Islamic State Claims Responsibility for Paris Attacks; Death Toll At 127

The L.A. Times reports that Islamic State, the group variously known as ISIL, ISIS, and Daesh, has claimed responsibility for the multi-pronged terror attack yesterday in Paris which left at least 128 people dead, most of them from among the audience of a rock concert at the Bataclan theater, in the heart of the city. Details of how Friday’s assaults were carried out remained hazy. It was still unclear, for example, whether the restaurants and concert theater were attacked by two separate teams of militants or one group that went from one place to another. ... Attackers opened fire on the crowd with automatic weapons, shouting “God is great!” or blaming France for airstrikes on Islamic State in Syria, according to some reports. Dozens of concert-goers were killed before French forces stormed the theater. Many Parisians posted appeals and photos on social media asking for news of friends or loved ones whom they had not heard from since the attacks. One man said on Twitter that a government hotline set up to inquire about missing persons was so overloaded that calls could not get through. In the wake of the attacks and with an overloaded public infrastructure, Facebook activated its post-disaster check-in tool for Parisians to notify loved ones that they are safe. According to Reuters, French President Francois Hollande has vowed to undertake a "mercliess" response to the attacks.

Comments

Another example

[Foobar of Borg]

It's awful what hate and fanaticism drive people to do.

Re:Another example

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

It's awful what hate and fanaticism drive people to do.

Bingo. Fanaticism of any kind is usually detrimental, but religious fanatics seem especially violent and destructive.

So it's another fabulous win for religious fanatics everywhere; the ones who did this will scream about how great their god is, and the ones on the other side(s) will scream about how awful those other religions are.

While those of us who don't follow or practice any religion look on in horror at what fanatical religious beliefs produce. :(

And now let's watch all the religious apologists mod me down to oblivion. To those people, if it makes you feel better then go right ahead.

Re:Another example

[Gavagai80]

Local terrorism in Iraq/Syria and the region is very effective, as terrorism feeds extremism. It can destabilize the government and help create the kind of power vacuum that inevitably leads to the most brutal group (presumably the terrorists) being the only ones capable of maintaining discipline and restoring order. In a situation like Iraq or Syria, moderates have the majority behind them but their fractured nature makes them inadequate once a civil war has turned to many-sided brutality -- moderates just aren't good enough at brutality to win at that game, and their soldiers hear the brutal stories and run away from their posts in fear.

Without 9/11 there would probably be no Islamic State, so clearly they can accomplish a lot with remote terrorism as well. It can draw a country into helping destabilize a region where the terrorists can take advantage of the chaos. It's also always useful to make your enemy panic and devote their resources to trying to defend against the indefensible. And if IS can make enough panicked westerners blame and shun Muslims, the shunned outcasts become much easier to recruit.

Re:Another example

[Feral Nerd]

What are the motives of these terrorist groups? What does killing people randomly accomplish?

Terror... 9/11 was appalling for a while but then the terror effect wore off. With actions like this, small penny packets of terrorists can keep up the pressure for months and years. Intelligence services in Europe are worried, those in the USA should be even more very worried right about now. The USA has thousands of miles of hard to partro coastline where squads of terrorists could land and ISIS has plenty of foreign fighters that would fit right in, even on the streets of US cities and these guys are not Syrian or Iraqi farm boys who speak broken english and stick out like a sore thumb, they are well educated and intelligent. Then there is logistics. In France/Germany/Britain guns are relatively difficult to get ahold of but as we can see quite doable. In the USA, however, guns are easier to get ahold of than a driving license so try to imagine the possibilities. Let loose 30 or so two man sniper teams in the USA, throw in some suicide squads for good measure and expend them one at a time over a long period. The sniper teams in particular would have no problem equipping themselves by buying firearms at garage sales, out of the back of cars in Walmart parking lots, at gun shows, etc... and they could be on the loose for weeks and months so if anybody thinks the Columbine High, Sandy Hook Elementary were bad or especially the Beltway sniper attacks imagine those kind of a scenario times hundreds of times over and going on for months and even years.

Re:Another example

[DarkOx]

The motive is to discourage western powers from interfering in their take over of Iraq and Syria.

Its worked too. Look why happen in the UK when Cameron tried to get support for an intervention. The Obama response to the Syrian situation has been similarly tepid, why? because the public is tired of it. The support for an on going war is soft. Partly because the citizens of Western nations know fighting ISIS paints a target on our backs. It effects the US a little less than other because 1) our military is so huge and 2) We are 'the great Satan' and know that we are going be a target anyway for legacy reasons.

Its just another facet of the asymmetric warfare strategy. They know our military structure isn't designed for troops to be on deployment after deployment after deployment. They stir up trouble, shrink away, stir it up again and force us to come back to the table. Its all about wearing us down. Part of that is attacking the public. They are not ignorant of history. They know a big part of why we did not achieve the outcomes we sought in the Asia proxy conflicts with the USSR is because of the erosion of support at home. Attacking the general public is a way to achieve that or hasten it.

Where OBL got it wrong was picking a target that was a little to symbolic. The WTC is something that is pretty removed from most of us. Most of America, France, and the UK does not look like NYC but its symbol of power for us. So the response become something like "Remember the Maine" or "Remember the Alamo" and gins up a desire to seek revenge out of national or cultural pride.

When you start routine attacks on movie theaters, eateries, and shopping malls on the other hand the danger is real to the public on a personal level. I go the movies, I go out to to dinner etc. I am not NYC banker that is a might as well be another world to me.

Re:Another example

[serviscope_minor]

So, you're saying that because some atheists have done bad things, one shouldn't condemn people who murder in the name of religion? Or we shouldn't point out religious fanaticism is a bad idea?

In the case of Stalin and Mao, there was a strong cult of personality which is functionally identical to religion.

Re:Another example

[Anonymous Coward]

As anyone with even elementary reading comprehension can see, he didn't say religious attacks shouldn't be condemned, but that religions shouldn't be condemned if someone attacks and claim it was in their name.

It's unsurprising to me that you particularly didn't understand that, and I won't be surprised if you still don't after reading this, either.

Re:Another example

[Suffering Bastard]

While those of us who don't follow or practice any religion look on in horror at what fanatical religious beliefs produce. :(

I think it's too easy to say that this kind of violence is simply the consequence of religious fanaticism. It's not the religion that produces the violence, it's the extreme violence that these people have lived under that produces traumatized, unstable minds that are prone to becoming fanatic via whatever dominant fervor surrounds them. Whether it's Islam or some kind of state nationalism or some kind of philosophical ideal, whatever it is that gives them a clear conscience to kill those who have harmed them, that's the banner they carry.

The challenge to humanity is to break away from the "us vs them" mentality. Those we call terrorists are still humans like us. None of us can say how we would react if we were brought up surrounded by the horrors that these folks have. That is not an apology, only a perspective. Healing can only come when we truly understand the reasons why these events are happening and not write it all off to religious fanaticism.

Re:Another example

[serviscope_minor]

One shouldn't spend one's time talking about how terrible religious fanaticism is when atheistic fanaticism has killed 100x as many people this century alone.

Ah I see you're one of the comparison shoppers of bad things. As a general rule, no matter what someone has done, someone else has done something worse. By your "logic" one should only talk about the single worst thing ever and nothing else.

That's complete tosh. Come to think of it, why did you bother even replying to my post? That wasn't responsible for any deaths at all!

Second you ignored my comment about the personality cult. Those are functionally identical to religion and anyone not worshipping the word of Mao did not fare terribly well during the cultural revolution or the great leap forward. It's the blind unthinking worship which is the problem wither of a god or a cult leader.

Note that it is arguable that the Black Death killed more people than Mao and Stalin did (plus Hitler, of course, but he was small potatoes compared to Stalin and Mao), but there aren't any other human die-offs that even come close....

Your point? We shouldn't mention any human caused deaths because of the black plague?

Re:Another example

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao were all atheists. Suck on it.

The difference is that Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao didn't do the things they did because they were atheists, whereas religious fanatics do horrific things precisely because they're religious fanatics. Sorry to burst your simple little thought-bubble.

Re:Another example

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Actually, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao did what they did because they were athiests.

Errr, no. And as someone who has studied Pol Pot a bit (due to family connections with some of his victims) it's clear that his atheism was not a significant motivating force in his rampage. And it's clear that neither Stalin nor Mao did anything due to their lack of belief, while o the other hand Hitler embraced the Catholic church and they embraced him back. Does "Gott Mitt Un" ring a bell?

It's hard to murder millions of people just because you don't believe in something.

For example, there are lots of people who don't believe in leprechauns, why aren't they out there committing atrocities? Why don't we label the "aleprechanists" and worry day and night about what they might do? Because it would be silly, that's why.

The fact is that lack of belief in something is rarely a motivator to do anything, let alone commit horrific atrocities.

Your average atheist isn't going to be motivated to kill people in the name of his/her magical sky-daddy or the promise of an afterlife. Most of us atheists realize that we only get one life to live, and so we try to make the most of it here and now. Yeah, some of us are assholes, but most of us just want to live our lives in peace and not be persecuted in the name of any of the 100,000+ religions that are all vying for dominance, often at the point of a sword or a thumb on a detonator.

Show me an example or two of atheists who've committed atrocities in the name of atheism (if you can), and I'll show you a hundred that have done it in the name of religion.

Seriously, show me some examples of people who have said "I'm killing people specifically because I don't believe in god!". Statistically there are probably some, but I can't think of any offhand.

Re:Another example

[ranton]

It's tempting to try to see history in these discrete 4 or 8 year chunks, but what's going on in the Middle East has been cooking for a long time.

Yes the Middle East is a quagmire and it has been for decades. But you can still identify specific executive decisions as being the cause of specific problems. The decision to invade Iraq had specific consequences. The political climate created over the past few decades impacted those consequences, but nevertheless it was the invasion that created a destabilization that did not exist before the invasion. It can be argued that the region is better or worse because of this, but the invasion did have its own specific consequences.

Just like pulling US forces out of Iraq had its own consequences. From what I can tell, the recent growth of ISIS was directly caused by pulling those troops out of Iraq. It is irresponsible to place any of the blame on the political climate created over the past few decades, because it takes blame away from the single decision that caused the problem. It would be no different than taking blame away from the Bush administration because its wars were made more difficult because of the political climate at that time.

If you try to blame past administrations for specific problems that have occurred in the past 6 years (like ISIS), you ignore all lessons that can be learned from the actions of the current administration. It doesn't really matter what happened over 10 years ago if actions could have been taken more recently to prevent the rise of ISIS. If you don't recognize that removing a policing force from a destabilized region was the primary cause of the problem, you lose the ability to learn from those decisions to prevent it from happening again. Talking about bad decisions made 10-30 years ago is mostly irrelevant.

Re:Another example

[Solandri]

Terrorist is a pejorative term applied to them by the targets of the violence. They don't call themselves that. You can't determine their strategy with insults.

The schoolyard bully isn't a bully because we call him that. He's a bully because he beats you up just enough intimidate you into giving in to his future demands, but not enough to get in trouble with local authorities. He can call himself rightful ruler of the school for all we care. He's still a bully. It's the strategy which determines the name, not the other way around.

Likewise they're not terrorists because we call them that. They're terrorists because of their strategy of deliberately targeting soft targets with no or negligible military value. i.e. The goal is to terrorize the populace to induce a socio-political change in behavior, not to inflict military damage.

Terrorism is a subset of psychological warfare, which encompasses tactics ranging from torture all the way to acceptable things like dropping leaflets to demoralize the opposition. All focus on destroying the opponent's will to fight, rather than his ability to fight. There's nothing pejorative about it; the word itself is pretty indicative of the strategy it's describing. Early colonial opposition during the American Revolutionary war could be considered terrorism (e.g. Boston Tea Party). Towards the end of WWII, after some off-target bombing raids opened the doors, both sides were wantonly bombing each others' civilian population centers to try to get each other to stop fighting. Basically terrorism.

Re:Another example

[tnk1]

Hitler really seems to have had no sincere beliefs in regard to religion for himself, he merely attempted to determine if a particular religion could be co-opted or if it had to be destroyed. While that doesn't make him an atheist necessarily, he just didn't think theology was important at all.

Ethnically, Hitler was a Catholic but considering his complete antipathy to the actual beliefs of that Church, makes him about as much a Roman Catholic as my Marxist Poli Sci professors were.

He had a belief in a Teutonic ethnic and "genetic" superiority, but frankly, this philosophy never reached the level of a consistent theology or even really discussed any authority which made Germans the Master Race. They were merely the Master Race, self-evidently.

In any event, a Hitler could just as easily exist in an atheistic world view as a religious one. He was a master manipulator of divisions and friction to make himself a third option.

I personally imagine that he probably thought that he would be a 'god' in the same sense that Roman emperors were: deified and bound to be celebrated by his victorious civilization as a paragon of a state cult or religion after he died. Thereafter part of ceremonies to inspire awe among future generations to maintain the state and the state philosophy.

Re:Another example

[KGIII]

Not even the Crusades were about religion. The people fighting thought that they were but, no. They were about land expansions abroad and power grabs at home.

A self-fulfilling cycle that must be quashed

[rmdingler]

Hatred and terrorism are instigators of each other.

Each act of terrorism breeds hatred from the victims, which leads to the mistreatment of those considered like the aggressors, which leads to the formation of circumstances likely to breed terrorists.

So yes, it appears these hateful acts are quite likely to continue.

Re:A self-fulfilling cycle that must be quashed

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

So yes, it appears these hateful acts are quite likely to continue.

Exactly, this is what these people do. This is what they live (and die) for.

They won't stop. Even if they "won" they wouldn't stop, they'd just find something else to fight against.

Re:A self-fulfilling cycle that must be quashed

[Kjella]

A lot of hatred and terror comes from a false sense of superiority and a spurious blame-fest of the victims, to act like the terror would cease if we only were ever kinder sheep who bend over to appease the aggressors is folly. Whether it's genetic superiority (übermenschen vs untermenschen), religious superiority (true believers vs unbelievers), cultural superiority (enlightened vs savages) the result is mostly the same. And it's always easier to blame shit on an external enemy, whether it's the jews or the african-americans or the western imperialists.

There are many apologists who turn the cause and effect upside down and blame the victims for causing the conditions that cause terrorism, for the most part they make me want to puke with their self-loathing and victim-blaming. Usually they think themselves so very enlightened and civilized when they're really just blaming the rape victim for wearing a short skirt. No matter how badly Saddam treated the Sunnis what the IS is doing to Christians and other minorities has nothing to do with revenge and everything to do with a megalomanic desire for world domination and genocide.

It's a cancer that will only grow as long as it is allowed to grow. The last time the world had to stand up to such evil and say "enough is enough" ~15 million allied soldiers and ~35 million allied civilians died. I'm kinda hoping we can get away with less this time, but I think there will be a lot of blood spilled before then and the longer we let them control and indoctrinate large parts of the population in Syria and Iraq the messier it will get. Evil is breeding right now, whether we attack it or not.

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

It's pretty obvious the world would be far better off without religion.

^^^ THIS.

Someday people will look back on the shared delusion of religion and wonder what the fuck was wrong with everyone.

It's like a mind virus or brain disease that most people simply accept. WTF??

The amazing part is that most people don't consider it as a disease to be eradicated.

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[ranton]

It's pretty obvious the world would be far better off without religion.

The greatest tragedies of the 20th century were not committed in the name of religion.
Maybe you should learn history before spounting such nonsense about religion.

What does that have to do with his point? If I said "I would be better off if I don't drink sulfiric acid", would your response be "but that isn't even a major cause of death in the US"? Because that is exactly the type of irrelevant argument you just made above.

Someone can claim something is bad even if it isn't the only or even worst thing in the world.

You can make claims that religion does more good than harm, but referencing other evils of the world is very irrelevant.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[mi]

shows Americans deliberately attacking and killing civilian first responders

Only when it is not obvious, they are "first responders" — and civilian ones at that, because shooting the corpsmen attempting to evacuate a wounded comrade is not at all illegal...

The video's description says:

Wikileaks has obtained and decrypted this previously unreleased video footage from a US Apache helicopter in 2007. It shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad. They are apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded. They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred. Wikileaks released this video with transcripts and a package of supporting documents on April 5th 2010 on http://collateralmurder.com/

How was an Apache pilot supposed to discern the motives and the allegiances of the newly-arrived group of people?

But, for all your hatred of America and our military, you illustrate the OP's point — if the incident really was a war-crime rather than an unfortunate mistake, it would be a cause for real outrage among the Westerners. This undoubtedly deliberate killings of concert-goers, on contrast, elicit nothing but insincere "official" condemnations from their society.

We really are better than they.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[rbrander]

>You either win it or lose it, and you win it by breaking your enemy's will to fight. You have to kill the civilians to do that.

Very popular sentiments about Vietnam. Won yet?