the major points instead of nitpicking little details
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The attack resulted in 140 people dead and counting, but that's not severe enough for you apparently. Because you want to see more dead white people and / or kafirs, is that it? Are you actually crazy enough to believe this is fake? Watch the footage on youtube you cretin. And stop spamming this thread with your SJW tinfoil hat BS, or at least log in so we can report you.
In the U.S., there is a much better chance such attackers would be shot and stopped before getting too far - which reverses the message the attack sends, as in the case of the American tourists stopping the paris train shooting, which painted Americans in a positive light...
Paris (and other EU countries) because of extreme gun laws preventing innocent people from being armed, are very soft targets and you can look forward to a vast increase in such attacks over the next few years.
Probably the U.S. will have such an attack at some point, but I don't think it will get as far. I also cannot see 14+ Americans in a theater being taken hostage without a substantial number of them rushing the attackers - if even 20 people had done so initially 10 of them might have died, but hundreds more would have lived.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
France just started bombing ISIS back in early September. That's one incentive. And the Syrians have never quite forgiven France for their occupation.
gun control was never about protecting against terrorism. But against crazy people and accident. It did so pretty well.
Actually cases of mass shootings in America are *routinely* prevented by legal gun owners, but these cases tend to go under-reported by the media. There was a shooting in a mall either immediately before or immediately after Sandy Hook, for example, that was very quickly arrested by some random guy with a Glock.
You're free to use this to argue that the problem of gun violence in America is thus even worse than we think, but it is simply a lie to imply that private citizens have done nothing to stop mass shootings. There is a good reason why the worst shootings almost always happen in places where it is illegal to carry a gun. Students with concealed carry licenses at Virginia Tech have spoken freely about how they had to no choice but to run because they had chosen to obey the law that day. Even the Fort Hood shootings were as bad as they were only because the soldiers were not allowed to carry firearms while off-duty in that part of the base.
Refugees are mostly women and children, since danger at home puts them at the most risk. The invaders are mostly military age men, wearing designer clothes, talking on modern cell phones with no shortage of minutes, and apparently well enough fed that they can be picky about which food they accept as gifts.
When the danger is a shooting war in which women and children don't participate, then the military age men are the most at risk.
It's odd you don't mention the bombs that France has currently been dropping to kill Muslims who want to be in charge of their own countries.
Islam initially spread because it was very liberal
B.S. Islam initially spread by killing anyone who didn't convert. That tends to be a pretty persuasive argument.
Islam was never, ever in any sense "liberal". Even in the so-called golden age of Islam when Europe was in the Dark Ages, it was still pretty barbaric. Just not quite as barbaric as Christianity at the time.
I would hesitate to call islam "evil" and thereby brand every muslim as an evil person as well.
I wouldn't. The fundamentals of islam are pure evil, in that it promotes a lack of tolerance and acceptance of different points of view - this is evil no matter how you dress it, and all islam is evil because of this.
However, many muslims are good people and don't necessarily agree with all the points of their own religion.
Can you point us to a recent (say, last decade) left-wing / separatist / right-wing "terrorist" attack in Europe that left 140 people dead?
I'm saying you can't look at how people were 500 years ago and extrapolate that to assume they are the same today.
You fail to understand Islam. Islam by its nature rejects modernity and embraces the idea that it's followers should act as Mohammed did, back in the 7th century. I'm not a fan of any religion, but Christianity has, for the most part, reformed the worst barbarisms out of itself. Islam is regressing and becoming more and more barbaric.
Oh it's a good thing this happened then because Europe was *completely ignoring the Syrian refugee crisis* up until this point, yes. It's not like they were in the process of accepting millions of applications for asylum or anything.
The irony/tragedy/whatever of all of this is it may well cement Le Pen's victory.
deperate nobodies who are doing pointless insignificant attacks because they know they have already LOST
Do you have any idea how many people ISIS has killed as they've expanded their territory? Feel free to round down to the nearest 100,000. You can include a few hundred Russians tourists or not, as you see fit.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Instead of, I don't know, letting us control our own fucking borders.
Funny how that's the first thing France has done in response, despite years of telling Britain that it can't.
Fuck them. Fuck their European bullshit. Let them have an Islamic invasion, just let us fucking out of it.
Oh, Islamic terrorism is a coordinated movement (though not as coordinated as you seem to think) but it's not the same as Islam, It's a bunch of jerks within Islam. And white supremacist terrorism is more coordinated than you seem to think, as is anti-Islamic terrorism such as Anders Brevik's.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Unfortunately, history is replete with moments where the sane have had to choose between the different flavors of douchebag. And the less-fucked up douchebags know this, and they tailor their speech accordingly.
After the Garland Texas shootings I remember saying to myself "Oh shit, the talking heads on Fox News are saying very agreeable liberally things. This is bad."
Don't condemn the group, condemn the atrocities, the actual violation of human rights, and those who do the violating.
You're forgetting to condemn the millions of people amongst who the live, and who allow them to continue to operate, be funded, preach hate and recruit. The militant jihadis could never operate without the tacit approval of many millions of their less violent but none the less supportive co-religionists.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Don't worry soulskill, I appreciated it. I checked my familly and friends are safe. The French who read this article will certainly take it as me.
Peace.
Running out of legitimate target?
Has Jesus Christ now become the latest target of your liberal SJW attack?
Well no.
You said Christianity was better because it didn't portray killing as honourable.
DogDude pointed out that there's lots of killing in the bible.
You moved the goalposts and said the New Testament didn't killing as honourable.
Opportunist pointed out that Jesus never invalidated the Old Testament, so DogDude's point is still valid.
You then responded with a bizarre claim that he was criticizing Jesus and an even more bizarre side rant about a "liberal SJW".
I stole this Sig
Your point doesn't matter when it's not the Catholics we're talking about. You do actually understand that, right?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
My total guess is it's people with ties to the middle east who are fed up with being killed by westerners.
Biggest piece of ahistoric pseudo-progressive drivel I've ever seen here. France, as well as Germany, refused to have anything to do with the invasion of Iraq. It actually soured relations with the US.
PNAC quit in 2006.
Last I heard it was coordinated attacks across Paris, including slaughtering people in a theater. Not sure how you would characterize that as an "accident".
In the Middle Ages... er, I mean the Middle East, mass murder is common and expected. In the first world, it isn't.
No we don't, we think there are bad people and very bad people hiding in these groups of refugees.
Only solution I see is to ship them all back.
The good and the bad.
Otherwise be prepared to die from some radical Muslim's gun fire just for being different.
What they want is for France, Germany, Italy, the US, Turkey*, and other non-Islamic forces* (Russia now?) to invade ISIS-controlled lands. The little fairy tale that ISIS believes fanatically is that the Prophet Muhammad predicted that the Day of Judgement will come after Islamic forces defeat "Rome" at Dabiq, a small, non-militarily-important town in northern Syria that ISIS forces fought crazily to take. Dabiq features very heavily now in ISIS propaganda, and their English-language propaganda magazine is called Dabiq. The legend states that "80 flags" will gather, where the Caliphate will triumph militarily and Western forces be defeated. They do everything they can now to draw in as many countries as possible into the conflict, believing that they can trigger the Day of Judgement.
*Not to say that Turkey is not a nation of Islamic, but they are not Islamic from the perspective of ISIS. The government is secular, a grave crime.
Except, of course that there has been surveys done of French Moslems (by the Pew Research Institute if memory serves well), that tend to prove they are the least radicalized and best integrated of all European Moslem communities. You really have no idea what you are talking about, so please just STFU.
After rampant reports of burned cars and attacks on Jews in Paris, I'd really hate to see what poorly integrated Muslim populations looked like.
AQAP was behind the Charlie Hebdo massacre, not ISIS. Some people are already saying the same thing about this massacre. It's al-Qaeda trying to stay relevant after they've been upstaged by ISIS. If they don't they'll lose their funding from Qatar and SA, and they won't get new recruits.
So the real question is, who are these people making decisions, and why did they make those decisions? It's odd that you don't seem to recognize that.
"There is no god." "Mohammed was a false prophet." Either of those statements is sufficient for militant Islam to want to chop off my head, as I said either sooner or later as they see their way clear. It is the job of civilized governments to constrain and box in militant Islam so it can't expand and chop off heads and blow people up in any wider of a sphere than necessary. It is distinctly NOT the job of civilized governments to censor our lovable albeit loud mouthed atheists to make the Muslims happy.
Consequently, the question of why a particular militant Islamic group goes murder-crazy at a particular moment may in some cases be purely academic and moot for policy purposes.
The last thing we want to do now is militarize Paris. I was disgusted to hear a British MP on the TV tonight using these attacks as justification for the Snooper's Charter spying laws he wants to introduce. I'm not afraid, I will walk down the street without clutching my sword, and I don't need weak minded idiots who buy into all this "over-running Europe" crap protecting me thanks.
For those who want more control and power, there is no disaster that they won't take advantage of to push through the plans they had all the time.
Like how the PATRIOT Act was suddenly all ready after 9/11. It'd been sitting, the supporters waiting until the public was panicked enough in the aftermath to strike.
Operation Desert Storm was the greatest thing ever for jihadists. It weakened Saddam's Baathist regime, and Baathism is sa secular ideology, it's a form of Kemalism. If you know anything about jihadism, Kemalism is its nemesis, its ideological foe. Assad is also Baathist btw, not exactly the friend of jihadists either..
>> surveys done of French Moslems (by the Pew Research Institute if memory serves well), that tend to prove they are the least radicalized and best integrated of all European Moslem communities
I believe you're referencing this 2006 Pew Research, which showed that a higher percentage of French Muslims wanted to adopt the customs of their host country than in other European countries.
http://www.pewresearch.org/200...
However, that's ten years old, and the high unemployment and changing immigration trends could have changed attitudes. I've love to see an updated report.
Fortunately, though, it is precisely the religious zealotry of the Islamic radicals that keeps them poor and weak. First-world democracy and freedom will always dramatically outperform The Caliphate both economically and militarily. And, after enough of these terrorist attacks, the SJW Fifth Column in the west will be discredited and we'll actually get serious about screening immigrants and eliminating The Caliphate.
France has really stringent gun control laws. That did not prevented Charlie Hebdo. That also did not prevented 11/13/2015 events in Paris.
What's your point? Do you want to go over the number of mass shootings in the US that also were not prevented by armed citizens?
Absolutely.
Death rate from mass shootings per million people:
Norway 2.04
Macedonia 0.377
Serbia 0.283
Slovakia 0.201
Finland 0.142
Belgium 0.138
Czech Republic 0.133
US 0.095
Yep, the highest death rate from mass shootings by population is Norway.
If you want to spout anti-US bullshit, it'd be best if it were fact-based and not pulled out of your ass.
I am hard pressed to think of a single case where that produced any effect that was productive to terrorism.
The Madrid bombing influenced the Spanish elections. They got a socialist government that quit military involvement in the islamic world.
9/11 eventually led to the toppling of Saddam. That was a boon to al-Qaeda et al (also to Iran, but that's a different story).
Just to be clear, there's nothing specifically anti-French about an AK-47. It is the rifle of under-funded underdog armies and guerrilla bands the world over, because it's cheap, durable, reliable, and easy to get parts. Rich armies like the US Army use other weapons.
Yes. As has anyone who ever watched a boat sail over the horizon.
sustainable living
The US attacks happen in gun-free zones like movie theatres and shopping malls and... ironically... military bases. (You'd think the soldiers would be trusted to carry weapons, considering it's their *job*.)
Except armed people stop killings and other violence all the time.
Can you back that up with some evidence? Sounds truthy to me.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Ben Carson does not. Where did you read that crap?
My favorite statements: "I do not tolerate intolerance" is now joined by "kick in the teeth of anyone who promotes violence."
desperate search for nuance
There MUST be some set of indirections we can cobble together to tie this to Big Oil, Bush, banksters and all the other fair game I've been trained to hate. Somehow, just somehow this HAS to be capitalism's fault.
Also, global warming.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
In your opinion Jesus was the light and discarded the old testament. So that means, In your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. But them Muslims are Evil...Nothing more, nothing less.
If you missed the point your beliefs are as valid as anyones are. Nutters are available everywhere
All you grey-haired-man-in-the-sky believers are whackos.
Actually that mission created a whole lot more terrorists than it ever took care of.
You may like being irresponsible, but respectable news organizations don't report who it is until they know who it is. Not that CNN et all have been respectable for awhile now.
Bullshit! If it was true then the NRA would be screaming it from the rooftops to prove their point. The last thing you want when there is a shooter on the loose is another civilian trying to shoot the first. It's very, very hard to shoot someone even when you are trained to do it. Look at most mass shooting events and you will see that the number of shots fired far exceed the number of fatalities. And you are advocating someone else to take potshots where they can hit innocent bystanders.
And if you are going to talk about immorality then how about the largest portion of suicides in the US is by firearm. It is scientifically proven that if you remove the convenience of the method to commit suicide a person is far less likely to perform the act because they have time to cool down. For many people it is an impulsive act. So the US shows us that it's absolutely immoral to have an armed populace because 1,000s of people die needlessly every year.
Which just motivates zealots from outside France to stir things up, to try to shore up support within France. To radicalize the local population.
My point is that you can't judge a group of people based on what they did five hundred years ago. Your own point explained why: because groups of people can change.
In your original post, you were trying to say that, "Muslims were bad then, therefore muslims are bad now." That is a stupid thing to say. If you want to say that they are bad now (and some of them are), then explain that. Don't bring irrelevant history into it, thinking it bolsters your point. It doesn't bolster your point for reasons already mentioned.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
You fail to understand Islam.
No I don't. There are plenty of Muslims who embrace modernity.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So far this year in the US the police have killed 876 people through shootings.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-...
I've had several problems with Muslims, even the less devout Muslims. My first encounter with Muslims was when we were at the age of 16-17. We went on our mopeds to a football game to play against a team that consisted of only Moroccans. After the game we wanted to got back to our mopeds to drive home, but we were waited by the opposing team. They claimed we were racist because one of them got a bruise on his shin. Well that happens when you play football (soccer for the Americans) and refuse to wear shin protection. At first they weren't allowed to play the game, there are rules against not wearing shin protection in football, but a few angry words later, the referee just stopped protesting to safe his face.
Well, one of them got a bruise and that was because we were racist. Before we could say anything we were beaten by 15-20 Moroccans and they managed to steal the keys of the mopes of some of us and drove away with them. That was my first encounter with Muslims.
My second encounter was when I was 18 years old. I went to my first party organized by a students organization of our college with a couple of friends. We had tickets and the venue was sold out. We went to the entrance but were halted by a few Moroccans who showed their knife and demanded our entrance ticket, our wallet and our cell phones. When I told him I didn't have a cell phone nor wallet (I put my money in my pocket), he hit me with his knife in my stomach. They ran away with a few tickets and some money and entered the party. My friends managed to warn the first aid who drove me to the nearest hospital (that was luckily for me only 2 km's away). It still have a thick scare on my belly, that often bleeds when I go for a run (20 years later now).
And than another encounter was with a colleague who seemed a nice person and with who I started to become friends. But this all changed when the 9/11 thing happened. I thought loud out how people could do such a thing in name of an entity that doesn't even exists. After this loud out thinking, he turned in to a mad man. He started shouting at me in some Turkish language and kept on shouting and even pushing me. A few hours later I had to go to the big boss to hear I was suspended and was fired a few days later for being racist.
Of course not all Muslims are bad. But I only knew one and I had 3 bad encounters with Muslims in my life. These were not 3 out of 1000, or 3 out of 100, but 3 out of 3. In one I almost lost my life, because I was slowly bleeding to dead if it weren't for the red cross who has to assist big parties. In another I lost my only means of transport when I was 17 and I had to ask mum or dad to bring me to sports school or regular school. In the last encounter I lost my job.
I simply can't help it anymore. I have some sort of trauma. It's like those people who don't trust dogs anymore because they have been bitten by a dog. I don't trust Muslims anymore, because I've been stolen from, almost killed and fired because of a Muslim.
I also hate the no go zone for non Muslims, only 6 km's from where I live (this was a housing project for the Muslims established 5 years ago, for Muslims only of course because it was to give people who don't want a loan because it is against their religion a house). Especially for me this is a problem, because I'm pale white, blond hair, blue/grey eyes, fairly large (1.92 m). From the moment I pass this neighborhood I get called names, sometimes they throw cans or carton boxes at me, or in other words, it's not fun to come in a place so close to home where you are hated.
I didn't watch television today, I was reading a book, when I heard people in a cars using their horns to express their joy. I looked out of the window and saw a bunch of multicultural enriching young people, but I didn't know why they did this. Maybe Turkey won their barrage football game, so I looked on the internet and noticed that Turkey didn't have to play a barrage game, but I noticed that there were at least 18 deaths in Paris at that time.
These
And she said Dirka-Dirka, Mohammed Jihad, Sherpa Sherpa, Baka-La.
What else do you expect from the religion of peace.
When you have an armed citizenry you're not going to have instances where three people manage to kill 100 by just lining them up and executing them one at a time. No, a gun doesn't turn you into John McClain. But it is a confounding factor for people who try to pull off these kinds of attacks.
Yeah, but just this morning Obama told us IS is "contained", so... we have that going for us.
The volume of guns causes more deaths than it prevents. Children and fools find them and misuse them.
Table-ized A.I.
Sorry, but choosing the lesser evil does not necessarily (or rather, rarely) lead to anything good. The sane rarely had to choose. They just chose. Whether that was the better choice is hard to say in retrospect.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And blaming America and the West "first" IS a real thing--just see what the self-styled progressive left (recently nicknamed "regressive left") had to say after Charlie Hebdo. Already, I am seeing people blaming France for Syria (one of the gunmen in these attacks even shouted "This is for Syria!"), as if opposing the Iraq war and then not getting involved in clusterfucked Syrian civil war but offering to accept refugees anyway is an unforgivable sin. The West is blamed when it does intervene and blamed again when it does not intervene, and it is being blamed by both the jihadists and the Western progressive (I refuse to say "liberal") apologists for those jihadists.
Trust me, it can be truly liberating to think independently.
Physician, heal thyself.
Yes, so if they are going to treat people like shit, then let them into their country, they are beyond stupid if they don't think this is the predictable outcome.
Oh yeah, you want armed people at a soccer match between France and Germany. Tonight we're gonna party like it's 1944.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If that were even remotely true the USA would be a very different place.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Take your blinders off.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=defensive...
And the NRA is not exactly quiet about this. They have a radio news program and every episode includes news stories from around the country about defensive gun uses. (They also cover insane plea deals that repeat criminals get.)
Suicide remains a non issue. Suicide rates by country do not support the gun ownership hypothesis, and even if they did, misbehavior by group A does not justify violence against group B.
See that "Preview" button?
You're confused. It goes like this:
Person claims to be of a specific religion.
Specific religion is based on book that says to kill people who won't convert to that religion or malign that religion in any way.
There have been many, many instances where people of this religion have committed said killings.
We're supposed to let this person into our country on the hope that they DON'T actually follow their religion's rules?
I'd rather err on the side of caution and assume they will follow their rules. Once they clean up their own house, then we can talk about mingling in ours.
They don't need much in the way of weapons and tech. if we are simply stupid. So far, we are acting so stupid that if we continue at it, the victory of ISIS is a foregone conclusion.
Saudi Arabia can go first frankly...
Saudi Arabia should have been targeted (by the US) right after 9-11, or perhaps earlier. Nowadays, it has paid its way into the pockets of the leading politicians of America, so it's protected - even from criticism.
(||) Nehmo (||)
Correct. They are a pre-industrial non-civilization. They are no threat at all. Unless we just say "come on over!"
I recall all the "we have to fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over there," talk.
So what do we do? Fight them over there (which pisses them off) AND let them come over here!
The situation is so hopeless, and rationality so far removed from the picture, that sane people should probably just ignore it. There is nothing that can be done to fix stupid.
You would have to add up quite a number of US "mass killings" to reach parity with what just happened in a single incident today.
Plus, this isn't just drug gangs killing each other in the hood.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The "refugee crisis" is being used as a cover for a religious invasion. Sure there are a few from Syria but the majority of them (some estimates say 80%) are military aged males and not directly related to war zones.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Except that a very large argument in favor of disarming the people is preventing violence just like this. Apparently it doesn't work and is an invalid argument. That's why it's important to notice this and shout it from the heavens.
Armed citizens stop crimes all the time. It's just that there is a conspiracy of silence in the mainstream media to never report it. I feel weird writing words like conspiracy of silence, but we're through the rabbit hole here. These things really do happen.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
"The Moslem population is anywhere from 5% to 8% to the total French population. Not gonna happen anytime soon."
It's not that simple. If the proportion of those who want Sharia reaches critical mass in any given pocket of highly concentrated Muslims, then Sharia law it will be. And it will stay unless the French government is willing to put it down, and keep it down. Otherwise such pockets will be cancers that will continue to grow.
Correct. Complex societal dynamics are at play.
> Ah, yes, because the USA have such a sterling record of accepting and protecting its minorities... NOT.
Compared to the way most of the world treats it's own people, the USA is hardly evil. Improved opportunities are why pretty much the entire planet wants to come here.
People are free to be what they want here. That includes being jackasses.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The militant jihadis could never operate without the tacit approval of many millions of their less violent but none the less supportive co-religionists.
Why couldn't they operate?
I think that IRA terrorists, Basque terrorists, ETA terrorists, Red Hand Brigade terrorists, heck even Timothy McVeigh managed to operate quite well without needing the tacit approval of millions. I'm not sure why militant jihadis would be any different?
Why are they attacking France?
They're not attacking France, they're attacking Paris. Would have been easier to attack and run in a smaller city, they chose Paris because of the symbol.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
There is something to fix stupid. Whether it is available to you depends mostly on your local gun laws.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Import hundreds of thousands of people in an effort to destroy the idea of "countries" so it makes control easier for the life of the typical Globalist.
Sit back and watch as countries implode.
Where is the popcorn?
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Oh, so that's why 16% — one in six — of the French support ISIS, you despicable Islam apologist! http://www.newsweek.com/16-fre...
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
everywhere the you find moslem they kill
If you replace 'moslem' with 'human', I think you have a 100% accurate statement.
Why is is that every racist dumb-ass on the Internet is out tonight? Look, the problem isn't Muslims, its extremist religion. Doesn't matter what god people pray to, there are always a few fucked up idiots who have to take it too far, and Islam is no different than Christianity in that regard.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Those terrorists do not represent all Muslims in the world.
Bullshit! I live in a country that has a high percentage of Muslims , , , why do you want to commit the crimes of Muslims on innocent Protestants= - - -- ?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Why couldn't they operate?
Because we're talking about a group (ISIS) that employs huge fleets of vehicles, operates oil facilities and transportation systems, conducts international banking, and involves tens of thousands of people operating in the open. They are awash in cash, and have the vocal support of people across the middle east and in little hotspots of insanity around the world. If Timothy McVeigh had been operating with thousands of other people and hundreds of millions of dollars while boasting about what he'd done and would do next ... you really think he'd be "operating?"
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
In your original post, you were trying to say that, "Muslims were bad then, therefore muslims are bad now."
Don't tell me what I was trying to say. Just read what I actually said.
Muslims were bad 500 years ago, and the ones who are acting that way to day ARE still bad. You really need that explained to you in clearer language than I first used? I reasonably assumed that you are able to parse the conversation in the context of knowing some basic history and knowing some current events. If you're foggy on either of those, you've got more catching up to do before carrying on with this conversation. If not, then my remarks are perfectly in context and you know it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The volume of guns causes more deaths than it prevents.
Except that there are more guns in private ownership now than there were 30 years ago, and murders of all kinds - including those involving guns - have been going down every year. They are lower now than they have been since the 1980's. Multiple studies show that self-defense use (including simple brandishment) occurs thousands of times per month, greatly exceeding the number of times criminals use guns to kill victims.
Yes, children find guns. And also poisons. And the car keys. And more of them die falling down stairs or in sports accidents than through the use of any weapon of any kind. If the ongoing huge uptick in personally purchased guns were the cause of the sorts of things you describe, why are the numbers of such events going down? Please be specific.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Doesn't that make them cowards then for fleeing when they should be fighting for one of the sides?
You tell me which side they should be fighting for.
You forgot to mention taking it to a rifle range for fun or competitive matches. Recreational shooting is legal in Switzerland. Like the US its sort of popular.
So, to not believe in your fairy tale I have to join the douchebag crowd? I can't simply not be part of either group of loonies?
Yes, you can be in your own offensive loony douchebag camp all of your own!
The Old Testament's laws are explicitly invalidated, though I can't find the citation right now for the most direct time. While Jesus himself did not say as much, it was a very early and major debate which is documented through its (original) end in the New Testament, with what could be interpreted as God going "Sorry I thought you guys didn't need to be told the old covenant was complete." In fact, one view is that the entire point of the OT laws was to prove that it was impossible to be a perfect person--you couldn't be good enough to get away without asking and receiving forgiveness--while the NT God basically offers up an alternate option of "Automatic forgiveness on request, please try to keep the list down."
I should note, it doesn't even take being Christian to know this, as my raised-Pagan SO confirms; it's pretty basic, and something you have to know about in detail if you're studying the religion's history because parts of that theological debate are still important today.
you're closing your eyes to the true depth of the islamic terrorism problem if you insist on seeing it as a bunch of jerks instead of how it really is, a cultural and political movement.
Analogy time. Let's say there's a fraternity on campus known as the rapey fraternity. The leaders encourage and endorse date rape. Members of the fraternity cheer on social media whenever date rape is reported in the media. You know a guy in the fraternity who is a very active participant. Goes to all the meetings, goes to all the parties, wears the fraternity sweatshirts around campus, all that stuff. You don't know him personally, but isn't it reasonable to be wary of this guy? would you want your sister or daughter dating this guy?
Many strains of fundamentalist islam are like this rapey fraternity. Hate and violence are so infused into the core of the sect, and infused into the religious teachings themselves, that I think if you are american or european it's perfectly reasonable to be wary of somebody who chooses to associate themselves with this sect.
Guess which country in the EU doesn't keep track of violent crime stats because there is NONE?
Switzerland isn't in the EU. The second part of your statement is equally stupid. Friends of mine do work in the Bundeskriminalpolizei over there and always have funny stories about the creative use of agro-forestry machinery to get rid of bodies.
Crime in Switzerland
In 2014, There were a total of 41 murders in Switzerland and had a murder rate of 0.49 per 100,000 population, the lowest raw figure and lowest rate for 33 years, since the start of the nationwide coordinated collection of statistical data
If anything, US doing away some of the stabilizing factors in the area made the whole shit possible in the first place.
The Soviet Union. Afghanistan. Ring a bell? Soft-pedaling the excesses of the Soviets again?
You know what? I'm from a country that was sitting between the two power blocks back in the days of the cold war.
Where you're "from" seems to be a function of what is advantageous in any particular discussion.
Bring it on, whoever wants some can come and get some.
As I recall you don'[t live there any more, the Bundeswehr isn't what is used to be, and neither is the volk.
I wonder which way the Greens will go - deplore the attack? Declare solidarity with the Islamists and their anti-imperialism? Hard to say.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Or abandon the religion.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
When was the last time a Christian, a Jew, or an atheist flew a plane into a building full of people while praising their God? Fuck them. This shit keeps happening over and over again, and every single time some idiot comes out and starts telling everyone that "they're not all like this". I don't care. A sufficient percentage of them I so ass backward that we need to do something about all of them at this point.
OK, reality check: France is pounding ISIS in Syria right now. Yes, they (we) also pounded Lybia. Terrorists consider France an ally of the USA (which it is).
These guys are simply using terrorism everywhere, because that's the only thing they know how to do.
Sorry, but that is bullshit. France has only been bombing Syria for six weeks and these attacks were almost certainly being planned long before that. Al Qaida had plots for attacks like this broken up in Europe five years ago:
'Mumbai-style' terror attack on UK, France and Germany foiled - Tuesday 28 September 2010
CIA foils Mumbai-style terror plot on Europe with series of drone strikes on militants in Pakistan - 29 September 2010
It takes months or years to plot and prepare for attacks like this. It takes two seconds to claim that it is because of "Syria."
The members of ISIS certainly know more than terrorism. They have put at risk the government of both Iraq and Syria, presenting a serious challenge to their armies in the field. They are using terrorism in France because that is what they can do . . .for now.
The Islamist extremists want France to convert to Islam, just like they want every other country to do.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Considering there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the world if what you say was true non-Muslims would be in big trouble.
why do you want to commit the crimes of Muslims on innocent Protestants
This is funny. There are no "crimes of Muslims". There are crime of people who call themselves Muslims. By the way what are your protesting?
Well, we bombed the hell out of France on the way to Germany. I guess there's some precedent. They're just working their way to the Rhine, they'll go a bridge too far, and camp for the winter. Where, Germany will sneak up on them (and they'll be surprised, yet again) by stomping through the Ardennes (spelling?). The terrorists will finally defeat them at the Battle of the Fat People and cross into Germany in the spring. Then the Russians will rape Berlin while drinking heavily and stealing anything not nailed down.
(I've seen this movie.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
But why keep them? That is what is so insane about all of this. We keep wanting to fight them, at the same time as letting them in to our fucking countries. Kick them out! And keep them out. Then leave their fucking countries alone. Why is this so impossible for people to figure out? There are 2 choices, and only two choices:
1. Exterminate every Muslim (if you want to solve the problem, while simultaneously proving ourselves even worse barbarians)
2. Separate the west from Islam (if you want to solve the problem with the sincere intention of minimizing violence in general)
The following is not a choice that will work, as it is what we have been doing, and it's not working:
3. Fight Muslims in Muslim nations, and let more Muslims into western nations. (more of the same)
Guess which one we are going to choose?
It is irrelevant if a bunch of irrelevant organizations condemn the actions of Muslim terrorists
They may be irrelevant to you but not Muslims. I bet you didn't even read the link. I pull some name out to make it easier;
Secretary General for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which represents 1.4 billion Muslims in 57 countries around the world,
Al-Azhar’s Grand Mufti Shawqi Allam, Egypt’s highest religious authority
Nabil al-Arabi, the Arab League Chief,
Turkey’s highest ranking cleric, Mehmet Gormez,
Saudi Arabia’s grand mufti, Abdulaziz al-Sheikh, the country’s top religious authority
And there is no central authority to certify whose interpretation is right.
Neither does Christianity. There are many different sects each with a separate leader in Christianity including, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, Baptist, Anglican, Lutheran, etc. Christianity has leaders that corrupt the faithful. David Koresh is an example. Islam has sects as well.
Now what does this hypothesis predict? That terrorism should be equally distributed among religious followers.
Your "prediction" is false. The actual prediction would be that terrorism is concentrated in small minority sects that have been corrupted by their leaders.while most Muslims are taught peace and have no terrorist tendencies. That is what is happening.
To continue to apologize for Islam
I am not apologizing for Muslims. I am saying that the actions of a small minority do not represent the Muslim faith.
The real haters and racists, are those who refuse to admit that Islam is simply not compatible with western civilization.
Complete and utter bullshit. There have been Muslims living peacefully all over the the world since the days of Mohamed.
Your simplistic view that all Muslims are the same is completely false. Considering there are 1.6 billion Muslims all over the world western civilization would be in much bigger trouble if that were true. Here is a simple question. If all Muslims are the same then why are there Muslims fighting ISIS?
Terrorism is a statistically completely irrelevant cause of death. 2014 was the most peaceful year in human history. Recently, only 0.9% of all deaths are violence related and there are indications this is on the decline. Life Expectancy is rising, Child Mortality is dropping and life seems to be moving on. Apart from Cancer, Heart, Lungs and stuff like Malaria, traffic is a big one we should be worried about, really. Having a staircase in one's house is, for instance, more dangerous than the notion of terrorism ever will be.
Now, here come the news outlets. Apart from all this "Educating and Informing The People", "Freedom of Speecht" and "Checks and Balances" bullshit, the press and media generally exist to make money. In some cases they even seem to exist for more Machiavellian purposes, but to make money is a biggie. So when something as statistically insignificant as a terror attack happens *Close By*, the news explodes. It's like a gigantic circle jerk in which everyone and their uncle needs to fill yards and yards of column space or air time to talk about What May Have Happened, Why It May Have Happened or What May Happen Next and Which Refugees To Treat Like Shit Because Of This.
So generally speaking, the Media seem to take events like this and add to the sense of fear that terrorists would have instilled in the citizenry. As such, I'm beginning to view the media as culpable in the problem of terrorism, because any wacko can get a world wide platform by misbehaving in an instant. Social media are even worse when it comes to knee jerk bullshit and mass panic.
Which leads me to Slashdot. I think Slashdot is a haven of alternative news which offers refreshing takes on things, interesting articles, sometimes brilliant and inspired discussions. It is a news aggregator / outlet that works differently, feels differently and makes me feel at home in more than a few ways.
I am sad to see that even here, there needs to be a discussion on Paris. I came here to avoid that news. Moreover, I came here to avoid certain discussions about Guns, Islam, The Administration and Refugees. Because these discussions are boringly predictable, polarised, fraught with no-fact-debates and generally just plain stupid.
Nice out of context reference. He said that had contained the advance of ISIS in Syria in that they are no longer gaining ground in Syria. Nothing more nothing less.
You're forgetting to condemn the millions of people amongst who the live, and who allow them to continue to operate, be funded, preach hate and recruit. The militant jihadis could never operate without the tacit approval of many millions of their less violent but none the less supportive co-religionists.
That was Osama bin Laden's argument for justifying his attack on the World Trade Center. He felt that the hundreds of millions of Americans who allowed the CIA and Israelis to operate, fund, preach hate and recruit against Lebanon and the Arab world were giving their tacit approval to the killing of muslims.
When's the last time you've condemned Western human rights violations against muslims and Arabs?
Like the more than 150,000 Iraqis killed during Bush's invasion?
Out of context, is it? Apparently one of the guys they caught claims to be working for IS.
If IS is killing people in France... would you say that's a sign they're "contained" in the Levant?
you're closing your eyes to the true depth of the islamic terrorism problem if you insist on seeing it as a bunch of jerks instead of how it really is, a cultural and political movement.
Analogy time. Let's say there's a fraternity on campus known as the rapey fraternity. The leaders encourage and endorse date rape. Members of the fraternity cheer on social media whenever date rape is reported in the media. You know a guy in the fraternity who is a very active participant. Goes to all the meetings, goes to all the parties, wears the fraternity sweatshirts around campus, all that stuff. You don't know him personally, but isn't it reasonable to be wary of this guy? would you want your sister or daughter dating this guy?
Many strains of fundamentalist islam are like this rapey fraternity. Hate and violence are so infused into the core of the sect, and infused into the religious teachings themselves, that I think if you are american or european it's perfectly reasonable to be wary of somebody who chooses to associate themselves with this sect.
And let's not forget the Christians and Jews. They've been committing acts of terrorism and mass murder for 2500 years.
Don't condemn the group, condemn the atrocities, the actual violation of human rights, and those who do the violating.
You're forgetting to condemn the millions of people amongst who the live, and who allow them to continue to operate, be funded, preach hate and recruit. The militant jihadis could never operate without the tacit approval of many millions of their less violent but none the less supportive co-religionists.
So lets condemn all Americans, because they allow the US government to operate, which is performing terrorist drone strikes all over the world.
The problem is, that the world is never that easy. Many people inside the areas occupied by ISIS will cooperate with ISIS just to survive. Can you blame them?
If you look at France: They have a huge problem integrating immigrants (or at least treating them reasonable well).If you read an article like this: http://www.theguardian.com/wor... you have to wonder, if this is really about religion or about the youth having no future and then finding a reason for getting violent.
In the context of militarily taking and holding ground, which is what Obama was talking about, then yes. That is called context. Is ISIS holding any ground in France? The spread of ISIS control is contained not their actions.
Ah, I see. For someone who applies such a strict interpretation to the Bush banner you seem surprisingly flexible in this case.
The Paris attacks are no big deal. More Parisians die in auto accidents per day than from Terrorism per month. The terrorists pose no threat to France.
Except armed people stop killings and other violence all the time.
Maybe you could cite a few of those cases for the authors of this article.
http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
The NRA Myth of Arming the Good Guys
Mass shootings in the US are on the riseâ"and ordinary citizens with guns don't stop them.
By Mark Follman
Dec. 28, 2012
If only Sandy Hook's principal had been packing heat, the argument goes, she could've stopped the mass killer. There's just one little problem with this: Not a single one of the 62 mass shootings we studied in our investigation has been stopped this way--even as the nation has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of recent laws has made it easier than ever for ordinary citizens to carry them in public places, including bars, parks, and schools.
Attempts by armed citizens to stop shooters are rare. At least two such attempts in recent years ended badly, with the would-be good guys gravely wounded or killed. Meanwhile, the five cases most commonly cited as instances of regular folks stopping massacres fall apart under scrutiny: Either they didn't involve ordinary citizens taking action--those who intervened were actually cops, trained security officers, or military personnel--or the citizens took action after the shooting rampages appeared to have already ended. (Or in some cases, both.)
Gun rights die-hards claim the Portland mall shooter saw an armed good guy--who ran for cover instead of firing--and promptly shot himself dead. Obviously.
Or you could pay Libya and Turkey to block the refugees.
Paris shows us absolutely that it is immoral to disarm the populace, at any time and any place. If there had been but one or two armed citizens in the theater 50-100 more people might be alive tonight. Even just the chance that could be so, makes it criminal to keep the people disarmed.
Actually, there were two armed, trained good guys with guns at Charlie Hebdo, but they were quickly killed. A good guy with a gun can never match a trained group of bad guys with better guns and the advantage of surprise.
Another policeman, 48-year-old Franck Brinsolaro, was killed moments earlier in the assault on Charlie Hebdo where he was responsible for the protection of its editor, Stéphane Charbonnier, one of the 11 killed in the building. A colleague said he "never had time" to pull his weapon.
Again, we shall not mix all muslims with specific radical groups. The Hitler's army had on the buckles the text in German: "Gott mit uns." It means in English: "God is with is": https://padresteve.files.wordp...
But it does not mean, of course, that it was the case. Actors in a political theater use whatever is popular at the moment.
Do you really think france will just abandon their tradition of a very liberal atheist society because of a few terror attacks? "Welp guys, it was a good run for the last few hundred years, but now its time to give sharia a try. Can't afford any more dead bodies!".
If WWII is any indication then... Well... Maybe. ;-)
Seriously you crazy Frenchmen, keep your heads down. Looking at the reporting on BBC indicates that this may not be over, just yet.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
If they'd have hit France first they'd probably have had to go through the Maginot Line and that would have been suicidal. So, whack Poland first and stomp around France to the north to attack it from the top - pretty much like they've done throughout history. And France is continually surprised by this. And no, we American's aren't much better. Sure enough, the Germans came stomping through the Ardennes (only headed towards Antwerp this time) and surprised the Americans with something known as the Battle of the Bulge. I bet, when Germany starts WWIII, they do so with stomping north and then heading east, again.
Aside: If France had grouped their superior in number and ability tanks together and faced the onslaught they probably would have ended the war right then. However, tactics at the time, kept them spread out and in smaller numbers. If the UK and France had actually attacked Germany to help defend Poland then their chances of success were pretty good. Hindsight is a hell of a thing.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Today's tragedy suggests that might not be very good research.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You know that terrorists kill many more muslims in their countries (look at Daech) than wite christians, right?
The fact that these people claim to be muslims doesn't make all muslims terrorists. After all, they are humans, and you are also human. Are you a terrorist?
Write boring code, not shiny code!
The "mission accomplished" was in reference to defeating Sadam's regime.
Who do you think Daaesh/ISIL is? Remember how we walked into Baghdad and the Republican Army was no where to be seen? They just waited us out.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Lets see, Bush banner in the context of mission complete against Iraq army and Obama "containment" in the context of containing military advances of ISIS. That seems pretty strict in both instances. You are the one that considers Obama's "containment" statement to include all of ISIS everywhere.
It was called the "Republican Guard" not "Republican Army" and was destroyed in the Second Gulf War. Is Saddam leading them? Oh right, he is dead. Does ISIS control all of Iraq? Again, no. The Republican Guard was a better armed military force under Saddam and no longer exists as a cohesive unit. Sure some ex members joined ISIS but their leadership has nothing to to with the Guard.
The only references I see to ISIL in Baghdad are terorist attacks that a military guard unit could not stop anyway.
One, your categories are not mutually exclusive. Two, if the IRA or ETA had pulled off anything of this magnitude since, say, the Charlie Hebdo attack I think I'd have noticed.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I'm surprised nobody int eh pro gun lobby has jumped in to claim the body count would have been much lower in the war if only there were more guns...
Do this long enough and you are endangering the survival of the religion in question as external pressure mounts.
So as elsewhere nowadays: Short term profit causing long-term loss.
The more I think about it, and even though I do not like the thought, I ask myself if the Israeli aren't on to something.
For those not knowing: When they catch or kill a terrorist, they destroy the house of his family.
Yes, innocents are affected. Then again, how innocent are they, really? The attitude for becoming a terrorist doesn't come from nowhere. But that aside, as these people culturally value their families, it actually works as a deterence.
So what if France would through out the entire distant family of every terrorist? Children, parent, uncles, everyone. No matter how long they've been in the country or if they are french citizen. Destroy the breeding ground. It's a bit barbaric, but orders of magnitude less barbaric than what they do.
But here's one result: Relatives would rat out their sons or uncles or whatever when they suspect that they're up to this shit. I'm sure a lot of them love their family enough that they would rather see their son in jail for being a fucked up asshole than their entire family losing everything.
It didn't work the nice way. You cannot tell me there were no warning signs around these fuckers, that their relatives, friends and other close people didn't know they were become more radical, more aggressive, had new friends of no good. But apparently, none of those people who could have suspected something told anyone. Now almost 200 people are dead because blood was stronger than being a human.
It's because what is happening in their "major cities" in many, many times worse than what's happening in Paris.
Yes, it is. But one doesn't justify, excuse or reduce the impact of the other. And that we care more about events close by, affecting people more similar or even related to us, is an absolutely normal human reaction that we should not have to be sorry for.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
According to Dr. Bettany Houghes (spelling?), the Arabic/Muslim expansion across the straits, to El Andaluse (spelling, again), was pretty tame and the populace was pretty damned happy until the Catholics came and kicked them out and kicked out another group of Christians whose name I've forgotten - they didn't say a whole lot, were pretty tame, and ended up getting asylum from some dude in a castle but the Roman Catholic Church managed to Inquisitor the Holy Fuck out of them and their little dog Toto too. There are several other documentaries that come to mind that seem to indicate there may be truth in that there nugget of history.
The one I'm thinking of is something along the lines of "When the Moors Ruled Europe" or something like that. (I watch 'em for entertainment, it's not a scholarly pursuit. Thus dates, names, etc are just stored in /swap and are lost on reboot. My data recovery software's not working as well as it used to - I think it's partially due to bit rot.) It's a pretty good documentary, however. The Spanish have a holiday that they recount some of this and it's pretty much the exact opposite of what actually happened but that's how they choose to remember it and celebrate it. There's also a nice section about mathematics.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
"Good" religious people are nevertheless the breeding ground for evil terrorists.
Where is the fatwa that declares all terrorism un-islamic and cleares up that terrorists won't go to get 72 virgins and in fact they'll go to the deepest pits of hell (or whatever the islam equivalent, I'm not an expert)?
The Iranian Prime Minister was among the first to speak out clearly against these attacks, and I respect him for it. But all this jabbering about how these fuckers who are through-and-through religious nutjobs have nothing to do with the very religion that they themselves use to justify their actions is just pathetic.
Of course there is a link. Stop denying it. We can discuss the nature of the link, that there are various interpretations of the holy texts and only some of them lead to violence and so on. But I'm not even taking anyone seriously anymore who categorically denies that there is a link between this terrorism and islam. Of course there is.
What too many people don't get is basic logic. That for terrorism islam by itself isn't enough, there are other preconditions. Social inequality seems to be one of them. Cultural influences, and so on. But even if the religion is not the only reason, it is one of the reasons.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I have no idea what you could mean by that.
Doesn't really matter if you think God is on your side and paradise awaits you. And the victims are all pagans - excuse me, "infidels" - so their suffering is less important than staking a claim to your heavenly harem. Heck, callousness towards the suffering of deserving victims is precisely how you prove your personal piety and holiness, which in turn is the only thing that matters, in the sociopathic fringe of all religions and ideologies.
Because ultimately this is not about religion per se. This is about the divine right of kings vs. the rule of law. ISIS represents the worldview where the only thing that matters is power, and laws are there only to demonstrate your subjugation to authority of the god-king who's pictured as a bigger version of an absolute earthly monarch, their content being irrelevant. In Western culture such insanity has been mostly neutered with the advance of democracy, but with Islam the tipping point has yet to come.
ISIS keeps yanking the tail of the tiger because the only world where something like ISIS has a future is one where beasts prowl the earth and eat whomever they will. ISIS is, after all, a beast itself.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
When's the last time you've condemned Western human rights violations against muslims and Arabs?
Yesterday. Any more stupid questions?
That was Osama bin Laden's argument
And you can't deny that the US bred this enemy themselves. The Taliban would have never appeared without them, and a lot o the weapons they had were US-supplied.
So the attacks on the Pentagon and White House - yeah, I can see that. Accepting some "collateral damage" is what the americans do all the time. But I can't remember France bombing skyscrapers in Syria.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
It's just some muslim refugees integrating themselves into the western society. Try to enjoy the exciting multiculturalism. Otherwise you're a racist and a xenophobe.
+1
This is one of the few reasonable and informed posts in this thread, which otherwise mostly contains upvoted racist gibberish against peope who nothing to do with this act of terror. France has unfortunately missed many opportunities to integrate their minorities, there are "no go" area banlieus just outside Paris with thousands of disgruntled youth who see no perspective in their life. It wouldn't be surprising if the terrorists were recruited from them.
But how did they manage to get assault rifles? This may sound odd to many Americans, but in countries with strict gun control such as France and Germany, it is extremely hard to get weapons and explosives without getting on the radar of police and intelligence agencies. They must have had some special connection to the outside.
Indeed an interesting link you present there as proof that muslims condem terroristic actions. It shows they do but it also shows something you may not have intended. ....
The statements mostly follow along the lines of "does not represent islam or its principles", "is a danger to islam and muslims, too", "hugely damaging islam by giving it a bad image", "violates sharia law and human rights", "are crimes against humanity" ,
Yet, even though most statements come from religious authorities such as imans, muftis, ... not once I read a statement such as
"These terrorist actions are completely opposite to the will of Allah. Everyone performing or willingly supporting them (including monetarily) will burn in hell forever."
It is interesting for two reasons:
First, assuming that at least most followers (maybe not the leaders) of ISIS actually belief in Allah, such a statement might have more weight with them than some reference to "western" human rights. And it might discomfort quite some people on the Arab peninsula.
Second, I start to wonder whether the reason is that there are too many verses in the quaran saying otherwise that even these authorities cannot say such a thing without being labeled as apostates.
whoops. moderated badly.
Do you honestly believe that religion is the problem here?
Yes. I believe that religion is the problem here, as in, in this case.
Perhaps you might want to look into abuses motivated by communism, capitalism, fascism, nazism, or any of the other non- or semireligious isms floating around.
They cause their own problems. They are different problems. We should solve those problems too, but they are not what we are talking about right now. Please try to stay on topic.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
After 9-11 I saw young Moroccans celebrating in the streets. I also saw muslims of Indonesian, Turkish, Surinamese origin and older Moroccans scolding them. Young Moroccans are exceptionally troublesome here, compared to other groups. The reason is youthful bashfulness in an unfortunate mix with certain cultural aspects, upbringing, and socio-economic issues. Religion certainly plays a role, and hardline muslims (operating from mosques sponsored by S.A.) are all too happy to recruit from these younsters, but it is not the sole cause of the problems. For these kids, religion provides an identity and serves as an excuse for their actions. To them, it's more gang culture than a belief system.
The problem right now is that one half of the country expresses extreme tolerance towards muslims, giving them a free pass on many things that would land anyone else in hot water with the law. The other half has given up and turned their backs on all muslims. That's not going to work if we are to continue to live together. What we should do is to treat muslims like everyone else. Exactly like everyone else. If someone gets fired from a public-interface job because they refuse to shake women's hands, it's their own damn fault, not intolerance towards their beliefs. Your former boss should have seen that incident for what it was instead of tiptoeing around religious sensitivities. If Moroccan kids make trouble, don't go easy on them "to avoid issues with the community" as happens so often; these kids already know they can get away with murder, sometimes to the desperation of their parents. And if we want to call the nastier aspects of islam into question, we should be able to do so openly without being called recist or worse. From now on, let's ignore the "race / religion card" if they play it, and treat them fairly for the rest.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
I'd really love to see that bit where Jesus said the old stuff is out the window. I'd need it whenever someone goes "But in Sodom...", "Sorry, dude, OT, invalid". "But in Leviticus it says...", "Irrelevant, OT, doesn't apply anymore!"
I could really use that stuff!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I would not really draw attention to the Soviet-Afghan war when trying to argue for how good the US is for world peace and the stability of the region, considering what the US did during that time.
I know, hindsight is always 20/20, but, really, nobody thought that it just MIGHT backfire?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The Obama Administration has already used the word "terror" in a speech about this.
What do you call a random attack against civilians? Happy fun time? Terrorism is exactly what it is. If they had some other goal, they would have attacked some other target. Infrastructure, perhaps.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You know, they will always find a reason. It doesn't matter if France had participated in Desert Storm or anything else. France has reached a level where they can find enough home grown terrorists to perform these acts.
France sadly just seems to 5-10 ahead of other European countries when it comes to these types of problems, at least the last 20 years where I have followed the news. But most of the leaders in the other European countries doesn't have ant guts to anything about it. They run around like headless chickens.
I believe that is why we see the elections are becoming more and more polarized here, where the extreme parties to each side are gaining more votes. Voting within the big colorless grey middle have not improved anything.
I am wondering how bad is has to get before we start to grow some balls, and I feel like there is nothing I can do to speed up that progress.
And anyone who pays attention knows there was a massacre in Paris yesterday. Go it?
Europe seems to have shut down all immigration as a result of the violence in Paris. That means that Syrian refugees trying to get out of Syria and into Europe are now stranded and will suffer more than Paris is suffering and probably for a very long time as well.
And let's also condemn those Christian terrorists.
Remember George W. Bush in the White House, with God telling him to invade Iraq?
The result: 150,000 innocent people killed, and the destruction of a country.
He wasn't some kooky isolated loner. He was the president of the U.S.
And how many people did he execute in Texas?
Weather extremes, solar flares, microbial plagues... name your poison.
There is some rational advantage in having a few weeks of food and water, even if the likelihood of all incidents approaches a small factor.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I'd say we lock them into a room, offer them any kind of weapons they might want and put the whole shit on pay-per-view.
Whoever loses. We win.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We've already tried something like this a while ago. Seems we rounded up the wrong bunch 'cause, boy, did we get our ass kicked over it!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If only France had laws to outlaw encryption and better surveillance of communication so something like this would have been detected in advance!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Where is the fatwa that declares all terrorism un-islamic and cleares up that terrorists won't go to get 72 virgins and in fact they'll go to the deepest pits of hell (or whatever the islam equivalent, I'm not an expert)?
You're probably looking for the 2010 Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings.
ISIS operates in the open in areas it is occupying, just like the Nazis did for most of Europe during WWII. You're confusing resignation for approval.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Your knee-jerk liberal equivocating is as wrong as it is boring. In the USA you are very unlikely to encounter violence over strongly atheistic speech. You will get a vigorous response of (take a wild guess...) more speech -- in Texas I admit you may be yelled at, you may have some ladies tearfully tell you they'll pray for you, you may have a greasy haired evangelist do his best to save your soul, etc. However, you will not be shot or tased.
See, you're falling into a typical liberal fallacy -- "any speech that makes someone mad is hate speech and is the same thing as violence". In fact, so called hate speech that leads to more speech back and forth is an inescapable part of a healthy and diverse society.
...are the cause of terrorism?
Got it! Thanks for all that insight. Into schizophrenia.
Next thing you'll say it's all those people who were shot that are to blame.
After all, if they weren't in a public place, nobody could have shot them in a public place.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
When Ayatollah Khamenei comes out and says publicly that attacks on civilians are unacceptable and he publicly denounces all terrorists and calls for no attacks against civilians, then I'll be impressed...
I guess a statement from the prime minster of Iran is not enough to impress?
(Not sure why you think the Iran religious leaders would approve of the attacks. You do realize Iran is fighting against Islamic State, right?)
Thanks for Isis, George and Dick.
Well, for starters we have to stop attacking their countries.
Killing Saddam Hussein was a huge mistake. The world would be a much better place if Saddam was still the dictator of Iraq, or if he had been succeeded by one of his sons, or if he had been deposed in a coup by some other Iraqi ruler without outside help. Rulers like Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad are the least bad currently available options in these countries. We should not upset things by trying to remove them.
Let the Arabs do what we did back in the day. Countries like the US, or France, or really any western democracy, were not granted their freedoms and rights by some outside force.
You describe problems with assholes. Unfortunately, you can find roughly the same percentage of assholes everywhere and in every religious or ethnic group. Luckily, they are always a minority.
The vast majority of mass shootings in America have taken place where citizens are not allowed by law to carry guns and almost always are stopped when someone else with a gun shows up.
There is one case i am aware of (ohio) where someone assassinated a couple cops eating lunch and ran into a Wal-Mart where a concealed carry holder attempted to intervene but was unsuccessful and killed in the process. He did however occupy the assassins (2 of them ) long enough for unarmed people to escape and law enforcement to converge on to the scene. You cannot say he stopped them from killing anyone else nor can you say he saved anyone. All you can do is guess at how many others would have been killed if no one opposed them at all.
There are many self-defense shootings in the US that you can say did not turn into a mass shooting. However, when that happens you likely cannot say they would have either. That is because it is stopped before it gets that far.
And only stopped doing so when stripped of temporal power. I don't know if Islam can share in the Enlightenment or if they need their own version, but unless and until Islamic theocracy stops being an idea that carries actual weight within it this shit will keep going on.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I would not really draw attention to the Soviet-Afghan war when trying to argue for how good the US is for world peace and the stability of the region,
You weren't arguing that the US was good, you were arguing that it was bad, and you're doing it again while ignoring the primary mover that was the Soviet Union. Repeating an error doesn't make it smaller.
considering what the US did during that time. I know, hindsight is always 20/20, but, really, nobody thought that it just MIGHT backfire?
It did help bring down the Soviet Union, and I doubt the Soviets had that in mind when they invaded. Bin Laden and al Qaeda weren't a reaction to the US, and weren't backed by the US. They are splatter from the Soviet invasion and the existing strain of Islamic radicalism that had been growing for some time.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
What a stupid argument. Atheists in history have used atheism as a reason to persecute Christians, I guess that means atheism needs to be wiped out, huh?
Rather frustrating that whenever a Muslim terrorist attack occurs, some morons on the Internet immediately say Christianity is to blame, and get modded up.
There is a certain fix to this that exists in various Muslim countries. You can offer a convicted criminal the choice of being sentenced by Sharia law or by Western law.
I'm personally against it, though, because in my point of view Sharia law violates basic humanist principles even if it is chosen seemingly voluntarily.
performing terrorist drone strikes all over the world
Please cite the use of US air strikes in:
India
Russia
China
Japan
Korea
Continental Europe
Britain
South America
Central America
Australia
New Zealand
Greenland
Iceland
Antarctica
Canada
I know, how about you just talk about where are strikes ARE being used, it's a lot simpler. Perhaps you can also then draw some conclusions about what the militants operating in those areas have in common. And then you can talk about how, instead of simply paving those areas over into glass, which we could do any time we want, we're instead going to as much trouble as possible to hit and limit damage to individual targets that match very specific criteria.
If you look at France: They have a huge problem integrating immigrants
No, they have a huge problem with immigrants who don't want to become part of French culture, don't want to do what's necessary to thrive in that economy, and who show up expecting to be handed a nice standard of living in exchange for ... showing up. Just like is happening across Europe generally, now. Europe has only itself to blame for allowing it to happen.
you have to wonder, if this is really about religion or about the youth having no future and then finding a reason for getting violent
It's about culture. The religion in question is the organizing system within the culture that's causing the problems. The voices of that religion are the motivating features of the culture, and the fundamental features of that religion spell out how the people who adhere to it are supposed to interact with those who aren't members. That religion calls for exactly the sort of thing we just saw in Paris. It's a religious culture following the urgings of the religiously authoritative people who are given power within that culture. Young Muslims in France didn't just wake up realizing that their culture doesn't grant them a cushy existence in France, and then roll out of bed and find a backpack full of grenades and an AK-47. They're not leaving Algeria or Syria to come to France, they're bringing Algeria and Syria TO France, and expecting it to become, culturally, what they wish their own countries has been, but fueled magically with French prosperity even as they attempt to erode the Frenchness out of France.
Quit making excuses for medieval-minded theocratic thugs and their willing followers. There are poor people in Appalachia, too. They're getting even more unhappy as the EPA strangles their historical way of making a living. They aren't shooting up concert halls or lopping heads off of people they don't like.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Lol.. give up. The parent poster isn't concerned with logic or reality. He just heard a bush was running for president and had to jab at GW so he doesn't get reelected.
If he doesn't understand that another president has been directing the country for the last six years, that the Bush running is a different Bush, or that this happened in another country, He will not be able to understand what the reference was to.
I'm comparing this to Benghazi, which the conservatives are still busily wasting time and money attempting to wrap into a conspiracy. Because the administration waited a few days before declaring that attack the act of terrorism, it gave rise to an endless number of conspiracies and became the justification for conservatives to launch an infinite number of "investigations" into the incident. I'm just wondering how they will make this into egg on Obama's face being as he already associated it with terrorism.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
just like the Nazis did for most of Europe during WWII
The Nazis could never have risen to power or carried out their expansion and countless atrocities without the tacit approval and direct political and financial support of large swathes of the German population. That's exactly the point I was making about large swathes of the Islamic world's support for militant jihaddis, so thank you for reinforcing what I was saying.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So, people running away from terrorists......are the cause of terrorism?
You are an idiot if you don't imagine some terrorists are coming in with the hundreds of thousands - ISIS has said they have several hundred operatives coming in with refugees. What reason have we to doubt that, especially now?
And since they are bypassing all border controls, they can bring whatever weapons they feel like...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
For all of the numbskulls that think all "religions" (a nebulous term that can mean wildly different things to different people, but I digress) are to blame when specifically Muslim terrorists commit acts of violence against innocents, using the Crusades as supporting evidence. I would like to point out that the Crusades were not called because Christians wanted to conquer the world and have a monopoly on control of religious sites. Far from it--Christian pilgrims in Europe and the Middle East were being butchered by the Islamist conquerors. Yes, many crusaders committed evil acts. Yes, even an entire crusade (the fourth) went wary, when the leader took the many and ran with it to attack a fellow Christian city for spoils. But none of this is evidence that Christianity is inherently violent or terroristic; all it shows is that Christendom found a common ground (i..e their shared faith) to join forces and protect themselves from ruthless invaders (the Abbasid Caliphate) that mistreated their own in the lands they attacked.
tl;dr the Crusades have just about nothing to do with ISIS and are totally incomparable.
What apartheid are you talking about?
You do know that Muslims and Arabs have been in the Israel government from it's start and continue to today right? Civilized Palestinians live and thrive within Israel's borders.
Criminals do care about zones, or rather, their borders. The fact that mass shootings are happening in mainland Europe is traceable largely to the recent entrance of eastern European countries to the EU, countries which still have large stockpiles of Soviet-era weaponry and little history of gun control. As Schengen is a border-free zone, bringing such countries in undermines the gun control at the borders.
Note that the UK, which is a part of the EU but is not a part of Schengen, does not seem to have the same issue at this time. Because it's an island which makes it easier to enforce gun controls.
The new EU countries will eventually track down and get rid of the stockpiles of Kalashnikovs that are still floating around eastern Europe, as they've agreed to do so when they joined Schengen and it's not like any of those places love Muslims. But it may take a long time. That's OK though. I don't see any other way to push forward the boundaries of relatively low-gun-number zones.
Like the more than 150,000 Iraqis killed during Bush's invasion?
Almost all of whom were Muslims killed by other Muslims with whom they'd been having a sectarian bloodletting for centuries. Those Iraqis?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If you were going on a mass shooting rampage and i was armed and shot you after your second killing, it would be considered a mass shooting. So if you are looking for mass shootings, you are not really going to find them in this light.
So i have to ask. What is so magical about police that show up ten minutes later and either capture or kill the shooter or the shooter decides to kill himself verses a person seconds away causing the same other than the amount of people dead?
You do have a point Sir Neville Chamberlain.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Islam is evil because religion is evil. There never was a more harmful plague on mankind. Killing each other because MY imaginary guy in the sky is better than yours. What nonsense.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
You're forgetting to condemn the millions of people amongst who the live, and who allow them to continue to operate, be funded, preach hate and recruit.
Stop talking about the GOP that way
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
its easy to say anything on the internet when you dont bother to provide any proof to back anything up
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Because it's not feats that are the important thing in caliphates. It is feet. Of the faithful. Of which there soon will be sufficient in Europe to beat it at its own game: democracy. Then feats will be relegated to history. Except the feats of the nether regions.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
I'm surprised nobody int eh pro gun lobby has jumped in to claim the body count would have been much lower in the war if only there were more guns...
May I present to all and sundry the latest brain fart tweeted by Newt Gingrich for your consideration:
Imagine a theater with 10 or 15 citizens with concealed carry permits. We live in an age when evil men have to be killed by good people
-- Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) November 13, 2015
Didn't take him long after the attacks to publicly shame himself once again.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
So you at least admit that there's no side worth fighting for.
The Paris attacks are a huge deal. Unlike Syria, France is not in the middle of a fucking civil war. Terrorists post a threat to the people of France, who are not currently at war with each other.
More here.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
There are tons of news sites covering this, and doing it a hell of a lot better than providing links to a worthless propaganda factory like CNN.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Are you a nihilist or a sociopath "everyone will die eventually and people have been killing people ever since Abel and Cain. So let's not rush to judgment or take action to protect ourselves"
Really? We have heaps of armed citizens over here and instead of no violence we're topping the charts with it.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
And then you can talk about how, instead of simply paving those areas over into glass, which we could do any time we want,
So this isn't about doing what is right or will lead to a better world, but being stronger and forcing everyone into submission? I got the bigger club: Do what I say. This isn't the best way to instill confidence that the "western way of living" is better or more moral.
we're instead going to as much trouble as possible to hit and limit damage to individual targets that match very specific criteria.
What specific criteria? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... http://www.businessinsider.com... Is there a court that can be called to question drone strikes? What happens if somebody does not adhere to these "specific criteria"? Any consequences? No? So these are just arbitrary killings.
Also the words "as much trouble as possible to hit and limit damage" strike me as caustic. A proper way would be to arrest those people and give them a proper trial. But obviously that is far to much trouble.
No, they have a huge problem with immigrants who don't want to become part of French culture, don't want to do what's necessary to thrive in that economy, and who show up expecting to be handed a nice standard of living in exchange for ... showing up.
Well you could make them feel more welcome:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhfGcXeFCtU
http://www.france24.com/en/20150120-calais-france-migrants-denounce-police-brutality-hrw
If you treat people like shit, it is fairly likely that they won't want to integrate.
Just like is happening across Europe generally, now. Europe has only itself to blame for allowing it to happen.
Blame ourselves whatfor? In my town we got a great new restaurant opened by a woman from Iraq which is great. I worked with a software developer from Afghanistan (which didn't make any difference whatsoever). The CEO of a company I worked for was from Turkey. Many of the people from the middle east are integrated into society without any problems.
It's about culture. The religion in question is the organizing system within the culture that's causing the problems. The voices of that religion are the motivating features of the culture, and the fundamental features of that religion spell out how the people who adhere to it are supposed to interact with those who aren't members.
Just take a look at history. Christianity has been used to justify the inquisition, burning witches, the crusades, wars between catholics and protestants. Only in the last 200 (?) years it has been more or less a religion of peace. Homosexuals have been a problem for the church for years, but now it's changing. Divorces are getting more and more accepted.
Since the bible hasn't changed in all those years, this somewhat indicates that religion is more a backwards reflection of society, than it is coining society.
Quit making excuses for medieval-minded theocratic thugs and their willing followers.
I don't really care all that much about those thugs. They are a lost cause. Most of the actual terrorists are already dead anyway. And I just hope the police catches whoever is behind this (organization/financing) and locks them up for good.
What I care about is that we (as the western world) do not response in a likewise medieval manner and start another pointless war or kill more civilians. I think you can see in Israel / Palistine what happens if fundamentalists on both sides work together to create a stable environment of mutual violence.
Also I care about the next generation of immigrants which has not been radicalized yet, and where we should try to help then integrat
the Germans came stomping through the Ardennes (only headed towards Antwerp this time) and surprised the Americans with something known as the Battle of the Bulge.
In that case it caught them by surprise because it was a foolish move lol. The Germans didn't have the forces necessary to seize initiative while also defending, and indeed, the allies were quick to punish them for their over-extension.
bet, when Germany starts WWIII, they do so with stomping north and then heading east, again.
O_O
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So this isn't about doing what is right or will lead to a better world, but being stronger and forcing everyone into submission?
No, it's about stopping people who DO think that way, and who will only be stopped through the use of force. I know you'd like to wish those sorts of people away, but they exist. Some of them visited Paris last night, and hundreds of thousands more are now taking over large chunks of Iraq and Syria.
I got the bigger club: Do what I say
When "what I say" is "stop trying to remake the world in your twisted medieval vision by slaughtering innocent people" then yes, that's a reasonable thing to say.
This isn't the best way to instill confidence that the "western way of living" is better or more moral.
What? We already know that. Plenty of people in the middle east already know that representative, constitutional democracy is better. But those are exactly the people that are being killed by regimes like Assad's and groups like ISIS. The sure sign that it's a better way of living is that people who think women should be killed for teaching girls to read are trying to stop it.
If you treat people like shit, it is fairly likely that they won't want to integrate.
They are treated like shit BECAUSE they don't want to immigrate. Because they are giving housing in public facilities, and then spit on women as they walk by. Because they are given food bought and paid for by their hosts, and then protest in the streets because the food isn't the same as back home. Because they destroy property as they show up, leave mountains of trash behind them, and treat places like Greece or France like doormats on their way to what they think will be an easy life in Scandinavia or the UK. Because a high percentage of them are lying about who they are and where they're from and why they're there (see the example of one of the murderers last night in Paris - a "refugee" who came in through Greece just a month ago).
And I just hope the police catches whoever is behind this (organization/financing) and locks them up for good.
As pointed out, the people behind this number in the hundreds of thousands, and get cultural and financial and logistical support from people who number in the millions.
Also I care about the next generation of immigrants which has not been radicalized yet
The next generation of immigrants - almost entirely young men their 20's who are NOT from Syria - are, right now, swamping Europe by the hundreds of thousands. They are ALREADY radicalized.
Of course the immigrants have to change their ways.
Look at the seasonal burning of parts of Paris. Those immigrants are (pretending to be) mad because the French won't change their ways and allow growing parts of that country to become self-contained, Sharia-run Muslim ghettos. They show up demanding that their host countries change to suit them, not the other way around. That problem is now epidemic in the very countries that have gone the farthest to extend such a welcome. They are already regretting it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Hmm, no, the El Salvador civil war was actually ended by a peace treaty. And given that the terrorism was on both sides, it's hard to say what worked.
It's not hard to say what worked. It's hard for you to say what worked because all you did was read the Wikipedia article on the subject. I could describe the conflict in greater detail, discuss the thousands of pages I've read on the topic and more. We could have an interesting conversation, with both sides bringing interesting facts to the conversation.
But what's the point? You'll just try to argue about it. What interesting facts can you bring about the El Salvador civil war? I'm here to have interesting conversations and learn, not to argue.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Well, that depends mostly on whether you consider the CIA part of the US. By that logic the US also never backed Iran to fund right wing rebels in Nicaragua. :)
Which is not to say that it was bad. Both things seemed right at the time, and we should be glad that the deal with the Contras didn't backfire as badly as the one with the Islamist fundies did. Then again, the Contras never really cared about anything outside of Nicaragua.
Official doctrine and "the right thing to do" is not always the same. And "the right thing to do" is certainly not always something you can morally justify. I just don't think that leaving Al Qaeda out in the cold after the cold war ended and they were no longer useful was a good move. It does leave a quite sour taste if you feel used by someone you considered an ally.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Islam had their Enlightenment. They helped give the Enlightenment to the West. They continued the study of Greek and Roman learning when most of Europe was illiterate.
If you were to compare Christianity with Islam at the turn of the 1st millenium, 1000 CE, the Islamic world was way ahead of Europe in everything that the enlightenment valued: they were more secular, tolerant, advanced in science, technology and commerce. They gave the Jews a refuge from European anti-Semitism.
Al-Haytan wrote a book that gave Newton his understanding of optics. Muslim doctors (and Jewish doctors, whom they accepted as colleagues) developed modern medicine.
One of the reasons the Islamic world didn't reach a modern state of development today was the imperialism of Europe and the U.S. Whenever they developed self-rule, the West overthrew their government and set up a puppet state. That's what happened in Iran, when the CIA overthrew Mossadegh. The U.S. supported Saudi Arabia, at the time they promoted Wahhabism. We overthrew the Afghan socialist government and put the Taliban in power.
If you were going on a mass shooting rampage and i was armed and shot you after your second killing, it would be considered a mass shooting.
I haven't been able to find any of those incidents in which an armed killer was shot by gun-carrying bystanders after the first or second killing. Could you cite a couple?
ISIS keeps yanking the tail of the tiger because the only world where something like ISIS has a future is one where beasts prowl the earth and eat whomever they will. ISIS is, after all, a beast itself.
When you have a rabid dog, generally you should call the ASPCA and have it put down.
Not out of hate, but because it is the right thing to do.
No, because the PM of Iran is not actually in charge.
No, I think Muslims, Christians and Jews are equally likely to commit terrorism and mass murder.
"Juden und Heiden hinaus!" so duldet der christliche SchwÃrmer.
"Christ und Heide verflucht!" murmelt ein jüdischer Bart.
"Mit den Christen an SpieÃY und mit den Juden ins Feuer!"
Singet ein türkisches Kind Christen und Juden zum Spott.
Welcher ist der Klügste? Entscheide! Aber sind diese
Narren in deinem Palast, Gottheit, so geh ich vorbei.
--Goethe
The closest I've seen to 19th-century Nihlism is the U.S. C.I.A. and the right-wing hawks, who managed to influence GWB. A lot of their policies come down to, "Let's destroy a functioning society, and a new pro-U.S. free market government will magically rise up from the ruins." That didn't work too well in Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or Iran. Or Latin America. Or Asia.
1. You can have your full auto ak47 and myself with 7mm rem mag or similar bolt action. Who can pick who off at 800+ yards?
2. look at "bump firing" semiauto videos on youtube.
So that's a second reason why the French should be more selective about who they allow in.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And you just got your PhD in strawmen.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Correlation is not causation. A "link" isn't proof. Islam, like Christianity, doesn't have one leader who can just issue fatwas. Unless you think Fred Phelps speaks for all Christians.
What, am I supposed to give you a full essay, while your own responses are terse and unsubstantiated?
You don't need to write a full essay. You can say things that would be patently obvious to anyone familiar with the situation. The FMLN reached their goals, and one of their commanders is in charge of the country now.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
We condemn all kinds of terrorism. Who is doing damn. http://www.antalyalievdeneve.c...
Firmamız, müÅYterilerine Ãzellikle evden eve taÅYımacıl
Do you follow all the rules of your religion or ethnicity? I'm part German, does that mean I'm going to start following the rules of Mein Kampf?
See, Western society believes in religious freedom. That means you can believe anything you want without repercussions.
Divide victims by perpetrators and you are probably at par. And why do gang killings make less of a difference to you?
Moslem? How about I pay attention to you when you stop spelling things like my grandpa.
so seriously, you can't unequivocally denounce a horrible crime? you can's say, "that is a shocking crime" without equivocating?
so seriously, you can't unequivocally denounce a horrible crime? you can's say, "that is a shocking crime" without equivocating?
No, I can't denounce a horrible crime against us without also pointing out that we committed equally horrible crimes against them.
I can't accept the narrative that we are the good guys and they are the bad guys (which GWB actually believed).
These are tit-for-tat crimes. Retaliation is a universal principle. We bomb Lebanon (through our Israeli allies), and Osama bin Laden bombs us. The French bomb Syria, and ISIS retaliates against the French.
We can't stop these crimes unless we stop provoking them with our original crimes.
Do you denounce the Iraq war? Do you think American lives are more valuable than the Iraqi lives we ended in our war against Iraq?
Unfortunately, being homicidal is a lot harder to spot than being rabid, at least before it's far too late. So unless you're willing to accept a lot of collateral damage you can't use the same means to combat it. And if you are willing to accept that damage you're on your way of becoming ISIS by adapting their values, which makes it easier for them to infiltrate our culture and subvert it from within. Which is the only way they could possibly win, and thus likely their goal with these attacks.
Rabies is a good analogy, actually. Extremism is a kind of memetic disease. The problem is it doesn't spread through bites but by making its carriers act in ways (terrorism) that provokes responses that replicate the meme in new hosts. And beyond current issues, Information Age keeps making it easier for memes to spread, so we'll need to develop an effective way of combatting destructive ones without sacrificing our cultural values or our freedom.
Swords stopped being effective weapons when someone invented guns. Guns are quickly becoming ineffective in an era where a single madman can kill a hundred people and be replaced by new cannon fodder as soon as he goes down. At the risk of sounding superstitious, the real enemy isn't ISIS members or even the organization itself, but rather the spirit behind it, which lets people do absolutely disgusting crimes - not just terrorism but also kidnapping schoolgirls for sex slaves, mutilating people, etc - and feel proud and pious about it. And sadly, spirits can't be killed by bullets. Islamic terrorism didn't die with bin Laden, it didn't die with Jihad John, and it won't die no matter how many of their ilk are killed.
tl;dr We need to figure out how to inoculate potential recruits against being recruited, so ISIS and other terror groups run out of cannon fodder and bleed away.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
"These terrorist actions are completely opposite to the will of Allah. Everyone performing or willingly supporting them (including monetarily) will burn in hell forever."
Perhaps Islam is not a religion based on fear like Christianity. Maybe not doing something because it is wrong is more important than not doing something due to the consequences. Perhaps the Imams also do not think they speak for Allah as Christianity seems to so often.
I would be willing to bet my house that some of the kids he missed on that island are in the forefront of the cheerleaders of the current European invasion
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Me, I would say that it was the outside powers, including the US, wanting to end the conflict, if anything because of the collapse of the Soviet Union and no longer having quite the perceived need to prop up a government that itself practiced substantial acts of cruelty and terrorism of its own, which proved to be ineffective. And let's face it, a free and democratic society was hard to argue against. So no, I don't take the contention of the effectiveness of terrorism being an automatic assumption in resolving the civil war in El Salvador.
If the FMLN hadn't continued their campaign, the US wouldn't have needed to 'encourage' the government to make peace.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
First you must wait at least 48 HOURS!
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
what do you have to wait for
Who do you want to get in. Who do you want to let out. The second part is scary. Justified as they are nutters who need to be apprehended. But a big problem for freedom of movement in the EU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement)
And sadly, spirits can't be killed by bullets. Islamic terrorism didn't die with bin Laden, it didn't die with Jihad John, and it won't die no matter how many of their ilk are killed.
Just to address this point... that is true, using the means we are currently employing to deal with the problem. All our bombs are just making the problem worse...
That being said, I don't see Saudi Arabia's army fighting ISIS, I don't see Iran's army fighting them, and I don't see anyone but the West doing anything about it...
If peaceful Muslims don't wish to be lumped into the same group as the bad ones, then they need to start addressing this problem, not the West.
There may come a point where these attacks and the threat of ISIS grows to the point where average people in the West turn to their leaders and say, "do something about this, make it stop, whatever it takes..."
Islamic terrorism can of course be killed by violence, you simply have to kill all Islamic people. In the world. All of them, then you won't have any more of them.
It might reduce the world's population by a billion or two or three, but it does solve the problem, if in a horrible, terrible way.
So before you claim that bullets don't solve the problem, consider that nuclear weapons might.
I am not endorsing that as a solution, I'm simply pointing out that if you kill everyone who is your enemy, then you no longer have enemies. If the Muslim world doesn't get a handle on these extremists and put a stop to it, the West will do it for them, and the response will only grow until it turns into all out war.
A war the West would clearly win.
O_O
It could happen! And, for some definition of "start." WWII really, kind of, sort of, started with Japan back as early as the late 1920s. WWI was a Serbia and Austria thing but then a few other countries decided to help and that then bloomed into everyone trying to get a piece. In Europe, well, we could even say that it was Italy that started that theater rolling, for WWII. It's pretty hard to pinpoint exactly where some of these events began, humans aren't a very good source for formal studies.
But, damn it, it could happen! The dastardly German folk could, once again, stomp up and around the top of France, kick the low-land countries in the jimmies, and then sack France for fun and profit. (I'm still working on why, exactly, they'd do so but I'm sure I'll come up with a good reason - eventually.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You have to wait for 48 hours! Dear God, don't you understand?!? FORTY-EIGHT HOURS!
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
wait 48 hours for what?
Meh. Us violence is mostly drug dealers shooting each other. That's going to happen whether or not guns are illegal.
True, but if you have a correlation, you need to explain it.
If you say it is not causation, then what is it? Third variable? Which?
Islam, like Christianity, doesn't have one leader who can just issue fatwas.
I believe their leaders can talk, and know how to use a telephone, maybe they've even heard of the Internet, yes?
Either they are all agains terrorism, then explain to me why they couldn't set up a conference call and agree to publicly denounce it, together.
Or at least some of them are not against terrorism.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
USA still has one of the largest homicide rates of all industrialized countries.
I'd like to see references to these "multiple studies".
Table-ized A.I.
Thank you, that is indeed what I was looking for.
Now I can look for the next link in the chain: Why is it ignored by the very people it is aimed at?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I am condemning islam, and I am telling the moderates that they have a lot of explaining to do, the same way that if the topic were the crusades, I'm not letting christians off the hook just because they say now is a different time.
Yes, it's a different time, but it's the same religion. You're not a member of a "2.0 version" that officially replaced the old one.
So to anyone who is a muslim, I ask: How could you let this thing happen in your religion? How can you be a member in the same club as these fuckers?
ISIS didn't appear out of nowhere, it was decades in the making. I'm not expecting moderate muslims to perform a miracle now, I'm expecting them to explain how it was possible that for at least 40 years (since the russian invasion of afghanistan and the formation of the Mujahideen) this was allowed to spread and prosper.
I'm a German, and we are taught very clearly that our grandfathers were guilty in making Nazi Germany, if not actively, then by not preventing it. Maybe this education is why I apply the same logic. I ask: If you are a muslim, what have you, personally, done to prevent the rise of ISIS and the fanatical ideology that it has its roots in?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
No, it isn't. Your solution just plain doesn't work.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps Islam is not a religion based on fear like Christianity.
Yes, a lot of perhaps and maybe. Because actually google shows quite a lot of fear in the quaran. Someone even made the effort to determine the ratio being "fear" mentioned in every 10th verse. And while the latter author is clearly an opponent of islam, the first source looks quite legit. I cannot see fewer mentions of fear there than in the bible. So much for "not based on fear like Christianity".
Maybe not doing something because it is wrong is more important than not doing something due to the consequences.
Oh, they do quote consequences. Yet as I wrote, they are all surprisingly utilitarian. That fits more to secular leaders than religious ones. Especially those having the power of a feared god behind them (see above).
Perhaps the Imams also do not think they speak for Allah as Christianity seems to so often.
Yet on other not so past occasions some of the highest authorities of Sunni or Shia Islam found it appropriate to call for a holy war or murder. That is rather a lot to ask for when not being authorized by Allah to do so. Yet when speaking out against barbarism, terrorism and the killing of innocents these "legal" formalisms are suddenly important? Or is it because infidels are not innocent according to the later parts of the quaran?
That's fine for Muslim countries. But not western ones.
France got directly involved in Syria with military operations a little more than a year ago.
The 2004 Madrid train bombings had the effect of altering the Spanish elections so that the party which does not support the war in Iraq won. Isis might hope to accomplish the same thing in France.
More recently France has been directly involved in supporting Iraq against ISIS and fighting ISIS directly including in Syria.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I would add the Madrid train bombings to that list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Andreas Lubits was suicidal - he was not a fanatic regligious terrorist. Is crashing of the plane he was in charge for as a pilot was an extended suicide fueled by a deadly mix of depresssion, narcisim and psychoactive prescriptoin drugs that are under suspicion by some researchers for causing sucidal tendencies.
The deliberate crashing of that flight had nothing to do with religious motives.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
"A Syrian passport was found near a body believed to be that of one of the suicide bombers. The holder of the passport—which has not been proven to be authentic—entered Greece with dozens of refugees last month".
Yes, EXACTLY! F-o-r-t-y - e-i-g-h-t... hours.
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
Good example.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
France has nukes, so Germany would have to start by developing new technology that counters or defends against nukes, so they would feel confident they could win a war. Then, of course, there's always an excuse to start a war.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So giving up terrorism worked for both of them.
Certainly, knowing when to stop using a tactic is important as well.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If they hadn't continued the terrorism, they wouldn't have been given the chance to demonstrate wisdom by giving it up at the proper moment.
Another person in this thread pointed to the Spain train bombings as another example of effective terrorism. Which of course isn't to say that terrorism is always effective: I would guess that the bombings here in France will prove to have been a mistake.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
And no, the Spanish train bombings also failed to be productive for the terrorists. Note the lack of any actual change in the Middle East.
Yeah, this proves you're just out to argue. You're knowledge-less.
If a thousand generals from war came to you and said, "Terrorism is an effective tactic," you would still argue.
If God himself came and told you, "terrorism is an effective tactic," you would still disagree.
If a terrorism changed your own personal behavior, you would still find a way to argue with it.
Unless you have something interesting to add, I'm out, Mr Arguer.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
The bible doesn't include instructions to CONTINUE being pre-medieval forever. Its followers tend to build and develop and invent and move into the future, rather than remaining in the century in which it was written. While you can certainly point to instances in the bible of the clan being given instructions that we would now consider inhumane, the scholars and teachers of the bible uniformly decry those instructions and that behavior, and preach against emulating it. Scripture, and the way that the group's teachers interpret it, create the culture that performs the atrocities; and the groups following that scripture you call "the bible" are not known for atrocities.
Nukes aren't the best choice when attacking a neighbor. For a second, I was asking myself, "Wait, am I seriously discussing Germany and France going to war against one another?" Then I was, "Oh yeah, history." I'm sticking with, "It could happen."
No, no... I still haven't come up with a GOOD reason why it might happen. Though, if I look back at the last two conflicts, I am still not able to come up with a GOOD reason for those to have happened. Hmm... Maybe the 2nd. That treaty was rather rough and the inflation was crippling.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I read somewhere that Winston Churchill considered WW2 to be merely an extension of the first world war. Much like the hundred years war (or the thirty year war) wasn't a single campaign, I guess.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That's the conclusion of many historians. The space between them is often referred to as the "Interwar Period." or similar. Without the former, the latter would probably have never happened. The treaty was more a armistice and the League of Nations was a joke that was more political and had no actual power to respond.
The two are very much related, even if only just because of WWI resulted in the Treaty of Versailles (spelling?) which pretty much told Germany that they could have no modern weapons, no military force, very little research, lost a bunch of land, and - perhaps more importantly, that they owed a metric butt-ton of cash to cover the expenses from the war. Germany was considered to be at fault and got pretty much no say, at all, in the Treaty.
They were invited in to sign it and that was about it. Everyone happily agreed (except for Germany) that the Germans were entirely to blame and owed reparations.
I watch a bunch of documentaries to the point where that's all I watch, almost exclusively. I don't own and haven't had a television. I watch them as entertainment, not a scholarly work. However, I've found that it is essential to watch them from multiple perspectives. Many of them are full of propaganda or outright misinformation. It's good to be able to watch and learn from the different views.
Had WWI ended differently, it's a near certainty that WWII would not have happened in the manner that it did. It might not have even happened at all.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
How could you let this thing happen in your religion? How can you be a member in the same club as these fuckers?
I'm not sure that either of those is actually a fair question to ask anyone.
Just as a thought experiment, imagine that there were several groups of militant atheists out bombing churches, mosques, and synagogues around the world, claiming that they were doing it because they were atheists, and all religious people needed to drop their delusions or die. How would you justify being "a member in the same club" as people like that? How would you answer, "How could you let this thing happen in your group?"
The former question is assuming that just because they happen to share some relatively broad affiliation (and yeah, "Muslim" is a truly absurdly broad affiliation; there are more Muslims than there are Chinese people in the world), they can somehow prevent these people from doing terrible things and claiming they're doing it in the name of that affiliation.
The second is assuming that because these things are being done by what are, if you do the numbers, really quite tiny splinter groups of the main affiliation, that all 1.6+ billion other Muslims would renounce their religion and...I dunno, turn atheist?
Basically, what, exactly, is it that you expect the 90+% of all Muslims who don't know any Islamist terrorists, and don't know anyone who knows one, to do about this that you or I couldn't do just as easily?
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
France was increasing isolated leading up to WW2. Her allies from the first world war were gone (Russia), under new management (Italy), living in isolation (USA), or not really opposing Germany all that much (Britain). The few nations that could support her (Belgium, Netherlands) were not the strongest allies. She was isolated on mainland Europe and consequently began shifting from a peacekeeping view to a defensive view. Instead of smacking down Germany when she reoccupied the Rheinland, the Anschluss, or the occupation of Czechoslovakia, France instead built the Maginot Line and waited.
At that time the French army had more men and equipment than the Germans. They would have steamrolled them. Instead they did nothing because Britain wasn't going to make a commitment, like they never really did in the past.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Atheists in history have used atheism as a reason to persecute Christians, I guess that means atheism needs to be wiped out, huh?
Maybe it means they were on the right track.
Also, atheists don't use "atheism", the belief that there is no god, to do anything. Atheists don't go around saying "stop believing or I'll kill you." They don't do anything "in the name of" atheism. They might point out why various belief systems are stupid, but they aren't going around telling everyone to stop believing in god. It would be great if more people thought rationally about religion, but I don't see a lot of persecution in the name of atheism going on.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
He shot no Muslims (as far as I am aware) but he shot supporters of a political party specifically because the party wasn't anti-Muslim.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Forty-eight hours. That's TWO WHOLE DAYS.
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
ok well it has been almost 72 hours since the attacks and nothing has changed.
I do denounce the war in iraq. more americans died in the war in iraq than died in 9/11. it was a needless war and only caused destruction while hurting us militarily, exhausting the will of the public to fight, and creating more problems in the middle east. it's funny, what would be really great right now is to have some strong secular military dictators assert dominance in the middle east. oops!
Now I can look for the next link in the chain: Why is it ignored by the very people it is aimed at?
That is, indeed, a very good question. I don't have a good answer, but I'm guessing it's for the same reasons that the majority of victims of Islamic State are other muslims. Religion is often an excuse or even a catalyst for violence (and these days, the religion is most commonly Islam). But the underlying reasons are often much more complicated, manifold and hard to decipher, and IS is probably the most complex threat the West have faced since... well, possibly ever.
(Man, to actually wish for the "simpler times" of terrorism...)
Of course it works. If you tried this kind of attack in Israel you'd kill a few people before being gunned down by ordinary citizens.
I do denounce the war in iraq.
Yes, but did you denounce it TWO days ago?
oops!
Oops, indeed.
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
I'm tired of this trolling. I'm not going to respond any more.
We have concealed carry in the USA in all 50 states including at soccer matches. people are slaughtering each other left and right at those, yes? oh no they aren't. We do have problem with savages in inner cities with guns, but those are illegally held without permit
maybe violent eurotrash idiots in europe, with police record of such behaviour including at soccer games, should not carry firearms. I'd agree with that
That doesn't mean that the majority of the refugees are terrorists, nor even a sizable minority, but the argument does seem to have some merit.
...to tell that someone is a prejudiced racist cunt?
If they tell you a thing like "You are an idiot if you don't imagine some terrorists are coming in with the hundreds of thousands" as if it is a rock solid argument - BEFORE any identification has taken place.
I.e. Prejudice [prej-uh-dis]
noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group.
Oh and BTW, no. One of the attackers, at this time, has NOT yet been identified as a Syrian refugee.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/22a0...
Ahmad al Mohammad, 25
A Syrian passport in that name was found near the body of one of the men who detonated a suicide vest at the stadium.
Fingerprints from the body matched those of a man who entered Greece via the island of Leros as an asylum seeker in early October.
He is said to have travelled through Turkey, Serbia and Croatia on his way to Paris.
FranÃois Molins, Paris public prosecutor, said the authenticity of the passport "had yet to be verified".
Unconfirmed reports from AFP suggest that the passport may have belonged to a Syrian soldier of President Bashar al-Assad regime who was killed several months ago.
At the same time, the same passport is found at another location hundreds of kilometers away from Paris.
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
With another guy's face in it. On another guy.
So... Why not another guy's hand at the scene too?
I mean... if we're gonna make wild unconfirmed guesses about smuggling guns (which are much easier to just buy locally), finding a refugee with a passport, already in France, and cutting off his hand there in France...
Seems a lot easier than marching across a dozen borders just to be the only non-local to blow himself up in Paris.
As far as wild unconfirmed guesses go... it seems a lot simpler.
But not in the mind of our resident prejudiced racist cunt, SuperKendall. Or his pal, gay358.
Nah... see... they imagine brown people smuggling guns and bombs across borders - cause that is what they LIKE to imagine.
That is the way they are set in their minds, and that is the way they see the world.
As racist, chauvinist, prejudiced cunts they are.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Saudi Arabia can go first frankly...
Saudi Arabia should have been targeted (by the US) right after 9-11, or perhaps earlier. Nowadays, it has paid its way into the pockets of the leading politicians of America, so it's protected - even from criticism.
Even though Saudi-born and supported Wahhabism and salafism is responsible for most of those twisted interpretations of Islam.
I understand enough about Islam to know that there's no consensus within Islam about what the material aims of Islam are, and that no one individual has the authority to say what those aims are, and "no one individual" includes you and me. I wonder what expertise you claim that trumps these 1000 Muslim leaders and academics?
I suspect you've been misled by the common myth that religion is bound to an unchanging literal interpretation of its founding texts, and so the "true" version of a religion is found by a simplistic reading of those texts, but that's not the way most religion works in the real world (including most of Islam). Religions change over time, much to the inconvenience of those whose argument against religion is the dogma that they don't.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?