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

[Bing Tsher E]

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

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

[Rei]

It's a lot simpler than that... they're not motivated, by and large in these sort of things, by strategy. It's a desire for vengeance. They see their brothers being killed, and civilians caught in the crossfire, and want their attackers punished for it. With groups like Daesh there's also a religious aspect. France has earned a reputation for being "anti-muslim" for a lot of different things, such as the hijab ban, but extending well back to their colonial days, and they're additionally seen as a symbol of debauchery and general social immorality.

Honestly there are times I've actually found myself rooting for them, such as in their attempt to stop the Iranian/Lebanese troops with Russian air support ... er, I mean "Syrian military's"... breaking the siege of Kiweiris airbase. Given that Assad is responsible for the vast majority of the deaths in this conflict, mainly from barrel bombing major cities into rubble, as well as extensive firings of chemical weapons into cities and torturing to death over 10k people at intelligence centers, I'm not exactly thrilled about the prospect of him regaining control over the country and purging anyone who he thinks might have ever opposed him to cement his power. But then things like this come reminding me that the people that they're killing are a force whose core is a bunch of sex-slaving antiquity-destroying international-terrorist assholes, so really, whichever way those sort of battles go, one doesn't need to see the outcome as a "bad thing". ;) Likewise their western expansion overrunning al-Hader, that was mainly Nusra holding the town, which - while certainly better than Daesh - they're not exactly a bunch of role models. Now that the FSA is working on stopping Assad's overrun of the M5 near Aleppo, it might actually be worth caring about which side is winning that one (same as some of the north Hama conflicts and the advances into Latakia, which have actually been going quite well for the anti-Assad forces, particularly the FSA, thanks to their endless stocks of Turkey-sourced Saudi-supplied US-originated TOW missiles... if they had any effective way to takedown aircraft this conflict wouldn't even be a tossup).

I have a lot of concerns about the anti-Daesh YPG (Kurdish) operations. Not that the YPG isn't orders of magnitude better than Daesh in behavior - they are. But they have done some bad things still, such as entirely driving Arab residents out of some villages they've captured (small-scale ethnic cleansing). And now they're going to be capturing some sizeable cities that have long held simmering Arab-Kurdish conflicts over who controls them. I have deep concerns that this is going to be setting, or at least, renewing, the seeds for future Arab-Kurdish conflicts unless they can learn to behave themselves properly...

I really can't see any situation where this is going to turn out well, and I can see many situations where it turns out unimaginably bad (now Israel has started randomly bombing inside Syria, hitting the Damascus airport just a few days ago... hey, who else wants to come bomb Syria, why not just invite the whole world?). But hopefully the "best of the terrible options" will be the result rather than the worst one. IMHO that would be the situation reverting to how it was before the Russian-Iranian surge, with Assad slowly but steadily losing ground, forcing him into a negotiating position - wherein the reigns of government could be passed off to someone who's at least less of a torturous tyrant and acceptable to the moderate resistance... then the international community could agree to help them wipe out the radical resistance. Russia won't be happy and won't support any resolution unless they can keep their Latakia airbase and Tartous naval base, but that could be arranged. I think something along those lines could result in a "best of the terrible options" scenario.

Worst of the terrible options? Literal nuclear war. Nuclear powers actively attacking in Syria at the moment: Russia,

Re:Another example

[MikeMo]

ISIS's self-proclaimed strategy is to incite "Rome" to attack them on Syrian soil, thus bringing about Islam's version of "armageddon".

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

[Antique Geekmeister]

> You can't determine their strategy with insults.

"Terrorism", meaning intimidation of the civilian population through unpredictable attacks against people not directly involved in the conflict, is a useful description of the strategy. It can also be very effective: look at the history of Ireland, or of the resistance fighters in Poland during World War II.

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

[DNS-and-BIND]

Yup, it's the familiar "all religions are the same" argument. Whenever Islam does something reprehensible, of course. Whenever a Christian does something reprehensible, it is uniquely a problem of that religion alone.

Why is it that Leftists are always out front and center defending Islam? It's like you're allied together against Western civilization or something. Let Daesh defend itself, it has an online division. Stop doing their jobs for them, you realize who you're working with, right?

Re:Another example

[chipschap]

INSULTS? Oh, yes, we shouldn't offend them with insulting words like "terrorist." They have their rights you know. Poor innocent terrorists, you must really feel for them.

Re:Another example

[CrimsonAvenger]

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?

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.

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....

Re:Another example

[Cybah]

Its worked too. Look why happen in the UK when Cameron tried to get support for an intervention.

It hasn't worked. For a start, the lack of UK support for intervention in Syria was multi-faceted and had much more to do with an anti-war sentiment amongst the public following the mishaps of the Iraq war. Also to do with the perceived financial cost when the UK government was on an austerity drive and cutting back on public services. Even then, it was a close vote (285 to 272).

Even after the recent attacks in Paris, the French have vowed a “merciless” response.

If anything, attacks on western countries and interests are emboldening us to get more involved. The attacks are softening the anti-war arguments.

Re:Another example

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he's saying that blaming all ills on religion is silly.

Given how almost no humans are atheist, the fact that there's even a list of murderous atheists is a bit surprising.

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

[rsilvergun]

Without [America destabilizing Iraq with a pointless war and a transparent wealth transfer in the guise of nation building] there would probably be no Islamic State...

Fixed that for you. And yes, I am an American, thanks for asking. Dear God, I wish Gore had fought for the presidency. Bush/Cheney did more damage to human civilization in 8 years than I think the rest have done in 2000....

Re: Another example

[RobotMustard]

They're not saying that the offenders shouldn't be insulted. They're saying that calling someone a terriost is generally considerd an insult and that by insulting you cannot determine motive/goals/strategy. Learn to read folks.

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]

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.

Exactly. But logic and reason will bounce off CrimsonAvenger like water off a duck's back.

Re:Another example

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

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,

Errr, well, actually it is often the religion that produces the violence. Without the religion they'd have nothing to fight to the death over and nothing to motivate them or delude them into such action.

You don't see groups of disaffected model railroaders or snowboarders committing mass murder because their hobby or pursuit doesn't require them to kill others in order to be the dominant group.

-

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.

Yes, it's this too, but without the shared delusion of religion and a supposed afterlife, no one would be so keen to machine gun groups of complete strangers, would they?

Let's all just be honest and admit that religion often serves as the vehicle to induce people to do horrific things, things that they otherwise would never dream of doing.

Re:Another example

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Why is it that Leftists are always out front and center defending Islam?

I'm quite "left leaning" or liberal and I certainly don't defend Islam or any other religion. Almost ALL of them would (and have) engaged in this kind of behavior if left to their own devices.

It's not "THIS" religion or "THAT" religion, it's ALL religion, with a couple of extremely minor exceptions.

The fact is that virtually ALL of the "leftist" people I know decry this stuff and none of them defend any of it, period.

Re:Another example

[DarkOx]

I am not endorsing that strategy mind you. Mass murder is mass murder. However i would be prepared to make the argument that killing and maiming people over the course of decades after the previous decade has shown the strategy either accomplishes little or makes the problem worse is even more immoral.

If people have to die or have their lives destroyed it ought to be in the service of something good. There strategy we have used in this third phase of the Iraq conflict 2012 on seems clearly designed to give certain groups political cover. Obama has wanted up to this point to say he kept us out of another unending war while also being able to claim he did something about ISIS. This half in half out bullshit serves nobody except the politicians.

We should either fight this thing all in and win it if that is possible, or get the fuck out, stay the fuck, and let the Russians/Chinese/Africans and the South of Europe deal with it.

Re: Another example

[Sperbels]

Exactly. I guess I should have worded that a little less ambiguously...but I guess I just expected more from Slashdot's readership.

Re: Another example

[Bing Tsher E]

I, personally, would prefer to refer to them as 'grease stains on the pavement.' But we've got a little work to do on that first.

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

[Suffering Bastard]

Yes, it's this too, but without the shared delusion of religion and a supposed afterlife, no one would be so keen to machine gun groups of complete strangers, would they?

Pretty sure Hitler, Stalin and Mao didn't use religion as an excuse to create massive violence. Doesn't matter if religion is in the picture, when hate is stirred up it will find a vehicle to express itself. Religion is an offshoot of dogma, or an attachment to a belief to create a sense of security. Atheism is also a dogma and can produce just as much violence.

Re:Another example

[PopeRatzo]

Maybe Obama will try to spin it that way for certain. He has a lot lose at this point. History is going to judge him pretty harshly I think in the end for ISIS. Even if GWB continues to get the blame for its conception it will be hard for Obama to duck responsibility for his policies toward the middle east, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan in particular providing the incubator for it to grow

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.

Remember the bombing of the US barracks in Beirut, 1983? 300-plus died, including 241 US servicemen and 58 French paratroopers. Two suicide bombers, 300 dead. It was Reagan's Benghazi, but it didn't start there, either. People with grievance and no power are going to engage in this kind of asymmetrical warfare. We recognize it today as "terrorism" because we're generally so much safer than at any other time in history that the savagery of the violence shocks us into recognition.

When Tamerlane built a pyramid of 90,000 skulls at the gates to Delhi, it had an effect way beyond that of the 90,000 deaths. "Shock and Awe" or beheading videos, drone-bombing hospitals and weddings or cutting throats on HD video, if you're willing to show sufficient depravity, you'll get your point across.

Re:Another example

[CrimsonAvenger]

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.

If they "know that", they're horribly mistaken.

The reason we didn't achieve the outcomes we sought is that we allowed the enemy a safe place - as long as we drew a line and said "we won't go past here to get you" (38th parallel, anyone?), the enemy could not be defeated in any meaningful sense. All they had to do is retreat past our no-go line, and rest, recover, resupply, and get ready for next time.

Now, have we done that here? Arguably, yes. Which will allow for another 20 year war that we'll lose in the end. But frightening the home-folks doesn't lose you wars, that just encourages the home-folks to call for more effort to be made to destroy the "bad guys"....

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

[schnell]

Hitler embraced the Catholic church and they embraced him back. Does "Gott Mitt Un" ring a bell?

I am taking no side on the current "religious assholes kill lots of people" vs. "atheist assholes kill lots of people" war. I just noticed the above statement, which I see a lot, and wanted to provide some historical context to it.

I have seen it frequently mentioned on the Internet that Hitler was Catholic and/or had a close relationship to the church. While Hitler may have been born to a Catholic family, he was never visibly religious throughout his life one way or another. Also, despite his Wagner fetish, he was not a devotee of the old Germanic paganism that mystic fringe elements of the SS seemed intent on reintroducing to German society. He never disavowed religion publicly, but it never played any role in his life either, at least according to modern Hitler scholarship.

Hitler's relationship to the Catholic church oscillated between uneasy truce and outright hostility throughout the time the Third Reich was in power. Germany was majority Protestant in the north, and majority Catholic in the south, and the Catholic church (which even had its own political party, the Center Party) was a useful ally at times. It disagreed with Hitler on many issues (primarily social), but Hitler showed no compunction about shutting down Protestant churches that preached against the excesses of its administration, and the Catholic hierarchy in Germany was perfectly willing to make a deal with the devil to avoid being shut down or expelled. There is also strong evidence (though not 100%) that the Pope (who had previously been Papal Legate in Germany) and his representatives made a deal with Hitler to turn a blind eye to Jews trying to flee the country in exchange for a continued presence in the country.

However, Hitler and the Catholic authorities in the Third Reich frequently clashed as well. Many Catholic priests spoke out against the human rights abuses of Hitler, and it was only through continued wrangling and negotiation with Hitler that priests weren't bundled off by the Gestapo en masse. Many politically active priests were nonetheless. And at times Hitler talked about putting the whole church on his "enemies" list and shutting it down for stirring up anti-government feeling (which wasn't hard to come by from 1942 onwards).

Long story short: Hitler wasn't a Catholic, and they weren't really allies. But the Catholic church did make deals with Hitler to preserve their power and legitimacy which are shameful in retrospect. If you're interested in more details, read the first volume of Ian Kershaw's excellent Hitler or Richard Evans's The Coming of the Third Reich.

Re:Another example

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Atheism is also a dogma and can produce just as much violence.

Oh, and you were making sense right up until that point. :(

No, atheism is not a "dogma", any more than "not collecting stamps" is a "hobby". Or being "bald" is a "hair color"

Atheism simply means you don't believe in a god or gods. And that's ALL it means, there is no other data you can draw from the fact that person "A" is an atheist.

It's like saying that person "A" likes popcorn, there is no other conclusion you can draw from that other than the fact that they like popcorn. You can't guess at their age, race, political leaning, preferred clothing, geographic location, etc etc etc.

And it's the same way with atheism- it's a single specific data point, and that's all it is.

Re:Another example

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Well, Hitler said on more than a few occasions that he was "doing god's work", so if he wasn't a theist he was certainly pretending to be a theist.

Re:Another example

[narcc]

War is rarely about religion. It's usually about money, power, etc. and only later justified by religion. I can't even think of a solid example of a war primarily motivated by religion.

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

You can label anything religion if you try hard enough. It gets a bit less convincing as you go along.

Do you really think ISIS is primarily motivated by religion? That would be a pretty hard sell, given the other, far more likely, factors.

Re:Another example

[angel'o'sphere]

They werent, Pol Pot was a Buddhist.
Stalin was Christian.
Mao was Taoist/Buddhist.

They abbolished religions because they feared them as competition, like any tyrant.

Re:Another example

[angel'o'sphere]

when atheistic fanaticism has killed 100x as many people this century alone.
There is no atheistic fanatisms. There are only fanatics that happen to be atheists or claim so or kill priests, whatever.
Hitler was no atheist either (in case you read my other answer to your idiotic posts).

Re: Another example

[tlambert]

They're not saying that the offenders shouldn't be insulted. They're saying that calling someone a terriost is generally considerd an insult and that by insulting you cannot determine motive/goals/strategy. Learn to read folks.

Motive, goals, and strategy are things for the debrief, and for the historians, after the fact of stopping them from acting out. All that really matters right now is stopping them from acting out. We can get into the psychology of why they acted out, and what they hoped to accomplish by doing so by examining whatever papers are left over after the fact.

Re:Another example

[Suffering Bastard]

And it's the same way with atheism- it's a single specific data point, and that's all it is.

I hear your anger at those with a fanatical agenda. I feel that way too. Makes me want to kick religion in the nuts. But you can also say that "Christian" is a data point. "Psychotic" and "Bald" are data points. I hope you don't take my comments as against Atheism. But if I begin to separate others based on a perceived polar opposition to myself ("Muslim" means anti-Christian, "Sane" means anti-psychotic, "Haired" means anti-bald, "Religious" means anti-Atheist, or anti-rational), then the capacity for violence exists. You as an atheist are just as likely to be a thoughtful, reasoned, compassionate person as a Christian or Muslim. And any atheist can be just as likely to be a fanatical violent criminal as any religious fanatic.

My original point is that religious fanaticism thrives in extremely violent conditions because of the deep trauma created by those conditions. Plus without a stable societal structure to educate its people and deal with those who are mentally unstable, the broken and corrupted more easily arise as leaders with a violent agenda. What some of these people have been through, whether it's Western bombs, Assad's biological weapons, or ISIS's abject cruelty, they have little left to lose. Long seething rage plus hatred plus a perceived cause to fight for will equal deadly outbursts every time.

Re:Another example

[west]

Whenever Islam does something reprehensible, of course.

Because Islam doesn't do *anything*. It's a belief. And among the billion *people* who hold that belief, a few of them are reprehensible.

And if we're talking about deaths of Westerners, then why don't we point fingers at some of the most efficient killers of Europeans: Europeans who initiated two world wars.

Compared to us, the feeble attempts by fundamentalists are laughable. If you really want to kill nearly 100 million Europeans/North Americans, you know who the real dangers are.

And if we're going to look at raw numbers killed in the current Middle East conflict, still no contest - we have ISIS beat 100:1 in civilian casualties. Now of course, we don't deliberately target civilians, they are just an *inevitable* outcome from prosecuting a war/blockade, so that let's us off the hook for literally any number of civilian casualties we cause.

At least this leftist doesn't go after Islam because Islam doesn't do anything - people do. And I don't pretend that the policies that I support to contain ISIS don't cause far more civilian casualties than ISIS has ever inflicted on the West.

If you cannot see the massive in-your-face crimes of your own culture, how on earth would you see yourself as fit to judge the crimes of another?

Does it mean ignore terrorism and terrorists? Of course not, but let's put it in proper perspective.

Re:Another example

[angel'o'sphere]

Atheism is also a dogma and can produce just as much violence.
Atheism is not a dogma.
It is a checkbox on the tax form you check if you refuse to pay church tax.
Or it is an answer you give if one asks: 'what is your religion', the correct answer of course is: none, I'm an atheist, I have no religion

It is hillarious how many people believe Atheism would be an religion to, it is not.

Re:Another example

[Suffering Bastard]

Isn't the belief against an idea just as dogmatic as the belief in the idea?

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

[jader3rd]

ISIS's self-proclaimed strategy is to incite "Rome" to attack them on Syrian soil,

The idiots were off by 1426 kilometers then.

Re:Another example

[PopeRatzo]

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.

ISIS did not start in Iraq.

Re:Another example

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

And it's the same way with atheism- it's a single specific data point, and that's all it is.

I hear your anger at those with a fanatical agenda. I feel that way too. Makes me want to kick religion in the nuts. But you can also say that "Christian" is a data point. "Psychotic" and "Bald" are data points.

You're correct. However, "Christian" and "Psychotic" do imply certain very specific things that are generally agreed upon. I don't think the same can really be said of the term "atheist".

The reliability of those implied things (assumptions or maybe conclusions?) are often kind of fuzzy and wide-ranging, but they do relate back to things that are normally associated with those terms (and usually with good reason).

-

My original point is that religious fanaticism thrives in extremely violent conditions because of the deep trauma created by those conditions. Plus without a stable societal structure to educate its people and deal with those who are mentally unstable, the broken and corrupted more easily arise as leaders with a violent agenda.

Yep, in that I completely agree. The things you mention are often incubators for fanatics, both religious and non-religious. It's often a combination of factors that foster fanaticism, but in truth I just don't see that many fanatical atheists out there (although there are some, to be sure).

-

What some of these people have been through, whether it's Western bombs, Assad's biological weapons, or ISIS's abject cruelty, they have little left to lose. Long seething rage plus hatred plus a perceived cause to fight for will equal deadly outbursts every time.

Yes, this is very often the kind of thing that can and does turn a generally peaceful person into a fanatic, religious or otherwise. Unfortunately, religion seems to be "baked into" the core of many societies and is therefore present to be used as a convenient touchstone with which to rally people around. If there was no religion people would still find things to fight over, but it seems to me that religion is often a baseline item that causes more problems than it solves.

For example, practically the entire Middle East has been fighting over nonsensical religious issues for thousands of years, and to what end? What has been accomplished, what has been gained or resolved? Nothing, as near as I can determine, and it only seems to be getting worse.

It's all just sheer insanity to me. :(

Re:Another example

[Anonymous Coward]

Without the religion they'd have nothing to fight to the death over and nothing to motivate them or delude them into such action.

Are you joking? If there's one thing humans are really good at, it's creating reasons to hate and commit atrocities.

Re:Another example

[DarkOx]

For all intents it did. It was a direct offshoot of "al qaeda in iraq". Many of its principals cut their teeth their so to speak. Their specific brand of radicalism was conceived in that incubator. We drove at least people over the boarder with the troop surge. Then Arab spring happened and they took advantage the weak government in Syria. When Iraq started to fall apart after our withdraw they came in an sized a lot of valuable weapons and equipment.

So I do think its far to say while ISIS might exist in some form today without the invasion of Iraq it probably would have very different methods and leadership. The Bush administration deserves blame for ISIS's degree and brand of radicalism.

I also think its far to say that without the Power vacuum Obama created ISIS could not have grown to be the large multinational it is today. His administration gets the blame for that.

Re:Another example

[Suffering Bastard]

However, "Christian" and "Psychotic" do imply certain very specific things that are generally agreed upon. I don't think the same can really be said of the term "atheist".

When I think of atheist -- meaning, "there are no deities" -- that seems fairly specific to me. Unless you include being open to other possibilities (higher consciousness extant in any form, but not deified) as part of atheism. Now we're straying into philosophical semantics!

I don't know whether it's right to say religious ideology or national ideology are more to blame for rises of violent opposition. Maybe there's a study somewhere. In any case, I agree it's all madness. I think we're living in a time where religious ideology is about to explode in many forms. What will the Christian right's response to this be? How will this effect the presidential election? Interesting times, to put it mildly.

Re:Another example

[angel'o'sphere]

Who is griefing against an idea?
I don't get to what you refer.

Re:Another example

[cold fjord]

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.

You don't have that right. Harsh religious persecution was a common feature to the regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. That religious persecution happened as a result of their being atheists. There is no shortage of both extremism and contempt for people holding religious belief among atheists. In those regimes (and many others like them) it resulted in terrible oppression and murder .... by atheists.

Sorry to burst your simple little thought-bubble.

   

Re:Another example

[aaaaaaargh!]

Terrorists intentionally kill non-combatant civilians. Of course the term is pejorative. Terrorism is despicable.

And you can call them any way you want, it will not change a thing about determining their strategy, as long as you base your assessments on evidence.

Re:Another example

[Suffering Bastard]

I mean, for example, isn't the belief that God does not exist as dogmatic as believing God does exist? It's an objective question. Either belief can be attached to, to the point of justifying violence. And neither belief on its own is likely to cause a person to be violent, unless circumstances pressure them into it.

Re: Another example

[oobayly]

Which is exactly the purpose of these attacks. The response will be to increase the military intervention in Syria as well as putting pressure on local Muslim communities by the security services.

The worrying thing is that it's an effective strategy. Make Western residents think Muslims are out to get them, and vice versa. These people want a war between Muslims and the rest of the world.

Re:Another example

[angel'o'sphere]

No, both believes can either be dogmatic or non dogmatic.
My believe that the christian god does not exist is not dogmatic. I don't exclude you, hinder you, look down on you or in any way dogmatize you about my personal believes.
However I find it a bit dogmatic that someone who believes there is only one god, can not accept that he might be wrong. There could be more gods, or non at all.
Perhaps for a believer (in the sense of religious guy) it is unthinkable that others have different believes. That implies a dogma. Interesting movie, btw: Dogma.

Re: Another example

[oobayly]

That would be anti-theism. Atheism is simply a lack of belief.

Re:Another example

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

When I think of atheist -- meaning, "there are no deities" -- that seems fairly specific to me.

But you can't really draw any other conclusions from that, other than that they don't believe in a deity. That's it, period.

Whereas when you say "christian" or "catholic", that implies all sorts of follow-ons...like church attendance, being baptized, some degree of belief in the bible, certain specific moral positions, belief in or practice of prayer, performing worship in certain specific ways according to a specific theology, beliefs about marriage, birth control, abortion, belief in an afterlife, etc etc.

And yes, some or all of those things can vary to quite a degree, some may be absent, some may be emphasized more than others, and so on...but there's definitely some correlation to those other things as a whole, as a set of practices or beliefs. Otherwise the words "christian" or "catholic" would have no real meaning.

It's a lot different with "atheist", which has one and only one value associated with it, namely the lack of belief in a deity. That's it, there's nothing else associated with it- no dogma, no practices, no follow-on beliefs, no rituals, no assumptions, nothing whatsoever.

That's why when people try to make generalized statements about atheists they're almost always wrong. The same isn't true in a general sense about "christian" or "catholic" (or Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc), because those terms imply all sorts of additional things even if every single one doesn't apply- some of them surely do or the term itself doesn't apply.

If someone identifies as a catholic but doesn't believe in any of the dogma or any of the teachings of the church or the bible or any of the moral positions or practices of the catholic church, then are they a catholic? No, not any more than someone who claims to be a bicyclist but who doesn't own a bike, never rides a bike, and partakes in no bike-related activities.

Re:Another example

[cold fjord]

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, ...

The regimes of all three specifically targeted religious believers and institutions for heavy repression, including confiscation of property and death.

while o the other hand Hitler embraced the Catholic church and they embraced him back. Does "Gott Mitt Un" ring a bell?

The use of "Gott Mitt Un" predated Hitler's regime in German armies by hundreds of years. Hitler didn't "embrace" the Catholic church in any meaningful way, nor did the Catholic church embrace him back. The Nazis were bitter opponents of genuine Christian belief even while they worked to subvert the church for their own purposes. The christian churches were a source of considerable social resistance to the regime.

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

Atheists believe there is no god, some are extremists, and many of them hold religious belief in contempt. In the regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot that often meant persecution and death.

Hard to do anything "because you don't believe in something"? League of Militant Atheists

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.

It would be silly because there belief in leprechauns does not constitute a mobilizing force in society and is at most a rare and quaint folk belief.

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.

Individually that may be largely true. But in large numbers with support from the regime all bets are off.

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.

League of Militant Atheists

... the League of Militant Atheists sometimes took a violent approach to those who would not accept the League's message. For example, "bishops, priests, and lay believers" were "arrested, shot, and sent to labour camps."[25]

The officially atheist communists killed 100,000,000 people in the last century. Religious persecution was only a portion of that, but it was there.

There are many fine people that are atheists, but atheism isn't a mark of good character, intelligence, or a guarantee of good conduct.

Re:Another example

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately Obama did no better. He basically sat on ass and did nothing while Syria melted down. I saw show after show with syrians begging Obama for help. Then Obama said 'oh lets pull out and let the area have its way with it'. That worked out well didnt it? Kerry and his predecessor Hillary can be blamed for much of what we see in Syria today. He has had this mess for nearly 7 years now. At what point can 'the buck stop here' with him?

Both parties are equally to blame for this mess. Remember the vote to smite out Iraq was fairly lopsided in both the house and senate. With basically a small handful voting against it. Which was pretty much the house leaders letting a few 'stand on principle' because they knew they had enough votes.

My guess is Gore would have done pretty much the same thing.

Re:Another example

[Mashiki]

The fact is that virtually ALL of the "leftist" people I know decry this stuff and none of them defend any of it, period.

You're not far left enough that's why. The far left are already falling all over themselves to whine and complain that it stole the spotlight from Mizzou or how it's not really a problem with Islam, but a problem with the west and how if we really weren't racists this wouldn't have happened.

Re:Another example

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

You don't have that right. Harsh religious persecution was a common feature to the regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. That religious persecution happened as a result of their being atheists.

No. Again, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao didn't do the things they did because they were atheists. They did them because they were evil psychopaths, who also happened to be atheists.

Pol Pot absolutely wasn't driven by atheism as the reason for his rampage. It was all about restarting society at an agrarian level and eschewing culture and technology. I have family members who lived through his reign of terror and were his victims, who were actually tortured in his "reeducation" camps. They still have the physical scars on their bodies to this very day. They saw him come to power and were literally driven out of the city by the Khmer Rouge at gunpoint and marched into the jungle, and they have a pretty damn good idea as to what he was all about. And none of that shit was due to his atheism.

So no, Pol Pot didn't do the things he did because he was an atheist. He did it because he was a psychopathic nutjob, who also happened to be an atheist. He also happened to like very plain farmer-style food, but like atheism, that's not why he murdered millions of people.

Mao, on the other hand, wanted to replace religion with a worship of him instead of some other deity. This isn't exactly a secret, you can look it up. He saw religion as a competitor to be co-opted.

-

There is no shortage of both extremism and contempt for people holding religious belief among atheists.

Sure, but so what? The same can be said of any group, including religious people. I'm sure the Shiites and the Sunnis could explain that to you, and you can barely slide a playing card in between their beliefs.

Re:Another example

[ultranova]

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.

Doesn't that kinda prove that religion - or lack of it - is an irrelevant detail to the issue of people doing horrible things to other people they consider expendable in the name of their cause?

Sorry to burst your simple little thought-bubble.

I'm not. Welcome to reality.

Re:Another example

[Type44Q]

For example, there are lots of people who don't believe in leprechauns, why aren't they out there committing atrocities?

There you go again, embarrassing the idiots with simple, irrefutable logic... but don't feel too bad about it; in their heads, they're still right. ;)

Re: Another example

[ZeroWaiteState]

I don't know, but according to some in this thread, randomly killing people is apparently essential to modern warfare.

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

[Sperbels]

All focus on destroying the opponent's will to fight, rather than his ability to fight.

And yet, this didn't seem to be what 9/11 was about at all. Nor the previous WTC attack, nor the attack on the Cole. Actually, the more I read your reply, the more you seemed to strengthen my point that their true motives cannot be simply gleaned from a word.

Re:Another example

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

There you go again, embarrassing the idiots with simple, irrefutable logic... but don't feel too bad about it; in their heads, they're still right. ;)

I know...they'll never be convinced by mere proof. :(

Re:Another example

[tnk1]

That is merely a turn of phrase. It is important to understand that someone like Hitler did not elevate religion to something where using the world 'god' would imply that he was acting in behalf of some deity. Everything he said or did was subordinated to and used to support his own power and his principle of Germanic superiority. He was the ubermensch, conventional morality did not apply to him in the pursuit of what he determined to be the furthering of his own values.

If I was someone who was functionally an atheist, and I knew that you'd applaud me for simply using a conventional phrase that happened to refer to 'god', why would you ever think I would avoid using that phrase?

He didn't even have to pretend to be a theist. All he had to do is simply use common turns of phrase and let the people listening to him come to their own conclusions. I'm certain that even convinced atheists have said 'god damnit' on occasion, despite their complete disbelief in a deity or an afterlife in which one could be damned.

Hitler was almost certainly an atheist or at least an agnostic in practice, labeling him a Catholic would be like labeling Trotsky as a Jew. Both true, but only in the barest sense of ethnic background.

Re:Another example

[tnk1]

They were that by background, not conviction. It may have informed the flavor of their Marxism, just like if I became a Marxist and decided that I really liked Easter, I might reform Easter into a worker's spring festival where you could hunt for hidden eggs (all red of course) and have some solemn processions of workers and soldiers. But if I persecute my ethnic religion, ignore its core rules, and visibly espouse atheism and Marxism, I'm no longer a Christian and using that label on me is mere background color only of interest to biographers.

Yes, they did abolish religions as threats, but the abolition of religion was also a central facet of the Marxist program. Marxism required the end of religion to come about.

Re:Another example

[Pentium100]

Best case scenario in Syria would be someone like Assad (but not necessarily him) to rule it with an iron fist and ensure that no terrorists are allowed to breed there.

Nuclear powers actively attacking in Syria at the moment: Russia, Israel, United States, France, UK. Near-nuclear-power Iran is heavily involved, as is Saudi Arabia, who is believed to have an agreement with Pakistan to be able to rapidly acquire nuclear warheads if desired in exchange for having funded over half of Pakistan's nuclear program. All sides have missiles that could hit all of their potential foes except Iran->US. Fun times...

So, they all need to just agree to nuke ISIS and not nuke each other. And since ISIS does not have any nukes there won't be a problem.

Re:Another example

[Suffering Bastard]

The dehumanization of anyone, regardless of how they may be broken, will inevitably lead to suffering. How to deal with psychopaths is a debatable topic. But we have to see them like ourselves, with all the challenges that brings, if we are to stop violence like we are seeing today.

Re:Another example

[Pentium100]

In the USA, however, guns are easier to get ahold of than a driving license so try to imagine the possibilities.

However, the advantage of the US system is that more "normal" people have guns compared to France or Germany where only the criminals have them. So, if a terrorist started randomly shooting in the middle of a street (especially in the more gun friendly states), he would not live very long.

All those school shootings happened in places where normal people are forbidden to carry guns.

Re:Another example

[radarskiy]

"Ah I see you're one of the comparison shoppers of bad things."

No, that would be JustAnotherOldGuy, who said "religious fanatics seem especially violent and destructive". The response consisted of pointing out that separating religious from non-religious fanatics was not a particularly useful distinction.

Re:Another example

[Pentium100]

I mean, for example, isn't the belief that God does not exist as dogmatic as believing God does exist? It's an objective question.

There is a difference usually. I cannot speak for everyone, but if someone proved the existence of god (I do not really know how they would do that but let's say it can be done) to me I would start believing it. As it is now, there are thousands of different "the only correct one" religions, that I refuse to choose any of them. If bad things started to happen to the followers of all religions except one (and they were not caused by the actions of people) then I may start believing that "the one" religion may be correct. Or someone explained to me how all those different religions can exist without interfering with each other (for the most part) - maybe each location on Earth has its own god so that if I am in Italy, I have to pray to the Christian god (or the ancient Roman gods) but if I travel to, say, India, I now have to pray to their gods because the Christian/Roman gods have no power over India.

That is the same as my non-belief in aliens from other planets on Earth. If I ever see one (and can be certain I am not hallucinating) I will start believing in them. I can believe in the existence of an electron because the model works. It may not be perfect, but the CRT in my monitor and the vacuum tubes in my amp work like the model say they should. The model may not be perfect (and quantum theory says that electrons are not little spheres etc) but it is a good enough approximation with scientists trying to make it more precise.

On the other hand, at least in the past, whenever there was a war, both sides would pray to their gods for help and yet, one side would still lose. In addition, the side that won was not always with the same religion. So, I guess the prayer model does not work or nobody has found the right words yet.

Re:Another example

[Pentium100]

Now of course, we don't deliberately target civilians, they are just an *inevitable* outcome from prosecuting a war/blockade, so that let's us off the hook for literally any number of civilian casualties we cause.

Because war is not the simplified version the West wants to believe in (now). The World Wars were won not by picking off soldiers by snipers (it was done though), but by bombing the factories, the supply lines and yes, the civilians in addition to killing soldiers.

And that was done in wars where there was a front line and clearly marked soldiers.

If you do not want to bomb civilians, then the terrorists will just try to be near civilians all the time, so you cannot bomb them, so you will have to pick them off with sniper rifles on by one. Slowly, since the terrorist fighters are not clearly marked as soldiers are. So you war is going to take a very long time (in WW2 took only 6 years to make Germany run out of tanks and soldiers and Germany was much stronger than ISIS is now). While the war is going on, more and more of the civilians you so much want to protect will join the ranks of the fighters (either by free will or they will be indoctrinated to join the "holy war" or just forced to), so, the war is going to take even longer.

Instead of using extremely precise (and small, but expensive) bombs, why not just lay waste to the territory? If you do not want to use nukes or gas, why not use hundreds of tons or conventional bombs and just carpet bomb the hell out of that place. You will destroy the terrorists you know about, the terrorists that were hiding and the future terrorists.

Re:Another example

[rtb61]

Most of those pretending to religionists are actually atheists faking it ie just about every single politician that claims to speak for a religion, so suck on that. Publicly claiming to be of a religion and to politically speak for it for your own advantage, has nothing at all to do with actual faith and in reality is pretty much a solid indication of the exact opposite. It might be a tough pill for atheists to swallow but yeah the bulk of those fanatical religious douche bags are straight up atheists only pretending to believe to gain power, in order to feed their own personal lusts and egos, their 'sic' internal demons.

The attacks nothing at all to do with religion. America played and now Europe pays and America is being blamed for this, not in corporate controlled main stream media of course but most definitely out on the streets.

So who wins and who loses.
Europe gains nothing and loses across the board.
Russia neither wins nor loses but its Syria actions win certainly be seen in a more positive light, ending Americas little game (honestly Europe has only felt the slightest bit of what Syria has been subject to as a result of Americas political games).
Israel, well, last time something like this happened it created an opportunity for a limited ethnic cleansing program in Palestine, so a big win if they take any actions at this time.
America, yeah, your fucking fault, so really big lose, especially for it's puppet NATO.
Saudi Arabia, they have been given shit bucket ton of cover by America by favouring American corporations, that cover is pretty much evaporating as we speak, so big losers.
Iran can either win or lose, they can win by being the boots on the ground at the request of Europe in Syria and Iraq to end the mess America created.
The various war lords (armed and munitioned by the US government), hiding behind religion, gain nothing but an intensified focus on eliminating them, so big losers, especially when the boots on the ground will be their claimed religion but of a different faction.

Re:Another example

[MatthiasF]

I think many people need to realize that religions are not specifically theistic. You can hold atheistic beliefs and still be a religious fanatic.

Religions are a core set of beliefs, dogma and sometimes cultural symbols. They do not require a God or supernatural aspect to be consider a religion.

Re:Another example

[MikeMo]

Yeah, their prophesy doesn't quite fit the current world, so the lump all of the West together as a virtual Rome.

Re:Another example

[Anonymous Coward]

So how do you explain American journalists, who are predominantly registered Democrat and who predominantly self-identify as being "liberal" according to American standards of political inclinations, bending over backwards to try not to identify shooters such as these as being Muslim, inspired by IS/ISIS/ISIL, etc.? This is not the first time that the American press has behaved this way (example: Mercer shooting). When Abdulazeez shot up those Marines in Chattanooga, the press acted the same way, even when it was obvious that he was Muslim and that he had flipped.

Why is it that Democrats want to deliberately increase the number of Muslims - including young men from Syria - allowed to enter the United States?

Why is it that American leftists are so quick to defend groups like CAIR?

Maybe you know some "leftist" people who can not stand the violent excesses of Islam. Try finding a left-leaning elected official who will dare to criticize Islam for being even remotely responsible for the madness of daesh/Al Qaeda/Boko Haram/etc.

In the public eye, among the American left, Multiculturalism > everything.

Re:Another example

[KGIII]

The claims of WMDs came from someone on the ground in Iraq, someone whom is believed to have been a member of Saddam's Revolutionary Guard. It's even possible that such existed and were moved to (thoughts were/are) Syria. It's also possible that it was a lie. It's also possible that the powers that be believed it to be unreliable intelligence. Except...

There were, indeed, WMDs in Iraq. The narrative that such did not exist is odd. We have search engines. It's pretty easy to find a LOT of information concerning this. Here is one such link - if you'll accept Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

For some additional reading (those injured by chemical weapons during the Iraq War) then I find this to be a fairly well balanced article:
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...

Re: Another example

[ememisya]

Sucks doesn't it? That guy who yells "Heil Hitler" and kills Jews, that same guy who yells, "Hallelujah!" and kills black people, and that very same guy who yells, "Allahu Akbar" and kills westerners, get all the media attention. You tell me it's not all about money. Today I give -1 to humanity.

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.

Re:Another example

[KGIII]

Another way to look at it is that atheism is a belief that there is no god(s). Thus, it is a dogma, a belief system. That may offend your delicate sensibilities but, it's true. You take it, on faith, no less, that there is no god. It's very much a faith-based belief system. It's okay, just be honest with yourself.

One caveat, the agnostic who literally does not believe but simply does not know. The agnostic is, technically, also an atheist as they do not believe in a deity. They, an exception, do not necessarily believe that there is no god.

For the record, I'm an Atheistic Buddhist, a secular Buddhist if you wish. My reincarnation is that my atoms will be used again. My karma is my belief that doing good things makes me a better person than I'd be without such behavior. My attempts to rid myself of desire are certainly lacking. What's funny is that I've had people try to argue with me about my beliefs - specifically telling me what I don't believe or do believe and opining on how Buddhists would feel about me. Yet, every time I go on refuge, I openly express, am understood, and am accepted as well as given direction. Funny, that. For simplicity sake, we'll just say that I'm an atheist but some thinking has led me to conclude that I'm really agnostic as I truly can't be sure.

Re:Another example

[danbob999]

But they never killed in the name of atheism.

Re:Another example

[bloodhawk]

Pol Pot was a Buddhist as was his entire government, only "other" religions were targeted in his ban on religion. It is still somewhat up for debate whether Mao was an atheist or not, many accounts say he certainly was NOT an atheist. Stalin was thought to believe in god, but not religion.

Re:Another example

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

My reincarnation is that my atoms will be used again.

I'm hoping that the standing wave of electrical energy in my brain that makes me "me" will persist in the quantum sea or foam or whatever and that the "me" part will go on to something different. I don't actually believe it will but it's a nice thought to have.

Actually, in all seriousness, your outlook on life mirrors mine in may ways (or vice versa) and I suspect we'd get along fine over a beer or some other invigorating liquid. :)

Cheers

Re:Another example

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I'm not sure I agree, but then I'm not sure I disagree, either. We'll call this one a wash. ;)

Re:Another example

[Kjella]

Yes the Middle East is a quagmire and it has been for decades.

I think you misspelled millennia.

Re:Another example

[KGIII]

I don't expect my atoms will remember me but I do hope they end up the matter that makes of stars (thanks Brian Cox). I don't drink any more. Well, I haven't for a few years now. Once in a while I'll allow myself one - maybe two, and never more. I was a professional drinker for a lot of years - a functional alcoholic. I'm not sure what happened but I retired and I somehow stopped being functional but I kept up the alcoholic part. So, I quit. That sucked. :/ Don't quit - it's worse than drinking!

Either way, I'd certainly have a frosty cold beverage with ya. Just not more than two. ;-)

Re:Another example

[ultranova]

But the Catholic church did make deals with Hitler to preserve their power and legitimacy which are shameful in retrospect.

"Shameful in retrospect" is an appropriate concept for people who got drunk on Nazism and only later realized what they had done. That's not applicable to the Church, at least based on what you're saying here. Selling out to save your skin might be understandable, and some victims might choose to forgive out of pity, but it's also shameful right from the start.

Re:Another example

[ultranova]

Yes, they did abolish religions as threats, but the abolition of religion was also a central facet of the Marxist program. Marxism required the end of religion to come about.

No, it didn't. Turning the state into a god anything could and should be sacrificed to demanded removing all others. But that has nothing to do with Marxism, and is simply a dictator's - Lenin's first, Stalin's later - thirst for unlimited power hidden under the banner of ideology.

Re:Another example

[NoOneInParticular]

That religious persecution happened as a result of their being atheists

Doesn't follow. In typical fundamentalist religious societies, religious persecution happens for all religions except the state religion. Religious persecution happens as a result of the leaders being psychopaths. Atheist psychopaths simply believe in one less God than religious psychopaths, and therefore persecute one more religion.

Re:Another example

[ultranova]

Best case scenario in Syria would be someone like Assad (but not necessarily him) to rule it with an iron fist and ensure that no terrorists are allowed to breed there.

So first iron-fisted tyranny gets people used to cruelty and violence as the "normal" way of life, and then the anarchy and civil war that result when enough star systems have slipped through that iron fist make for perfect conditions for terrorist recruiters to operate within them. That's pure strategic brilliance right there, sonny.

Re: Another example

[ultranova]

putting pressure on local Muslim communities by the security services

I doubt local Muslim communities are sorry to see the troublemakers go. It's their kids the ISIS recruiters are trying to turn into cannon fodder and murderers, after all. This is, of course, assuming the security services do their work properly rather than bully innocent people to make themselves look though.

These people want a war between Muslims and the rest of the world.

I wonder how many of them think that far ahead, and how many are simply drunk of ideology and do whatever it tells them to without a care for the consequences?

Re:Another example

[serviscope_minor]

Ah, I see you've invented a brand new logical fallacy all to yourself.

Something about attacking one of my arguments by commenting on something someone else said about something else. That's not even a non-sequiteur. Argumentum ad wtffery.

Re:Another example

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I'm not sure what happened but I retired and I somehow stopped being functional but I kept up the alcoholic part. So, I quit.

I went through something similar with pot. I used to toke up regularly, and then one day I just didn't want to anymore. There was no conscious decision to quit or anything like that, no defining event...I just stopped. I may still have a couple of puffs at a party or something, but the urge to get high just disappeared one day for no reason I can discern. I still don't quite understand it, lol.

Cheers

Re:Another example

[martas]

Doesn't that kinda prove that religion - or lack of it - is an irrelevant detail to the issue of people doing horrible things to other people they consider expendable in the name of their cause?

I don't think anybody's saying religion is what makes people capable of doing bad things. I think they're just saying it's been one hell of a motivator. So no, it doesn't prove anything of the sort.

Re:Another example

[Pentium100]

Well, the alternative to that is "democracy" where you get groups like the "Muslim Brotherhood" given power. Or that the people who have no understanding of democracy elect a weak government that is less organized than the terrorists.

So, yea, iron fist is better for those people. As much as it would suck to live in North Korea, I haven't heard of any bombings or shootings carried out by the North Korean terror groups in other countries. So, if the people in Syria or Iraq cannot live like normal people, maybe they need someone like Kim or Stalin to "guide" them.

So first iron-fisted tyranny gets people used to cruelty and violence as the "normal" way of life

The hope here is that anyone with terrorist leanings or does not conform to the will of Dear Leader is put to death. After a while, only conformers should be left.

Re:Another example

[cold fjord]

The Crusades were a long delayed defensive reaction by Christian nations to the invasion and conquest by invading Muslim armies. Their intent was to restore the Holy Lands to Christian control.

Crusades

The first of the Crusades began in 1095, when armies of Christians from Western Europe responded to Pope Urban II’s plea to go to war against Muslim forces in the Holy Land. After the First Crusade achieved its goal with the capture of Jerusalem in 1099, the invading Christians set up several Latin Christian states, even as Muslims in the region vowed to wage holy war (jihad) to regain control over the region.

Up next, was the 1944 D-Day invasion about land expansions abroad and power grabs at home?

Re:Another example

[cold fjord]

There is no atheistic fanatisms. There are only fanatics that happen to be atheists or claim so or kill priests, whatever.

That isn't true.

League of Militant Atheists

In addition, the League of Militant Atheists sometimes took a violent approach to those who would not accept the League's message. For example, "bishops, priests, and lay believers" were "arrested, shot, and sent to labour camps."

Atheist are prone to the same faults as anyone else. There are those among them that hate religion, and if given the opportunity would act on that hatred.

Re:Another example

[cold fjord]

Seems fair, I doubt you would be.

Re:Another example

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Seems fair, I doubt you would be.

Lol, still butthurt from your last spanking? :)

Re:Another example

[cold fjord]

To the best of my knowledge religious persecution has occured in every communist country, countries that are atheist. It isn't a question of psychopaths, but of ideology.

League of Militant Atheists

In addition, the League of Militant Atheists sometimes took a violent approach to those who would not accept the League's message. For example, "bishops, priests, and lay believers" were "arrested, shot, and sent to labour camps."

You can't explain it away by saying it was just Stalin because it happened under the leaders that followed him, and in other countries.

Re:Another example

[cold fjord]

Oppression of religious believers occurred in every communist country to the best of my knowledge. You can't explain it away by saying it was just Lenin, or Stalin. It happened under the leaders that followed them, and in other countries. It is a matter of ideology.

Re:Another example

[BlackDeath3]

You've completely missed the point with this response. You must realize that.

Re:Another example

[BlackDeath3]

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.

Right, but the question that kicked off this thread of conversation was:

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

"Terrorism" may be a fine descriptor of the end result of these attacks (and therefore may be a reasonable answer to the latter question), but it doesn't necessarily shed much light on the motives of the attackers. We may call them "terrorists" and it may be an apt name indeed, but it doesn't mean that we have any idea of what it is they're actually after.

Re:Another example

[cold fjord]

Hmm .... Looks to me like your over-active fantasy life is leaching out into your everyday life.

You aren't stupid, but you simply get some things wrong, and I may make some replies to other posts mainly for the benefit of others. I doubt there is much evidence that would persuade you that you've got something wrong to the point you would change your mind.

Re:Another example

[agm]

They have a book that says they have an invisible friend, and that this invisible friend will provide them some kind of paradise after death. A way to ensure they get to this make-believe place is to kill people who don't have the same imaginary friend.

Belief in an afterlife is not only unreasonable, it's dangerous.

Re:Another example

[angel'o'sphere]

Interesting.
However they are not Atheists but Antitheists, they only name themselves atheists ... but well, difficult topic.

Re:Another example

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Looks to me like your over-active fantasy life is leaching out into your everyday life

If that's what it looks like to you then you probably just need a new pair of glasses. Sadly, they do not make glasses to correct pedantry, but you could always try some Xanax or Midol in the convenient suppository form.

...and I may make some replies to other posts mainly for the benefit of others.

I'm sure that the Collective thanks you deeply for your generous and selfless Public Service announcements which you spout in order to set the record straight as regards my many egregious mistakes, which undoubtedly flow like a river of raging incorrectness.

-

I doubt there is much evidence that would persuade you that you've got something wrong to the point you would change your mind.

See, there you go again, assuming facts not in evidence. I've been wrong more times than I can count (even if I take my shoes off!) and I'm more than willing to admit it when it happens and change my mind. I've had a lot of practice being wrong and so actually I'm quite good at it, probably way better than you. lol :)

Re:Another example

[cold fjord]

Atheist and "anti-theist" aren't mutually exclusive categories. One of them is pretty much a subset of the other. I haven't noticed that most atheists here are indifferent towards religion. It isn't difficult to find contempt, hatred, and even eliminationist sentiments being expressed. What would happen if the official ideology of the state aligned with their views, and they had the power to act in a manner effectively above the law as the NKVD (KGB) could? Religous oppression sanctioned by the state, and often harsh, has been a feature of every Communist country to the best of my knowledge. (It isn't just Stalin and Mao, or a bunch of "psychopaths".)

Re:Another example

[angel'o'sphere]

China was still communidtic after Mao, but no longer anti religion.
East germany an polland where under communist regims, poland never was anti religion, and east germany only did 'not support' the church, it also was not anti religin.
The idea that communism equals either anti religion or atheism is wrong (and it is actually a no brainer, considering how many states are communistic :-/)

Re:Another example

[angel'o'sphere]

One of them is pretty much a subset of the other.
No. There is no such relationship.
Perhaps all anti-theists are also atheists. So they would be a subset of the atheists.
That however is not true for the categories :) The whole idea of categorirs is that they dont overlap but that label a particular entity with several categories.
Also, if we are strivtly speaking about 'theists' then we are talking about the believes in gods. There are plenty of atheists that are still spiritual, but don't believe in gods. I doubt any of them is an anti-theist and certainly not a radical ...

Re:Another example

[CODiNE]

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.

In my opinion nationalism is the most dangerous form of fanaticism. It pulls in both atheistic and religious people in equal numbers. The brainwashing starts early in childhood. People are taught "us vs them" and will happily offer their lives for the cause. Religion has caused many wars but they couldn't fill their armies without nationalism blinding both sides. It's really a cancer.

Re:Another example

[Copid]

There are different levels of belief, though. Is it just as dogmatic to assert that unicorns don't exist as it is to assert that they do? I'm pretty certain that they don't exist, but if I saw one, I'd be perfectly happy to change my mind. Likewise, I'm an atheist because I don't see any compelling evidence to believe in a god, but if such evidence presented itself, I'd be willing to change my mind. Is that still a dogma or just a general belief that the preponderance of evidence points in one direction?

I think that the creation of an "agnostic" category implicitly overstates the certainty with which atheists disbelieve. I've know a lot of atheists, but I've never known any who disbelieve in a god as firmly and certainly as the more sincere Christians I have known. It's fairly easy to find a religious person who will say, "I believe this with 100% certainty, and nothing I see will ever change that." I've never met an atheist who took that position.

Re:Another example

[doccus]

There's no denying that ISIS are ruthless, but this has all the hallmarks of a false flag, and NOT an islamic assault. I think they simply blamed ISIS.. At least according to the radicals, Koran specifically forbids arbitrary killings and preferentially allows what is known as "suicide" killing. I'm not saying it really condones it, but in the eyes of these radicals it does. There is however , no precedent for this kind of behavior displayed in Paris.
I do not know what the end game of these perpetrators is, but I don't think its "ISIS". Rather, I'm afraid I think it's more a "Gulf of Tonkin" or "Pearl Harbor" event..

Re:Another example

[radarskiy]

No, I am pointing out that you have assigned your premise to the wrong person.

Re:Another example

[Suffering Bastard]

I'm hoping that the standing wave of electrical energy in my brain that makes me "me" will persist in the quantum sea or foam or whatever and that the "me" part will go on to something different. I don't actually believe it will but it's a nice thought to have.

That was nicely said. I personally believe that there is a 'me' identity that persists, but that we can't really understand its nature, any more than we can truly understand ourselves (a lifelong struggle, that). I certainly can't prove such a thing and accept I could be wrong. But it feels right to me.

And I hope y'all would accept me at the beer table. Cheers.

Re:Another example

[KGIII]

So there were technically WMDs and you're, what?

Re:Another example

[KGIII]

Hmm... In hindsight, we could say that that was the end result of D-Day. So, yeah.

The first Crusade was largely about Muslim expansion. Yes. However, they took anyone in that territory who was converting to be considered expansion. The 2nd through 9th were about them trying to maintain their power. The Aragonese and Northern were absolutely about nothing but power. And with all of the crusades we had lots of power changes, land expansions, and politics.

So, to use WWII, it was more like Germany trying to keep their territory against the onslaught of the Russians.

https://books.google.com/books...

See? I have links too.

Re:Another example

[Keith Henson]

That close.

The chronicler Robert the Monk put this into the mouth of Urban II: ... this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the seas and surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; nor does it abound in wealth; and it furnishes scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder one another, that you wage war, and that frequently you perish by mutual wounds. Let therefore hatred depart from among you, let your quarrels end, let wars cease, and let all dissensions and controversies slumber. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre; wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The problem is "large population" in relation to resources.

This is more or less standard human response far back into the stone age. You can always fix the problem of not enough resources by killing the neighbors, and humans are wired to respond that way when they sense things are getting tight.

Re:Another example

[KGIII]

Err... Both of the things I mentioned are examples of resources or ways to acquire resources. I'm not sure I follow. I linked a nice scholarly work in another reply - they appeared to argue with me (even though they were talking about retaking territory - which is still about resources) but you appear to be agreeing with me so I'm not sure what I'm missing?

Re:Another example

[cold fjord]

In terms of WW2 you've got it backwards. The Crusaders were trying to eject the invaders. Unfortunately the invaders ultimately won.

Looked at your link, saw your search terms: "crusades power grab land expansion"

If that's what your looking for you'll be able to find it. "Industrialization and National Prosperity (lessons for the Developing Countries)" ?? Really? For "history" of the crusades? I wouldn't be surprised to find the phrase "little Eichmanns" in there.

Re:Another example

[KGIII]

I figured I'd highlight 'em - it was the only way I'd find 'em. I originally got the information from a documentary with, I think, Dr. Bettany Hughes. I don't recall the name but that's where I got the information - as well as several others. You can argue with them, if you'd like. You might really want to look at the history of the crusades. Let's start with, how was it their land to begin with? (I'll give ya a hint - they *were* the invaders.)

Re:Another example

[cold fjord]

Was the Byzantine empire an invader? I'm not sure that is true. Byzantine inherited control of a portion of the former Roman empire, but I don't think they invaded the area themselves. (Unless you want to quibble about some revolts and attempted invasion in the in interim period before the Muslim invasion.) The Romans did invade and conquer the region something like 700-800 years prior to the Muslim invasions.

But now we come to the question, so what? Even if Byzantine did invade the region in the past does that mean that the Muslim armies were not invaders? Does it mean this was not a defensive war on the part of the West? In both cases the answer is "no".

Re:Another example

[rsborg]

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.

By that definition, religion isn't responsible for anything. Fact is, without the power structure allowed by Christianity, such a marshaling of forces across kingdoms and countries could not have been possible - and the call to arms was religious in nature.

Re:Another example

[KGIII]

The Byzantines were the Romans, in part. The Eastern and Western Roman Empire was eventually split. Yes, yes they were invaders. They were mad, killing, resource stealing invaders trying to hold onto their ill gotten gains - much of it from a populist uprising more so than a foreign invasion. Yes it matters if we want to discuss why they were really doing things.

Re:Another example

[KGIII]

I could agree that religion isn't responsible for anything. I know that you were hoping I'd not but I do, if I think about it. People are responsible. Blame them, not their religion, if you're looking to blame something. And certainly, the call to arms was religious in nature. That doesn't mean that's the reason it was done. Ostensibly, we invaded Iraq because of WMDs and 9/11. The boots on the ground felt that those were indeed the reasons, hell - lots of people joined just because of those reasons.

That's one recent example. I can go on.

Re:Another example

[cold fjord]

Have you any harsh words for the Muslim invaders that not only conquered the Holy Lands, but Byzantium, Spain, threatened France and Vienna? The Dark Ages were largely a result of their actions. Do you think any of that matters if we want to discuss the whys of history? Do you have any disapproval left for them?

Re:Another example

[KGIII]

Oh yes, they were a barbaric lot who infringed on the basic rights of humans and do still, to this very day. They've continued to be barbaric (some of them) and their actions are deplorable. The Arabic peoples were doing great things until they were "enlightened" and converted to Islam. I've plenty of scorn for them.

Re:Another example

[Lennie]

OK.

But the real question is:
without 9/11 would the war in Iraq have happened ?

Because this why I created my comment:
"Without 9/11 there would probably be no Islamic State"

I'm not from the US, I don't live in the US. So I wonder if the mindset and believes of the people in the US was such that this lead to the war in Iraq.

Re:Another example

[serviscope_minor]

You replied to my post with a criticism based on something someone else said about someone else.

Re:Another example

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

And I hope y'all would accept me at the beer table. Cheers.

We'll save you a spot and see you there, or then, or whatever. :)

Re:Another example

[fredrated]

Have you forgotten we were forced out of Iraq because their 'government' would not sign an agreement that gave American troops immunity from prosecution. and our War department would not stay without that agreement?

Re:Another example

[adhdengineer]

Point of fact: The UK is not currently involved in the air campaign in Syria. We are bombing Iraq, but not Syria. Politics.

Re:Another example

[werepants]

So if fanaticism can occur with a religion, personality, or even a technology (Apple, amirite?) then perhaps the specific focus of the fanaticism is less critical than the social conditions which create it. Namely, dissatisfied and suffering people are susceptible to adopting extremist ideology.

You can try to use terrorist atrocities as an opportunity to get on the anti-religion soapbox, but IMO that is both misguided and futile. Misguided because religion is not strongly correlated with awful human actions - there are lots of atrocities that have been committed apart from religion, and a lot of religious people that have not caused atrocities, so singling it out as the main problem isn't warranted. Secondly, no religious person, ever, has heard some angry rant on the internet and decided to be less religious. I understand wanting to vent your rage, but all the internet vitriol in the world won't make religion go away, so maybe a new strategy is advisable.

Re:Another example

[werepants]

There is no atheistic fanatisms. There are only fanatics that happen to be atheists or claim so or kill priests, whatever.

No True Scotsman fallacy. One could as easily claim that there are no religious fanatics - only fanatics who falsely claim association with a religion.

Re:Another example

[werepants]

Errr, well, actually it is often the religion that produces the violence. Without the religion they'd have nothing to fight to the death over and nothing to motivate them or delude them into such action.

Actually, you see lots of people willing to fight for reasons entirely separate from religion. See: every war, ever. People don't really murder one another for abstract reasons - they murder one another to defend their 'tribe' and improve conditions for whatever community they belong to.

Let's all just be honest and admit that religion often serves as the vehicle to induce people to do horrific things, things that they otherwise would never dream of doing.

I'd rather be honest and get rid of the ideological grandstanding and look at the REAL roots of large-scale violence - poverty, tribalism, perceived inequality, culture conflicts, etc. People commit horrific acts for all sorts of reasons, and there are much better correlates out there than religion.

Re:Another example

[werepants]

You're not far left enough that's why. The far left are already falling all over themselves to whine and complain that it stole the spotlight from Mizzou or how it's not really a problem with Islam, but a problem with the west and how if we really weren't racists this wouldn't have happened.

What? Citation, please. I'm legitimately interested, because I haven't heard any of this.

Re:Another example

[jdavidb]

Is it okay if I am fanatical about not killing people?

http://www.theonion.com/article/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule-222

Re:Another example

[jdavidb]

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?

I am a religious fanatic who teaches my children that killing in the name of religion or even trying to straighten people out in the name of religion is wrong. I teach them about Nagasaki and Hiroshima and other horrific killings of the twentieth century and other centuries. I teach them this is unequivocally wrong. I teach them that Christ wants us to abstain from all violence and anger, and that he wants us to be fanatical about it.

I wish people were actually fanatical about what God actually said. Like Thou shalt not kill.

Re:Another example

[ranton]

Have you forgotten we were forced out of Iraq because their 'government' would not sign an agreement that gave American troops immunity from prosecution. and our War department would not stay without that agreement?

No, but the realities of diplomatic negotiations are not limited to the soundbites that eventually make it into the news. If the US wanted to stay in Iraq, we would have stayed. If we wanted to redeploy troops the moment ISIS started taking cities, we would have.

Re:Another example

[david_thornley]

Not all school shootings happen in gun-free zones, and neither do all mass shootings.

In the recent Oregon case, it appears that there was someone present who was carrying, who decided to leave the issue to the police. In the Giffords case, she was shot in Arizona, which is strongly pro-gun, and the shooter was stopped by being rushed when reloading.

Re:Another example

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Actually, you see lots of people willing to fight for reasons entirely separate from religion.

Yes, and no one, including myself, is disagreeing with that.

-

I'd rather be honest and get rid of the ideological grandstanding and look at the REAL roots of large-scale violence - poverty, tribalism, perceived inequality, culture conflicts, etc. People commit horrific acts for all sorts of reasons, and there are much better correlates out there than religion.

That may be, but it doesn't disprove my point at all, not even a little bit.

Re:Another example

[Pentium100]

(read: muzzle loaders, not bushmaster ARs)

Yes, the latest and greatest weapons of the time, used by the army too.

So, today it should be machine guns and whatever else the army has access to.

Re:Another example

[werepants]

Let's assume this is your main point:

Without the religion they'd have nothing to fight to the death over and nothing to motivate them or delude them into such action.

The idea that violence would stop entirely if religion was gone is quite extraordinary. There are a couple of quick ways to check its veracity. You are saying that without religion, people could not be deluded into murdering one another. However, there are many instances of large-scale violence being perpetrated for nonreligious reasons. What's more, there are many highly religious populations that are not at all violent... religion alone does not seem to be sufficient to cause violence in those instances. Additionally, violent terrorist activities certainly seem to be ramping up recently in the Middle East, yet there isn't a corresponding increase in religiosity - these regions have always been highly religious. That suggests an entirely separate cause for the violence. So how do you defend the point?

I think the question of what role religion plays in these violent conflicts is an interesting and important one, but sweeping generalities like yours are inaccurate and smell more of dogma than honest discourse. It would be much more fruitful to consider all the various causes of terrorism, because a solution won't be found unless we're willing to abandon ideology in the interest of understanding the full complexity of the situation.

Re:Another example

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Let's assume this is your main point:

Let's not, because that's not my main point.

The idea that violence would stop entirely if religion was gone is quite extraordinary.

Correct, and no one is saying that, not even me. What I'm saying is that all these whack-ass religious shitheads would have nothing to fight over because without their religion they wouldn't exist.

The Sunnis and the Shiites wouldn't exist if not for some 2000-year old pissing match about who should have inherited the goodies after Mohammed died. No Mohammed, no Islam, and no dumbfucks to fight over which magical sky-daddy was the "real" one.

Yes, people will always fight about something, but without religion they sure as shit wouldn't be fighting over religion.

Duh ?

[Izuzan]

Of course they would claim it. Even if they didnt do it.

They did warn the world they had ISIS operatives mixed in with refugees. So its not truely surprising.

Re: Duh ?

[Izuzan]

Fear mongering my arse. They warned the world. Governments around the world pooh poohed it.

You have refugees rioting in Europe, have refugees refusing to get of busses because its to cold, its to far from a city, their rooms dont have TV's. How are people to take this ? Giving these people places to live and they are whining its not a 5star hotel with pool, jacuzzi, hot tub and full cable.

Re: Duh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fear mongering my arse. They warned the world. Governments around the world pooh poohed it.

You have refugees rioting in Europe, have refugees refusing to get of busses because its to cold, its to far from a city, their rooms dont have TV's. How are people to take this ? Giving these people places to live and they are whining its not a 5star hotel with pool, jacuzzi, hot tub and full cable.

There will always be one in a large enough group that you can point to as a bad apple regardless of what you are looking for. Not everyone reading slashdot is a bleeding liberal or a guntoting conservative (or any other political label).

The fear-mongering is there to internally justify to oneself when saying no to refugees instead of saying "we do not want to spend money or space on you". The latter is not "charitable" and people like to view themselves in a good light.

You can also do a risk analysis. Many of those fleeing Syria, and other countries, are at great risk to be forcefully "drafted" into ISIS should they remain. What is the cost of allowing all these people getting forcefully drafted into ISIS? What is the cost of allowing refugees into your country and risk that among them a small number of ISIS nuts are hidden?

Stopping refugees at the border will not stop ISIS from sending idiots anywhere. There will be radical idiots living in every country, that are even born in that country. You can't stop them from getting into your country, they are already there.

My semi-serious proposal is that we allow all refugess into all countries. Let ISIS build their caliphate. Then have them celebrate their "victory" and while they do it, nuke it from orbit and rid ourselves of a good 90% of them. Then start hunting them down all over the world, without pardon.

Re: Duh ?

[Izuzan]

I have no real problem with refugees. The problem right now is. These "refugees" arent acting like it. Refugees should be thankful for what they get, thankful to be out of where they were. Not complaining about being cold, not having TV. And guilting countries into spending even more money building these people homes to live in.

If you are going to bitch about my hospitality in letting you in and giving you places to live and food. Then you can just fuck off back to the refugee camp.

Re: Duh ?

[Opportunist]

Not all of them yet, what they got so far is 7 dead terrorists, one of them being a Frenchman. And they assume that a Macedonian they arrested Nov 5th with some weapons and explosives was potentially one of those planning or at least delivering ammo for the attack.

Re: Duh ?

[oobayly]

Apart from the Syrian and Egyptian passports - from that notoriously right wing source "The Independent":

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

Proof?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, few have noticed that France has sweeping surveillance laws, while other countries like Italy and Spain do not.
The latter have arrested terrorist cells even this month, while the former could not, even during an high alert state due to international talks the day before.

Can we say we have proof those laws do not work? Or will we go all emperor-palpatine-during-emergency after this?

Re:Proof?

[loonycyborg]

Nobody said they work for catching actual terrorists. They exist only for peace of mind and illusion of safety. Competent investigators do their work while incompetent ones gathers astronomic amount of useless data.

Re:Proof?

[JoeyRox]

Or it's proof that terrorists are trying harder to attack France than Spain.

Re:Proof?

[avandesande]

How quickly we forget.....

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

Re:Proof?

[aaaaaaargh!]

I'm against extensive surveillance laws, but this is still a non-sequitur. France has a very special problem with citizens with an immigration background (2nd and 3rd generation) from former colonies, particularly Algeria. Many of them live in ghettos, have poor education and only dim chances of success in society and created their own subculture. As a consequence, the risk of home-grown terrorism is way higher in France than in Italy or Spain.

Re:Proof?

[Opportunist]

Well, considering how the whole mess went down, what would more lenient gun laws have accomplished? I don't know for sure, but are guns allowed in Heavy Metal concerts in the US?

Re:Proof?

[squiggleslash]

Unfortunately we can't make that claim on the basis of today's horrors. I hate to be the bad guy here (*puts on Hitler mustache*) but without data on how many terrorist plots France has foiled, we can't say whether France is using the wrong methods, or simply enduring significantly higher numbers of attackers and plots (and being overwhelmed as a result.)

And if France is enduring more attacks, that might explain the draconian laws, rather than vice versa.

Re:Proof?

[Noughmad]

I have to call bullshit on that. 16% of France means 10 million people, while the same article claims there are only 5 million muslims there. I'm also pretty sure not all muslims support ISIS, and I'm even more sure that there aren't 5 million non-muslim ISIS supporters there.

Also, if the article is correct, we have failed as a species and are doomed.

Re:Proof?

[tnk1]

You should not use one data point to compare the effectiveness of different countries' law enforcement especially when discussing different situations.

Terrorists are going to succeed eventually as long as they are capable and motivated to keep trying. The question is whether those laws have cut down the rate of successful attempts and arrests are only one of many variables in that calculation.

Re:Proof?

[Opportunist]

They aren't. Who said that? You can't legislate away a social problem.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Crazy gun control laws don't help.
What if ?
What if eveyone that wanted to carry a firearm who also passed proper background check to have one was packing when the terrorists started shooting ?
What if there was a bounty on the head of every terrorist killed ?
Time to stop talking and fight back !

Re:A self-fulfilling cycle that must be quashed

[kencurry]

Texas,

Is that you? Shine on you crazy cowboys.

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:A self-fulfilling cycle that must be quashed

[Opportunist]

You are aware that most of the victims were in a Heavy Metal concert, yes?

Let's imagine how this would have gone down if "everyone that wanted to carry a firearm who also passed proper background check to have one was packing when the terrorist started shooting". In the darkness of a Metal concert hall. A packed concert hall.

Let's even assume for a moment that people are insane enough not only to allow weapons at a Metal concert but also stupid enough to bring them along.

Bluntly, the terrorists wouldn't have had to shoot twice to accomplish this body count...

Re:A self-fulfilling cycle that must be quashed

[KGIII]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics...

The Pew Research claimed "the world's Muslims" (according to the image) yet they only took data from a specific geographical area. The sample sizes are tiny. The margin of error is huge, unacceptably so. How was the data collected? How did they prevent biases in the survey - were they done in-person?

Needless to say, I stopped there. The data may be right but using a handful of people to extrapolate to include millions and to do so with data from just one geopolitical region is not good work.

Who still thinks is a good idea?

[DarkOx]

Who still thinks is a good idea to allow mass immigration of refuges from the region? Lets face it ISIS is going international they way its progenitor was. We simply can not allow people from that region to enter without being fully vetted and as we have no way to do that for the vast majority of the refugees. I think they need to be kept right where they are.

If anything we should simply help Turkey, Jordon, and Lebanon secure their borders. The safe thing to do is assume anyone crossing the boarder is a threat.

Re:Who still thinks is a good idea?

[aaaaaaargh!]

I think so. Next question.

Re:Who still thinks is a good idea?

[ray-auch]

So you would stop refugees coming in because ISIS infiltrated their ranks.

Not what was said, OP said everyone would be stopped unless vetted and checked, if refugees pass the checks then they obviously they can pass the border, like anyone else.

You don't stop drinking all water because the source is infiltrated, you ensure you filter and purify it.
You don't not-dress a wound because the dressing may be contaminated, you ensure the dressing is sterile.

Of course, most of the "refugees" don't seem to want to be checked at borders, they would rather sneak across or use force of numbers to storm the border. They don't want to say who they are or how old they are or where they come from, they would rather destroy documents if they have to go through passport control, pick a country of origin that has most sympathy and lie about being a minor, all to get best chance of asylum. That all needs to stop.

Refugees need a safe place to go, but that doesn't need to be in any European country. Western nations should look to ensure safe camps in countries nearest to the war zones, to minimize the numbers undertaking fatal journeys, defend and police them with our troops if necessary (be a better use than bombing the war zones).

Re:Who still thinks is a good idea?

[unimacs]

The people who did this were native French speakers, - at least at the concert. They didn't get there by hiding among the refugees. In fact, that would be a pretty slow, unreliable, and inefficient way to get anybody anywhere. Plus there is no need to do it since ISIS has had little difficulty in recruiting followers that already in the West.

Re:Who still thinks is a good idea?

[phantomfive]

Refugees need a safe place to go, but that doesn't need to be in any European country. Western nations should look to ensure safe camps in countries nearest to the war zones, to minimize the numbers undertaking fatal journeys

Those are interesting points.

Re:Who still thinks is a good idea?

[aaaaaaargh!]

Most of the refugees are are fleeing from IS and it is not a good idea to not help hundreds of thousands of legitimate refugees just because several dozens or even hundreds of them might be terrorists. By your logic, you should kick all car drivers out of your country because some of them might drive drunk and kill your loved ones.

The world does only revolve around you and your family, there are also some higher values to defend.

Re:Who still thinks is a good idea?

[Zontar The Mindless]

I'm sure Turkey considers these points quite interesting, given that it's already coping with nearly 2 million refugees.

Re:Who still thinks is a good idea?

[phantomfive]

I'm sure Turkey would be willing to take money to build more refugee camps.....scraping some of the money off the top.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[codeAlDente]

Not oil. A pipeline for natural gas

Facebook to the rescue

[JoeyRox]

"Your friend Mary Lawrence has checked in as safe. Good news, Safe Lock & Co. is having a sale on wall safes. Click this advertising link for details".

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.

ISIS?

[PPH]

I heard it was al Qaida.

An al Qaida spokesman stated that they were responsible and that ISIS couldn't find their ass with both hands.

Re:ISIS?

[PPH]

Whoosh!

The idea is to credit the wrong group and start a fight between the two of them.

Re:ISIS?

[squiggleslash]

They're massive rivals and hate each other. ISIL is largely a bunch of religious nuts who murder people because they hate them. Al Qaeda has more of a specific agenda and is trying to use terrorism to produce certain governmental responses that will result, in the end, in a pan-Arab state.

ISIL is basically fucking things up for Al Qaeda, which would be great if it wasn't for the fact that both groups are evil monsters that see Westerners as convenient scapegoats and great people to murder.

I believe ISIL came out of Al Qaeda, but that's the only connection.

Re-establish law enforcement

[Anonymous Coward]

Law enforcement in France has been gradually weakened over years, possibly decades already. Police officers are reluctant or have orders not to enter certain banlieus (suburbs). To finish off terrorism, this will have to change first. You have to nip things in the bud.

Article from 2011:
http://www.fdesouche.com/335448-on-donne-lordre-a-la-police-de-ne-pas-rentrer-dans-les-cites-car-on-na-peur-que-les-banlieues-partent-en-feu-rmc#

Re:Re-establish law enforcement

[KGIII]

I was watching a documentary with Louis Theroux (spelling) where he, a fairly wimpy and geeky looking guy, was stomping across the planet and going to exceptionally dangerous places and then getting scared while explaining the news and history of the area he was visiting. I don't remember exactly where this was but it was in France. Somewhere near the Riviera, I think. Marsait (spelling)?

Anyhow, they have areas where the cops will not go. One, in specific, was really interesting. They called it Le Castile or something like that. It's a housing projects that was built "nicely" in its day. It's all brick, with a nice high wall around it, and it has a couple of gates. The buildings are tall and actually make good fortification unless you plan on using bombs and tanks.

Not even the cops enter. This is in France. Yes, France. That France. I've stomped across the world in my many years and I've even visited combat zones where even children ran around with real assault rifles. (They're not the rifles that silly media calls assault rifles when there's a mass shooting in the US. They're real, fully automatic, rifles - a 'battle rifle' if you will.) In very few places are there areas where cops will not go. In the US, my home, I don't know of any where the cops won't go - they'll go in force and be pissed about it but they'll go.

At this place, in France, they would not enter and when someone died they relied on the people who lived their to bring the body out or to deliver injured to emergency responders. As mentioned, I've stomped across the globe, even to places where my own State Department gave me stern warnings and told me that they would be unable to assist me if there were problems, and there are very, I mean very, few places like that. Usually, rough areas like that will actually be under the control of a local power who does their policing or they're subjected to very violent police forces who are actors of the state. Such areas exist but they're really, exceedingly, rare and finding out about such places in France was really quite surprising.

Re:Re-establish law enforcement

[KGIII]

Those look about right. I see they finally sent some police in and took in a bunch of paramilitary with them. The documentary was a little dated but not too old, as I recall. I don't watch documentaries as a formal study or anything. It's passive entertainment for me - I don't watch television and seldom go to movies unless it's a special reason. I just don't prefer them. I only retain some of the data in the documentaries, I don't remember specific names, dates, and whatnot but I get a good grounding and that's fine - it's entertainment and not scholastic.

Thank you for the clarification. One of the reasons that I enjoy Slashdot, as much as I do, is that I can enter the little bit that I know and someone, almost always, comes along and fills in the details for me - I'm usually correct enough but sometimes I may have overlooked something. It's nice to see the collection of knowledge at play and I sometimes think of connections that others might not have - and then someone fills in more information and we get a more complete picture. This seems to be true with a wide variety of subjects.

At first, I wasn't sure why you'd been moderated negatively and then I finished your post. There's some sensitive types out today and while you weren't specifically racists, you certainly insinuated (even if not intentional) some prejudicial beliefs. I can say, as I've been to the Middle East, that not everyone is like that. I can say that there are a lot of good people there. I can say that there are people there who speak out and condemn the violence and hate it (and the behaviors that are, truly, cultural) as much as you or I. So, there are exceptions and the rule is, if we have to generalize, that people are people - and I find this true no matter where I go.

Take from that what you will. I'm not one to say what you can and can't think, say, feel, or believe. I don't even normally use my moderator points (I get them often). I find that the more hopeless, or destitute, people are then the more likely it is that you'll find bad actors among them. I've gone to places where I've had a stern lecture from the State Department where they told me that they would be of absolutely no help should I have a problem. I was told that if I were arrested that I was probably dead and there wasn't a damned thing they could do about it and that I'd be subject to arrest just for being an American. I've been warned about terrorists, kidnapping, and armed conflicts - I've traveled extensively in Africa and South America over the years as well as some in the Middle East.

I've concluded that people are people. I suspect that we'd have fewer acts of violence if we had fewer desperate people. When you're hopeless, when you've nothing left to lose, or when you have everything to lose, that's when things seem to go poorly. Then again, what do I know, right? I don't, really, know. That's just a guess based on my observations. See the violence in the "Christian" or "Voodoo" areas of East and West Africa. I'd not be surprised if they averaged out to a higher number of fatalities than the Islamic extremists have done in, say, the past quarter century. They just don't have the money to get to Europe and shoot people.

Ah well, that's my take on it. I could be wrong but I don't really think the root is the religion, region, or culture. I think it all boils down to being hopeless, full of despair, having nothing to lose, and having everything to lose.

Re:Re-establish law enforcement

[KGIII]

I'm aware that the culture is different, of course. I just don't think that it, directly, is to blame. Additionally, I'll add that I included "everything to lose" in my list. Those would be the ones behind the scenes with the money and power but I didn't want to go into typing out all the many things one could type on that subject as I'm pretty sure you're aware of that problem already.

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The original poster is not entirely right. Here is for example the data for Pakistan:

Total strikes: 421
Obama strikes: 370
Total killed: 2,489-3,989
Civilians killed: 423-965
Children killed: 172-207
Injured: 1,158-1,738

So yes, many civilians but not anywhere near 96%. In any case, there is still a huge difference to terrorism, because drone strikes are not intended to kill civilians, many civilian deaths are only accepted as a side-effect. It boils down how you interpret the "double effect doctrine". In my point of view, drone strikes are serious crimes just like terrorist attacks but the two things should be kept apart and not one can justify the other.

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion provides for a number of things:

• Helps people cope with loss and the certainty of death
• Social infrastructure, including baseline values and morals
• Aid to the needy (impoverished, addicts)
• Sense of purpose

Don't underestimate the value of such a thing. There is a reason why most dominant societies throughout history have had religious infrastructure.

The problem here isn't simply religion, it is the expression of intolerant religion. The reformations of Christianity/etc incorporated tolerance directly into their belief systems, and once Islam does that (and takes direct responsibility for their militant factions, as an Egyptian president once declared in a speech), the world will be a much safer place.

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[ranton]

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

And yet some of the regimes which have the largest murder count of their own populations weren't religious.

I assume JustAnotherOldGuy would agree that people will also look back at things like fascism, totalitarianism, etc. and wonder what the fuck was wrong with everyone. That seems like an unrelated tangent to his original comment though.

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.

Not to make light...

[dablow]

....of what a horrible tragedy this is, but I fear another round of loss of liberty and rights is in the making for western countries.

Which is sad really.

Nobody sees that the terrorists are winning, when a handful of sand hicks can bring the Western Nations to their knees terrified of Allah....which is EXACTLY what they want.

Canada chickened out and all it took is 2 tragic deaths before setting up the foundations and laws for their future police state.

USA did it way back in '01

But wtv....seems just like so hopeless...It's almost as if Western Civ wants to die, willingly, and revert back to the days of fiefdoms, theocracies and barbarism.

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

In the U.S., mass shootings are often done by atheists and rarely by religious groups.

That's debatable, but it's also irrelevant.

Religions like Islam and Christianity have foundational writings that all followers of that religion accept in one form or another. Those writings describe acts of unspeakable violence and cruelty, in several instances ordered or condoned by God, that all followers of those religions at least acknowledge and usually tacitly condone. That is what religious terrorists who label themselves as belonging to these faiths refer to and use to justify their actions. So, there is a direct connection between the actual religion and the acts of religious terrorists. That's true even if the terrorists are considered "not really" belonging to the religion according to the "mainstream".

Nothing like that is true for atheism. Atheists share nothing other than a non-belief in God. Therefore, the beliefs or actions of one atheist tell you nothing about the beliefs of another atheist.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[ShanghaiBill]

One thing that makes us better than them is....we try hard to limit civilian causalities when striking military targets.

Except the leaked Collateral Murder video shows Americans deliberately attacking and killing civilian first responders. America considers this a war crime when our enemies do it. None of the killers were ever charged with a crime, and neither were any of the officials who covered it up and lied about the existence of the video before it was leaked.

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[dablow]

"Helps people cope with loss and the certainty of death"

With a lie....and btw you find out it was a lie, too late to do anything about it.

"Social infrastructure, including baseline values and morals".....

Humans had baseline values and morals long before religion was invented. It didn't take the bible to figure out murdering each other was not a good thing. Which BTW you realize some religions say crazy shit like killing your rebellious teen-age children. And offer up your daughter for rape rather than take it up the ass yourself.

"Aid to the needy (impoverished, addicts)"
Although they do help, they are not the only ones. Non religious organizations help also. And the insidious part about help coming from religious groups is a lot of them do it in the hopes of recruiting more and more believers!!!!!

Re:Thanks Bush/Cheney

[DNS-and-BIND]

It's good to see the old "Blame America First" mentality is alive and well, and that the Left is front and center defending their co-belligerents, the Islamists. Again? It's like a broken record with you people. Let them defend themselves, why are you always rushing out to do it?

Also conveniently leaving out that your hero Obama, the Chosen One, did the exact same thing in Libya. Oopsy-doodle, it's off to cognitive dissonance land, where doublethink is the only escape from thoughtcrime.

Re:Thanks Bush/Cheney

[ScentCone]

There were strong warnings in advance of the 9/11 attack, which the Bush/Cheney administration chose to ignore.

Please cite the specific actionable intelligence that was available to the White House to stop those guys on the airplanes.

While you're at it, please talk about why the same group wasn't stopped by the Clinton administration when it repeatedly HAD attacked (and claimed responsibility for doing so) and killed many hundreds of people, including those in our embassies, onboard a naval vessel, and in the World Trade Center.

They then ignored the reality that Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11, and lied their way to get us into Iraq

What? We were ALREADY IN IRAQ. We were there enforcing the no-fly zone to prevent Saddam from continuing to slaughter thousands of his ethnic opponents. We were camped out in the neighborhood because Saddam had invaded Kuiwait and been pushed back - but was left intact following his promises to adhere to a long list of terms ... NONE of which he met. And since he continued to obstruct weapons inspections, attacked allied aircraft, DID send cash and support to regional terrorists (including televised cash deliveries to families of suicide bombers in order to garner more regional sympathy), was stealing UN food and support money, was still making long range missiles and on and on ... the UN agreed that force was necessary. The US legislative houses saw all the same intel and agreed (including a vote for force by Hillary Clinton), and it was done. Your straw man about 9/11 is nonsense, and you know it.

This broke Iraq, and gave rise to ISIS

No, Iraq fell apart and ISIS rose because Obama prematurely pulled the plug on the stabilizing presence of the US military. That was years too soon.

the millions of others our nation has displaced, maimed, or killed in the service of our empire

Oh I get it now, you're a troll that's only pretending to know anything about history or current events. Silly me.

Re:Thanks Bush/Cheney

[brennz]

Saddam's support for Radical Islam and connections to AQ is fairly well documented

Motives?

[Alwin Henseler]

What are the motives of these terrorist groups?

Strike fear in the heart of infidels?
Help erode the freedoms that citizens in most Western countries enjoy? (especially those freedoms that enable lifestyles hated so much by Islamic State supporters).
Revenge for whatever wrongs they think were done to them? (regardless of justified or not).
As a show of force? Letting everybody know they're still here, and capable of carrying out coordinated attacks abroad.

Just to name a few - surely there's more. In the end they will not accomplish their goals. First and foremost because Islamic State seems incapable of leaving peace-loving 'neighbours' alone. Action = reaction, a law of nature. If they'd just pick some limited area to call theirs, focus on primarily peaceful (r)evolution, and leave their neighbours in peace, they might have a chance at getting just that. But if they want to conquer the world through violence, and stop at nothing in the process... well then: nope, not gonna happen.

Second, because declared enemies of Islamic State aren't going to give up their lifestyles, countries, democracies etc NO MATTER WHAT. As a typical Westerner, personally I could care less what they do in Syria, Irak or neighbouring countries. But any Islamic State fighter is welcome to try and pry my freedoms from my dead fingers in a fight on my turf. Likewise, when their actions cause millions of refugees to "invade" our countries, how could they possibly expect us to not care? Again: action = reaction.

Lastly, because no matter how many crazies are out there, they are vastly outnumbered by regular / reasonable / peace-loving people. And quite a few of those have guns too. And planes. And bombs. And an intelligence apparatus. It's like a car picking a fight with a freight train... yes it'll be ugly, but the outcome is certain: a car cannot possibly win that fight.

What does killing people randomly accomplish?

In the context of these Paris attacks, you may want to re-think in how far victims were chosen "randomly". Not to suggest in any way that victims were known or specially selected. But hey if you start shooting on a busy Paris street, you're pretty likely to hit French people, right?

Re:Motives?

[ultranova]

In the end they will not accomplish their goals.

Sure they will, for the Islamic State is neither of those things. It's an apocalyptic death cult disguised beneath Islamic imagery who's aim is to provoke a massive war, which will deliver the blood sacrifice necessary for the magic ritual that'll open the gates to the nether realm and lets them take over the world with help from there.

Islam plays no part in any of this except as the unfortunate host for the parasite to feed on.

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[PopeRatzo]

Are children 'children' or the next generation to do this sort of thing?

They're definitely the next generation to do this sort of thing if they see you bombing other children like them.

If you keep doing what you been doing, you're gonna keep getting what you got. And we've been crushing the Middle East for a long time. Maybe try something different?

Re:Thanks Bush/Cheney

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, Iraq fell apart and ISIS rose because Obama prematurely pulled the plug on the stabilizing presence of the US military. That was years too soon."

But...!

"I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
--Donald Rumsfeld, November 14, 2002
"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months"
-- Donald Rumsfeld, February 7, 2003
"I think it will go relatively quickly. Weeks rather than months."
-- Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003
"No one is talking about occupying Iraq for five to ten years."
-- Richard Perle, March 9, 2003

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Doonesbury_Quotes_Dick_Cheney.htm

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[slasher999]

You're a fool if you believe that. Drones save American lives, reduce costs, and civilian casualties are no higher than any other type of targeted strike.

Re: Reality acceptance issues...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no evidence whatsoever that fear of divine retribution makes people better behaved

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[aaaaaaargh!]

Contrary to what you believe, religion does not provide any of these things. A trouble-free childhood with caring parents and a continuing lack of existential worries can do miracles, though.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[reboot246]

You win wars by killing civilians. That's why wars seem to never end nowadays. They go on forever because we're afraid to hurt anybody. It's war, stupid. Once it starts, it doesn't matter who started it or why it started. 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.

That's what ISIS is doing - killing our civilians. And judging from some of the wimpy-ass responses here and on the news, it looks like they're succeeding. Europe and the U.S. have just about lost the will to fight. Go ahead. Give up your guns. Let your "leaders" defend you. They're sure doing a bang-up great job now, aren't they?

It's not fanaticism

[rsilvergun]

it's hopelessness. ISIS is just a bunch of men with no jobs, no wives, no future and no hope for a future. This is what happens when you've got millions of people with nothing to lose. Stop calling it Fanaticism. It misdirects you from the real issue, which is the 1% war profiteering in the Middle East and stealing their oil. We can't solve _anything_ until we start recognizing the real problem and start actually _rebuilding_ Iraq and Afghanistan. If you're American though this probably means giving up your SUV. I'm not trying to troll, you can't have one and have a happy/stable world. There's a lot more to it than that, but our ridiculous thirst for oil is part of it...

Re:It's not fanaticism

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

it's hopelessness. ISIS is just a bunch of men with no jobs, no wives, no future and no hope for a future.

Yes, this is definitely part of it, but that hopelessness provides an easy "in" for being sold on the promise of an afterlife.

Lets be honest- without religion as a motivator, most of these people would never be driven to commit any kind of atrocities.

Re:It's not fanaticism

[Bing Tsher E]

Actually, ISIS was formed out of the dregs of the Baathist ideology that was central to the ruling party in Iraq before Saddam Hussein fell.

ISIS is not just a bunch of sulky dudes in the desert.

And we can't just roll in some shipping containers full of two-by-fours and frame up tract housing and 'rebuld' Iraq.

How the hell did you weave SUVs into your argument? The terrorist attack on Paris is the fault of SUV owners?

That's just weird. I know you want to carry on with your long drawn out explanation of how it's all our fault they don't have stable Nation States on the persian gulf. Like, uh, they did back in, uh.. 1500??

Re:It's not fanaticism

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

Spare me the utter BS. Islamo-fanaticism pre-dates the discovery of oil by a thousand years.

Murder in the name of religion (I don't care which one) and prepare to be exterminated like vermin if you partake in that practice.

Re:It's not fanaticism

[KGIII]

Are you aware that the US doesn't actually get jack shit for oil from any of these countries? We get our oil from our own soil, Canada, Mexico, and a couple of places in South America. We, literally, don't rely on Middle Eastern oil to run our automobiles. (We do get plastics and other petrochemicals from nations that do use oil sourced from the Middle East.)

Re:It's not fanaticism

[Rockoon]

It misdirects you from the real issue, which is the 1% war profiteering in the Middle East and stealing their oil.

The countries over there get paid quite well for that oil. Hell, they unionized!

The real issue is that the ideas of islam exist.

Re:It's not fanaticism

[raind]

In many ways - religion (not spiritual understanding) is the scourge of this planet.

Re:It's not fanaticism

[speederaser]

How the hell did you weave SUVs into your argument? The terrorist attack on Paris is the fault of SUV owners?

Maybe you're trolling but I'll bite.

The Middle East contains oil. A LOT of oil. The kind that's easy to extract and easy to refine. The countries in the Middle East with oil are governed by autocratic dictators who give themselves titles like "Sultan" or "King". They keep the oil profits for themselves and their family (the "1%"), and everyone else is dirt poor.

Being dirt poor sucks. It sucks everywhere in the world, but in the Arab world being dirt poor is even worse if you're male. In Arab culture, a young man cannot get married until he has a decent job and enough money to pay a dowry. And given the control that male family members maintain over every aspect of the lives of their daughters and sisters, a poor young Arab male has little prospect of getting married, getting laid, getting kissed, or even talking to a young lady that isn't a relative!

These dictators make a lot of money from oil. Enough money that foreign governments fall all over themselves selling military hardware and know-how to them. The foreign governments also like to put military bases in Arab countries to guarantee continued access to oil. The result is these countries have a lot of military power arrayed against any peasants with revolution on their mind.

So what's a poor young Arab male to do under these circumstances? Well, as it happens, the oil-rich Arab dictators tend to have a strong interest in supporting various militant groups that fight under the banner of their brand of Islam, and a lot of oil money flows in that direction. So when a poor young Arab male with no prospects hears he can make a bunch of money if he joins a militant group and fight for Islam (or at least one brand of it), that is attractive, and many of them do join.

So, due to the political and cultural realities in the Arab world, oil money fuels Islamic militant organizations. Since gasoline and diesel come from oil, driving a vehicle that gets poor mileage (like an SUV) instead of a fuel efficient car (like a Prius) means more money for Islamic militants.

And that's the link. Does that mean that the terrorist attack on Paris is the fault of SUV owners? No, of course not. SUV owners find themselves in a situation (large family/little league coach in a car-centric country) and they deal with it, much like young Arab males find themselves in a situation and deal with it. But the fact remains that those two situations will continue to lead to attrocities like we had in Paris if nobody changes.

But I can't change other people, all I can do is change myself. But what can I do? Well, I can buy a Prius and stop driving my pickup to work. I can install solar panels on my home. I can visit relatives via Skype instead of driving or flying. There's a lot I can do. Whatever I do, I won't be able to stop Islamic terrorism but I will at least be doing my part.

Re:It's not fanaticism

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

In many ways - religion (not spiritual understanding) is the scourge of this planet.

Absolutely, I agree completely.

Re:It's not fanaticism

[ultranova]

It misdirects you from the real issue, which is the 1% war profiteering in the Middle East and stealing their oil. We can't solve _anything_ until we start recognizing the real problem and start actually _rebuilding_ Iraq and Afghanistan. If you're American though this probably means giving up your SUV. I'm not trying to troll, you can't have one and have a happy/stable world.

If the real problem is the 1% taking far more than their fair share, then why would solving that result in Joe Nobody having to give up his SUV, or anything else for that matter? Are you sure you aren't simply falling for the propaganda of that 1% who are trying to fool you into thinking their interests are your interests?

Re:Thanks Bush/Cheney

[Blaskowicz]

No, Obama took credit for the US troops pulling out of Iraq even though it was negociated by the Bush administration in 2008. The situation was a disaster years before that because the US tried to occupy the country with half the needed troops.

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

You're a fool if you believe that. Drones save American lives, reduce costs, and civilian casualties are no higher than any other type of targeted strike.

Yes and no.

Read the book Kill Chain to see why this often isn't the case. Sometimes all this high tech drone and sensor stuff works, but sadly an awful lot of the time it fails miserably. There are multiple layers of failure-prone processes, any one of which can produce truly disastrous results. :(

Post-attack 'responsibility' NOISE

[TheRealHocusLocus]

Once upon a time, people were generally less stupid.

If any 'claim of responsibility' emerged hours or days after a terrorist attack it would be treated with the utmost suspicion. Even if transmitted directly to them, news networks would notify the authorities of course, but they might not even report it publicly. Unless a phone call or fax was received at the moment of breaking news, some times even minutes before, the information was deemed to be zero-credible or less than zero, more likely than not the work of a crank. And news sources were generally averse to being cranked.

News sources did not even want to be cranked by governments. They'd never forget to add the words "allegedly" or "believed to be" when repeating a government source who was pretty sure who was behind something. Some acts of terrorism in those days would end up being reported as if they were... simply crimes. The 'who' would not be examined at length until or unless individuals were actually brought forth and charged. Then, their connections to organizations would be explored.

Then the 21st century dawned and people have become generally more stupid.

Now ascribing an organization to an attack is as simple as starting a rumor or sending a tweet. Everyone is on the verge of believing anything, they just need a little push either way. There is no burden of proof, only a preponderance of NOISE. Axe-grinding news sources and governments are already blaming them anyway to take advantage of this lower IQ, so they're already on the ball. Just like Michael Ledeen at AEI was blaming Saddam Hussein for 9/11 on the afternoon of 9/11. (Hint: that was Donald Rumsfeld's favorite website. Can you see a decade of bad road ahead?)

Now a claim by a single so-called 'unnamed source within the government' is cause enough for a press association like AP to drop the 'allegedly' and report the deed as having been done by those people, ready to put in the history books.

If all information should be free, we're sure getting what we paid for.

Re:Post-attack 'responsibility' NOISE

[Xenna]

"If any 'claim of responsibility' emerged hours or days after a terrorist attack it would be treated with the utmost suspicion. Even if transmitted directly to them, news networks would notify the authorities of course, but they might not even report it publicly. Unless a phone call or fax was received at the moment of breaking news, some times even minutes before, the information was deemed to be zero-credible or less than zero, more likely than not the work of a crank. And news sources were generally averse to being cranked."

Some times yes, some scepticism is in order. In the case of the downed Russian plane, I'd even agree. But in this case, no. If you can't tell the difference too bad for you. It's obvious the IS claim is genuine, at very least it's a similar islamic group. Who do you want to blame? The Russians?

Re:Post-attack 'responsibility' NOISE

[TheRealHocusLocus]

Some times yes, some scepticism is in order. In the case of the downed Russian plane, I'd even agree. But in this case, no. If you can't tell the difference too bad for you. It's obvious the IS claim is genuine, at very least it's a similar islamic group. Who do you want to blame? The Russians?

I understand your "at the very least" gist but it covers a lot of ground these days. You should check out Adam Curtis' 2004 documentary The Power of Nightmares . It describes the rise of the American neo-conservative movement in the United States and the rise of radical Islam in the Middle East, and dares to compare them, finding some striking similarities. Curtis' documentary describes how Sayyid Qutb was scandalized by what he experienced in America and what was happening in Egyptian society at the time, and was instrumental in re-planting the ancient seeds of ultra-orthodox Islam 'Wahhabism' in modern times.

What we call "radical Islam" these days would be more appropriately described as "radical action to promote ultra-conservative Islam". In the 1950s, many places in the Middle East were becoming 'Westernized' as they were becoming 'modernized' --- two terms one cannot always use interchangeably --- in places very similar to the urbanization occurring in the US. Nothing communicates this more clearly than these photographs taken in Kabul. Ironically it was the US and USSR way by proxy starting in 1979 that set the country back, handing control to the victorious CIA-ISI-supported mujahideen.

Those who engage in such acts are murderous fucks, and if they claim they are Muslim they should be fed to hogs.

To identify them directly with any religion, even if they are completely enthralled by it, is no favor to you. It elevates them and the religion more than either deserve. Yes some Muslims are assholes. Certainly not the family running the grocery store next door who gave me food and electricity when I had none. State sponsors of these terror groups, including our own CIA (through the Pakistani ISI) should also be held accountable for their actions --- not just by people who remember certain periods in history --- but everyone with the courage to stand up and demand answers to questions today. Like where exactly are the modern weapons and training support coming from? If our allies are involved, what is the true extent of the involvement? And how is Russia's involvement in Syria today similar to what happened in Afghanistan in 1980?

There are no easy answers. If you reach back far enough in time there aren't even any good guys.

Why do I fail to equate the tenets of any sect of Islam with any Middle Eastern country, including the newest one --- Europe?
Because I am an American and I believe in the separation of Church and State.

Why do I believe States should be held more accountable than Religions in sponsoring terrorism?
Because I am an American and I do not believe in the establishment of an official religion for anything at all.

There is no difference between ISIL, and Al-Qaeda

[rossdee]

Except that Al-Qaeda and most other terrorist groups have 'no fixed abode' - they are hard to find and kill, look how long it took to get Bin Laden

ISIS claim to be the Islamic state, and have control over cities and towns in Iraq and Syria

Any reason why those places won't be flattened to rubble by the air forces of France, Nato, Russia, the US, Iran, Jordan, Israel etc

We can leave the actual ground combat to the Kurds, Assads forces (Shiites) Iranians etc

Dead or Alive bounties

[Anonymous Coward]

Western governments should offer a $50k bounty per head, dead or alive. It would be cheaper than any war or drone strike, and allow the so called innocent Muslims that live in the same communities as known terrorists to start cleaning up their own problem.

We should probably also have a world wide ban on Sunni Islam. All Sunni's range from annoying, on par with a Southern Baptist, to extremely violent against women and finally to bomb making jihadists. What I'm saying is we draw the line for crazy religion we can tolerate to the level or Southern Baptist or Mahayana Buddhist (with Malaysian branch being the worst). If you are beyond those examples, than your religion gets shut down. Every member gets forcibly relocated into a different part of the world, marriages performed under the religion are annulled as well.

We don't need to kill everyone, but we do need to kill the festering infection.

Drones are better than no drones

[mi]

There are multiple layers of failure-prone processes, any one of which can produce truly disastrous results

Which was and remains true about processes, that do not involve drones. You aren't contradicting slasher999 at all.

Re:Drones are better than no drones

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Which was and remains true about processes, that do not involve drones. You aren't contradicting slasher999 at all.

Which was why I said "Yes and no" at the start of my reply. Some of what he says is correct, some of it isn't that clear cut. Civilian casualties being a prime example, unfortunately.

Yes they save American lives (most of the time).

Reducing costs? That depends on what costs you're tallying. Do you have any idea what a fully-staffed drone program costs? It ain't cheap.

This "sensor fest" circle jerk goes all the way back to Vietnam (PRACTICE NINE and IGLOO WHITE, for example) and neither of those worked worth a shit. Things have gotten better, but stop believing that now everything is a surgical pinpoint strike with no collateral damage...it's simply not true, not by wide margin.

We mistakenly kill a *lot* of people who simply had the bad luck to have the wrong phone number or were mistaken for someone else or had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. :(

Re:Drones are better than no drones

[mi]

Which was why I said "Yes and no" at the start of my reply.

You failed to prove the "no" part, however.

Reducing costs? That depends on what costs you're tallying. Do you have any idea what a fully-staffed drone program costs? It ain't cheap.

Without actual numbers, this argument is meaningless. Yes, a drone is not cheap, but it is reusable and cheaper than losing one or two men — or an entire helicopter full of them — to a dangerous mission.

but stop believing that now everything is a surgical pinpoint strike with no collateral damage

I never held nor expressed any such belief.

We mistakenly kill a *lot* of people

We surely do. And in a number of cases, we should've gone and detained these suspects, instead of just shooting them — Bush's use of Guantanamo was much better, than Obama's use of drones.

But when the only thing to do is to kill a particular asshole, drones are a wonder-weapon...

Re:Drones are better than no drones

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

We mistakenly kill a *lot* of people

We surely do. And in a number of cases, we should've gone and detained these suspects, instead of just shooting them

Yes, but the fact is that quite a few of those people who were killed were completely innocent and had nothing to do with any terrorism. They literally had no connection whatsoever. Many of them just had the bad luck to be nearby a drone strike or had had their phone number mistakenly "identified" as belonging a target (i.e. a typo in transcribing the phone number).

Re:Drones are better than no drones

[mi]

Yes, but the fact is that quite a few of those people who were killed were completely innocent and had nothing to do with any terrorism.

What does this have to do with drones? Would their deaths have been any more justified, if they were killed by a SEAL from short range, rather than a drone from afar?

Mistakes in targeting are orthogonal to the weapon aimed at the target.

Re:Drones are better than no drones

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

What does this have to do with drones? Would their deaths have been any more justified, if they were killed by a SEAL from short range, rather than a drone from afar?

The imagery from drones isn't nearly as great as they like to claim, and in fact SEALs would almost certainly NOT make the same mistakes as drone operators and their handlers do.

That's why they (the controllers) often ask for A-10 flybys to determine what's *really* on the ground because a lot of the time you just can't tell what the fuck is actually there from 40,000 feet.

The same goes for SEALs, they get up close and personal so they can see what's actually there, and they would rarely mistake a woman carrying a broom for a "military age male" carrying a rifle. They wouldn't mistake a caravan of families going to look for work with a "convoy of combatants", as has happened over and over again.

All that super hi-res video you see of cool "kill shots"? That's mostly taken from Apache helicopters a kilometer or two away at 1000~2000 feet elevation, a whole different imaging system that's right on top of the action. Totally different story.

Ever wonder why they don't show much actual drone imagery? Because it often sucks monkey balls, that's why- just blobs of this and that, no real definition from 4 or 5 miles up through smoke and fog and haze, surprise surprise. And that's why we all too often blow the shit out of total innocents who are just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Re:Drones are better than no drones

[KGIII]

This is going to sound cold but... Err... Okay, it is cold.

This is war. Nominally or not, it is war. In wars, bad shit happens to good people. If you think drones are bad then I'd suggest looking at the alternatives more objectively. I can assure you that a drone with a Hellfire is much less costly than 2000 pound JDAMs or smarter bombs. I can assure you that the loss of life, on the side of those with the drones, is at a much smaller risk. I can assure you that there are fewer lives, on the side with the drone, at risk than they would have if they put boots on the ground.

War is not about playing nice - it's not even about being fair. If you think this is bad then you do not know any history. This? This is tame. The Russians, for example, lost 24,000.000 (that's the *low* estimate) people in WWII.

My only advice is this: If you're in a combat zone - get to ground or get out. Or join the combatants and be willing to die, I guess. That's a choice one can make. Shit happens. This, this is pretty minimal.

Re: Drones are better than no drones

[KGIII]

I did not realize that the word "nominally" was so poorly understood. Or, maybe, you're just trying to "prove" something or attempting to argue with something. Yet, strangely, nothing you said even remotely relates to my comment - not even tangentially.

I'm a very approachable person who will even admit to be wrong, but if you want to actually have a conversation then you should actually try doing so without speckling your keyboard and monitor with spittle and attacking things that I've not said. You've got a voice, use it wisely.

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[Pax681]

The original poster is not entirely right. Here is for example the data for Pakistan:

Total strikes: 421 Obama strikes: 370 Total killed: 2,489-3,989 Civilians killed: 423-965 Children killed: 172-207 Injured: 1,158-1,738

So yes, many civilians but not anywhere near 96%. In any case, there is still a huge difference to terrorism, because drone strikes are not intended to kill civilians, many civilian deaths are only accepted as a side-effect. It boils down how you interpret the "double effect doctrine". In my point of view, drone strikes are serious crimes just like terrorist attacks but the two things should be kept apart and not one can justify the other.

hmm... interesting you just HAD to point out Obama did more!.. you think maybe it's a partisan thing? ..lol

#prayforparis

[X10]

Americans introduced the hash tag #PrayForParis. To which a Parisian replied "Friends from the whole world, thank you for #prayforParis, but we don't need more religion! our faith goes to music! kisses! Life! champagne and Joy! #ParisisaboutLife". I found that amusing, despite the fact I read it last night shortly after the attack.

It seems that American tweeps don't know that the French value their secular state. Which must seem odd to people in a country where so many people are still religious.

Re:#prayforparis

[cold fjord]

Praying for Paris, the people of Paris, does nothing to undermine the secular state and it is confused thinking to believe so. The Parisian that made that reply was equally confused - prayer doesn't introduce more religion in places where it isn't. But there is an interesting question to ask that Parisian - assume God exists ... does the Parisian turn away God's mercy? What good would come of that?

Re:#prayforparis

[sonamchauhan]

Do you actually live there, or are you a victim of confirmation bias?

"The 2007 CIA World Factbook lists the religion of France as: Roman Catholic 83–88%, Protestant 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 5%–10%, unaffiliated 4%."

"The mood in Paris following the worst attack in peacetime history, is something of bewilderment, numbness but also huge outpouring of grief with locals openly weeping and making signs of the cross as they pass the many street fronts where their country men and women died."

Re:#prayforparis

[Milharis]

I don't know how it is calculated, but it is certainly wrong.
Lots of people have been baptized, mostly by tradition or because they parents were religious, and have some christian religious education, but end up being non believers. They're probably considered Christians.

As per Wikipedia: "In France, about 12% of the population reportedly attends religious services more than once per month. In a 2003 poll 54% of those polled in France identified themselves as "faithful," 33% as atheist, 14% as agnostic, and 26% as "indifferent".[66] According to a different poll, 32% declared themselves atheists, and an additional 32% declared themselves agnostic."
That was more than 10 years ago, I think I saw a poll a few years ago that put atheism at about 40% but I can find it anymore.

From personal experience, as far as I can tell I have quite a few Muslim friends that practice at least somewhat, a couple of Jewish friends and one single Christian. I know it is just an anecdote, and I am in a heavily biased environment towards faithlessness, but still, it's nowhere near 80%.

As for the GP, I totally agree with this. You can pray if you want, I'm fine with it, that's personal. But answering religious fanaticism with more religion does bother me a bit. I'd rather you think and feel rather than pray.

Re:#prayforparis

[Milharis]

I don't want to get to get into a theological argument, but just a quick answer to the last part of your message.

That's more or less Pascal's Wager, mixed with some "Is God good if he lets innocent people suffer?".
There was a philosopher we studied (sadly I forgot his name) that made the case that despise there are children being crippled and dying, among others, God was still good. His argument was that God wasn't interfering not because he will evil or impotent, but because of free will. Actively interfering would interfere with the free will he had given to mankind.
I do think this is an incorrect argument (why does something like polio exists, and if it exists for a purpose why are we allowed to eradicate it through vaccines?), but for the sake of it, let's just go along with it.

If God does not want to interfere because of free will, he will not in this case.
If God is impotent, then even if he wanted to do something he could not.
If God is evil, or at least does not care about humanity, he has no reason to act.
We have no reliable proof that God ever acted to prevent evil, there's little reason reason to believe he will start all of a sudden. So praying to God, even if it exists isn't going to change anything.

If by God's mercy you meant salvation after death, like going to Paradise or whatever, it gets a bit complicated. Those people that were killed were drinking, listing to music and probably doing a lot of things forbidden by the bible in the first place. Is being savagely killed by fanatics a good enough reason to be given mercy? And are prayers going to change anything, like God saying "I was going to send him to hell, but John prayed for him so I'm gonna change my mind."? That does not really go with the belief that God is omniscient.

To sum it up, praying seems pretty useless to me. It can help people deal with the situation at a personal level, but it's not going to help the dead.
On the other hand, praying goes in hand with faith, and putting faith above everything. The same faith, no matter in what it is, or how misguided it is, that convinced the guys to go and blow themselves up.
Maybe if we had less faith in the world, and more rationality and thinking, this kind of things would not happen. I think that's the message the Parisian wants to convey, let's battle blind faith with something more than more faith.

Re:#prayforparis

[radio4fan]

The CIA World Factbook also quotes no sources.

53% of French people when asked ""Irrespective of whether you attend a place of worship or not, would you say you are a religious person, not a religious persons or a convinced atheist?" answered "Not a religious person" or "Atheist".

A Gallup poll (same wiki page) asked "Is religion an important part of your daily life?", and 74% of French people said "No". That makes France the 7th least religious country in the poll (which covered the vast majority of the world).

You can't get figures from the census because —due to the law on laïcité — a person's religion is not one of the questions.

France apparently has a 12% church attendance rate.

I lived in France for years and never met anyone who I knew went to church, or who professed a belief in God to me.

Sticks and stones

[Ungrounded Lightning]

We should stop calling them Islamic State ... and start calling them islamic sodomites, or something that might offend their world views.

You would respond to violence by calling them names. They would then laugh, and continue with the violence. It's obvious which is more effective.

If you really want to call them something that might do some good, call them "Brigands". That puts them in a class, in Islamic law, where the appropriate action by other Muslims is neither to support them, nor avoid criticizing them as members of a different-but-possibly-valid branch of Islam, but to apprehend them and put them to death for their crimes. It also fits their actions, so it may be persuasive.

Re: Sticks and stones

[oobayly]

These are people who get angry at the idea of some dude from 1400 years ago appearing in a cartoon.

I for one would like to hear them described in the BBC as murderous cunts.

Re:Sticks and stones

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Those Arabs who despise ISIS call them "Daesh" and it's insulting enough to make them cut your tongue of if you use it so perhaps it's what we all should use at least colloquially to refer to Daesh.

So given the choice between using a label (yet another acronym) that they hate so much (because it sounds a little like "dahes" - i.e. "brigand") that they'll cut your tongue out for using it...

Or using a label that says to 1.6 BILLION Muslims that you believe:
  - It is their religious DUTY to hunt down and KILL these people.
  - If they're killed while attempting this, they get the express trip to heaven.
  - They don't have to take your word for it - they can check for themselves, by comparing the bad guys' actions to the description in the Koran ...

You'd pick the loose tongue option?

If you're going to get your tongue cut out for calling them something that sounds a little like brigand, why not use the real word?

Re:Thanks Bush/Cheney

[DarkOx]

No, Obama took credit for the US troops pulling out of Iraq even though it was negociated by the Bush administration in 2008.

Which at the time he did it Obama wanted to do because he campaigned on getting out.

The situation was a disaster years before that because the US tried to occupy the country with half the needed troops.

Yes but that was a problem that was very nearly fixed before Obama took office. We had increased our troop presence and it was working.

Oh and before you jump in about how the Iraqis made us leave lets get some other facts on the table:

1) al-Maliki felt largely ignored by the Obama administration, he was not getting the support he had been asking for. Without our help yes he fell back on the old sectarian systems of the middle east because that is how he could keep things together at least in the short term.

2) Obama could have reached an agreement to stay there but he insisted on conditions of total immunity that were politically impossible for al-Maliki. Who really did want us to say.

3) We could have easily relented on those with a knod and wink from the al-Maliki government that they would not actually prosecute any of our troops.

4) If they tried it we could simply have reminded them oh yea well we are an OCCUPYING FORCE and we are taking our guys or girls home, tough shit. You can't stop us and it will only harm you and your country to try. Best we all agree to sweep this under the couristan rug.

Re:Thanks Bush/Cheney

[fustakrakich]

You know, from a safe distance, your little game of Whack-a-Mole between you and the Russians is very exciting! Isn't your Al Qaeda an ally now, against who? IS, ISIL, ISIS Rent a car? You really believe winning is the objective?

Re:Thanks Bush/Cheney

[rainer_d]

Actually, a lot of this is because former French President Sarkozy wanted to get rid of Gaddafi in Libya.
That succeeded, but as usual, there was no plan for what should happen after him and IS + AQ thankfully took over.
Also, a lot of weapons "disappeared" from that country during and after the Gaddafi regime came down. Some of them have now reappeared again...
The sad truth is that in the Near East, there's no one but hard-nosed, merciless dictators who can hold IS+AQ in check. For now.

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The reformations of Christianity/etc incorporated tolerance directly into their belief systems, and once Islam does that

The Reformation killed millions, probably about a third of the population of central and northern Europe, and the fallout from it was a big part of subsequent wars by Prussia and the rise of the Nazi. The Reformation created many millions of religiously persecuted refugees, who then fled to other continents to "colonize" them, often destroying the native cultures in the process. If anything like that happens with Islam, the world is in deep, deep trouble. Anything like the European Reformation simply isn't a feasible solution for Islam.

And it didn't really "fix" Christianity either. The roots of the Abrahamic religions are found in racism, intolerance, and violence, and no reformation is going to fix that. The only reason Christianity gets away with preaching something different today than its holy books actually say is because back when it started, people had much less information available to them, and because today nobody gives a fuck anymore. That's not going to work with Islam. Muslims are going to look at what you want the Quran to say and what it actually says, and they are going to tell you that you are full of it if with your new interpretation.

Religion provides for a number of things: [...] There is a reason why most dominant societies throughout history have had religious infrastructure.

The fact that religion can do those things doesn't mean every religion is good at it, or even that religion is the best way to do it. Even your premise is dubious; in fact, many dominant societies have had nothing like what we call a "religion" in the West. Instead, they have philosophical systems like Taoism, Confucianism, or Buddhism, or they have practices like witchcraft/Shamanism. Those belief systems are radically different from Christianity or Islam to the point that it doesn't really make sense to call them "religions" in the same sense. In particular, those other systems do not demand blind faith or obedience, and they do not generally postulate a paternalistic omnipotent being that messes around in the affairs of individual human tribes, but they instead focus on individual understanding and experience.

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.

What are they thinking?

[golodh]

Perhaps someone can tell me, as I can't make head or tails of what motivates ISIS.

It is as if they've got a list of parties (nations) to piss off and are going down the list one by one. By this logic China, Japan, or Brazil ought to be next in line.

Besides which, they do seem to be doing their damnedest to drum up popular support for military action against them. Both the US and the UK will point to this attack and say to their respective electorates: "See? Told you that restraint won't help against these extremists. Now will you believe me? We need to actively engage those criminals *now* before they become too large to contain.".

I could understand (but not agree) if they just wanted to have their "caliphate". If you wanted to build a state you'd want to control territory and then secure it.

But going after a Russian airliner? The country ruled by an ex-soviet KGB colonel? The one who has shown he can (and will) use dumb (read: cheap) bombs to raze whole villages simply to get at one target? The one who comes from a long tradition that has demonstrated that as far as they're concerned normal rules of war don't exist? The one party that might otherwise be persuaded to sell arms (as long as they're to uses against US and UK forces)? Well ... if they looked for another adversary they've just got one.

And France? How much of the coalition's bomb runs are carried out by French aircraft? How many of the drones do the operate over Syria and Iraq? Not all that many? Man! We gotta change that! Lets piss 'em off big time and see if they can't do better.

The only reason I can think of is that they hope to goad Paris into dropping a nuke on Raqa ... decapitating ISIS ... and (I suppose) starting WW-III. Could that be it? Could they really aim at igniting a full-scale war between approx. 1 bln. muslims and 4 bln. non-muslims?

Or is thinking not their long suit? Are they too absorbed in their faith for that?

Anybody?

Re:What are they thinking?

[Tough Love]

Money and power, by whatever means. Not just ISIS, look at Putin, the Kims etc.

Re:What are they thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have an excellent article on ISIS in the atlantic, the amount of catch-22s in the DAESH view of the world is a thing of beauty, as a school of thought they are literally too dumb to live.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Re:What are they thinking?

[golodh]

Well, I thought of that ... but I can't quite make it rhyme.

Russia wasn't bombing ISIS. It was bombing non-ISIS insurgents. That's not against ISIS interests, is it? So why piss Russia off like this?

Besides which ... it must have been useful to try and split the front against them, politically if nothing else. Russia, backing Assad, would never have agreed to anything that helped anti-Assad coalitions. It would even have hindered them.

Last but not least, with the Russians in place, the coalition would have thought twice about doing bomb-runs against Assad, thus ensuring that non-Assad insurgents and Assad forces would continue to bleed each other.

On the whole I still can't see the upside for ISIS in ticking Russia off.

Re:What are they thinking?

[swb]

It's truly hard to understand the motives of ISIS by any rational, realpolitik kinds of analysis.

The attacks on Paris make rational sense in that they are probably one of the weaker world powers. While stronger than most, they don't have the kind of unilateral military reach and power of the US or Russia. France couldn't invade any part of the Middle East on its own for all kinds of practical reasons involving troop levels, troop transport and material assets. And politically they aren't aligned strictly with the US in terms of "war on terror" policy and seem less likely to react militarily (the US got hit on 9/11 and we invaded and occupied two countries, and still occupy one of them).

Ideologically, France has been one of the most militant in opposing Islamic cultural traditions and was military involved in pushing back ISIS affiliates in North Africa.

But Russia? It's arguable that they're more dangerous as an adversary now than when they were the Soviet Union, and the track record in Chechnya indicates they're not willing to abide by the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

I think ISIS is gambling that the existential risk of a no-holds-barred ground campaign isn't in the cards, but I think these direct attacks on adversaries capable of such a campaign really increase. If the US and Russia can sort out their issues and the future of Assad, I think this risk becomes a lot more of a gamble.

Re:What are they thinking?

[Ash-Fox]

The attacks on Paris make rational sense in that they are probably one of the weaker world powers.

France has at least two submarines with nuclear launch capabilities per country and has them in effective range of the majority of nations while in constant rotation. They have some of the most hardcore military training in the foreign legion. As far as 'one of the weaker world powers', I think they might be only second to Russia when it comes to being prepared to commit to a war and the way they are setup, I believe they could stand doing a war of attrition today if necessary.

Re: What are they thinking?

[oobayly]

The idea of an all out conflict between Muslims and infidels? That's all I can figure out.

Re:What are they thinking?

[WSOGMM]

Keep in mind that the constituents of ISIS are literally fanatics. They are so strongly attached to their religious ideologies that they are willing to blow themselves up just to kill a single civilian. There's very little real political strategy in killing civilians. Only tunnel vision.

That said, some of the commenters are arguing that this evidence that all religion is ill-suited for humankind. This is a naive thing to say. Irrational violence and religion are not mutually inclusive. Similarly, an omnipotent god with free will (i.e., the Christian god) and monotheism are also not mutually inclusive, Brahman from Hinduism being a good example of a non-anthropomorphized god. People often seem to place a very narrow definition on 'God' and on 'religion', calling themselves atheist or non-religious, while they themselves are faithfully ascribing supreme importance to their own moral pursuits, such as science.

So to me it's not a question of whether or not religion is worth keeping around, but rather which religions are worth keeping around, and how we can improve upon them.

In every myth, cosmology, origin story and/or religion, the singular existence of our reality reveals the essence of the idea of God, regardless of how you choose to define God.

Re:What are they thinking?

[Pentium100]

I think they just want to die and get the virgins they were promised. Since the US only does precision strikes, ticking off Russia seemed like a good bet of a bigger bomb. That hasn't happened (yet), so now they attacked France.

Will someone nuke them already? Or will they have to go on TV and literally say "please nuke us, we want to meet allah but are forbidden to kill ourselves if it does not also kill infidels"?

Re: What are they thinking?

[vpness]

Excellent set of questions! I'm rarely troubled by horrors worldwide. This one scares me, as the shape of things to come. One answer, stating the obvious, is, that 'thinking' isn't in play here.

Re:What are they thinking?

[lexman098]

Oh spare me. Calling science a religion (however slyly) just shows your ignorance. And then you go on to suggest we should somehow filter religions? Yes you can define God very broadly. Most people, especially ISIS, do not.

Re:What are they thinking?

[martin-boundary]

TL;DR. Here's the short version.

The IS wankers think they are Hobbits. Now as you all know, the Hobbits win in the final battle against the armies of Mordor (that's us). But this is the 21st century, and those guys live on Internet Time, and they don't feel like sitting through 20 years of skirmishes and drama just to win in the end anyhow. So they're pressing the fast forward button and attacking everyone at once in the hope that we'll hurry up and gather the troops for the Final Battle, hopefully in March next year, so that they can win.

Because they're Hobbits. And the last battle HAS to be against EVERYONE.

Re:What are they thinking?

[WSOGMM]

Oh spare me. Calling science a religion (however slyly) just shows your ignorance. And then you go on to suggest we should somehow filter religions? Yes you can define God very broadly. Most people, especially ISIS, do not.

So are you one of those folks that thinks all religion is just a mass delusion? Please. The only difference between philosophy and religion is connotation.

And yes, ISIS has a specific -- and deluded -- viewpoint on reality. Nobody said otherwise.

Re:What are they thinking?

[golodh]

Read the article. It makes sense, sort of. Found another piece, on CNN this time:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11...

The article they refer to is this one:

https://azelin.files.wordpress...

Didn't have the stomach to read it in one go. It's written from a revanchist religious point of view and it lays every single failure since the fall of the Ottoman empire of the Islamic world to get its house in order and rise from a violently squabbling mob at the West's door. Apparently we have been doing Satan's work on them.

Their preferred response is "savagery", according to the author of that pamphlet. I think we can see what he means..

Somehow I don't see us working out our differences with them through reasoned debate.

It's a religious sect writ large, and it's one huge pitcher of cool-aid they've got there.

The only good news seems to be that this little masterpiece doesn't seem to base itself on the authority of Islamic texts per se. As far as I can see, it's based on an interpretation of Islam that's driven by an revanchist view of history.

That ought to give us something to work with when dealing with radicalising youths (their main supply of manpower).

Revanchism and envy are probably easier to deal with than straight-up religion.

Re:What are they thinking?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Russia wasn't bombing ISIS. It was bombing non-ISIS insurgents.

They've been doing both. They're not mutually exclusive.

Re:What are they thinking?

[Zontar The Mindless]

+1. Sorry I've no mod points today.

Re:What are they thinking?

[swb]

I don't think the French military is wholly incapable, just not capable of ground-based force projection. When the Foreign Legion was tasked to Mali a year or two ago, they relied on US C-130s to insert their troops.

It's one thing to have 2-3 brigades of ground troops for sorting out the occasional coup d'etat in a former colony, it's quite another to be able to take and hold thousands of square miles of territory against seasoned fighters in dug in positions.

To me at least, it's looking increasingly like it might be necessary to occupy northern Iraq and Syria. Stage 1 would most likely have to be a large ground offensive more akin to WW II than any of the politically popular "counter-insurgency" campaigns. I don't think the French military is capable of such a campaign in the short term.

Re:What are they thinking?

[dfenstrate]

All the military might in the world doesn't matter if you're not willing to use it. That's probably a huge part of the ISIS calculation.

Re:What are they thinking?

[maestroX]

Paris is certainly a practical choice. High profile (metropolis, city of romance), surely Western (do not tell the French:),
and, more important, banlieu's (suburbs) impenetrable by government;
a lot of these people come from (former) French colonies.
It's easy to walk about being of Middle East origin.

Re:What are they thinking?

[kheldan]

What motivates them? The same thing that motivates pretty much all of their type: Thirst for power, over as many people as they can, any way they can manage, regardless of how many have to die, or how much has to be destroyed. Remember: Al-Qaeda? The Taliban? Iran? They all want nothing to do with these assholes because they're too extreme for them . What does that tell you about these 'Sunni extremists who call themselves the Islamic State'? So far as their 'caliphate' goes? Examine how things are going in areas they've taken control of: They're unsuited to actually run a government, they don't have the skillset, and they sure as fuck don't have the restraint necessary to do so. What sort of 'civilization' thinks it's OK to kidnap women (many of them underage), after killing their husbands/menfolk, then force them into 'marriage' with someone else (read as: 'turn into sex slaves')? That's not civilization. So far as their so-called 'faith' goes: What they're doing has nothing whatsoever to do with Islamic beliefs, the Quoran, or Allah. If there was indeed an Allah, he/she/it would probably come down personally and wipe these assholes from the face of the Earth, for committing such atrocities in his/her/it's name.

The only reason I can think of is that they hope to goad Paris into dropping a nuke on Raqa ... decapitating ISIS ... and (I suppose) starting WW-III. Could that be it? Could they really aim at igniting a full-scale war between approx. 1 bln. muslims and 4 bln. non-muslims?
Or is thinking not their long suit? Are they too absorbed in their faith for that?

What they want, is to foment as much chaos as possible, in as much of the world as possible. They have one narrow vision of what the world should be, and it involves all of Western civilization destroyed, all forms of thought and religious faith not conforming to their one rigid view of it annihilated, with them in ultimate, total, dictatorial control over who and what is left afterwards. Remember again that Al-Qaeda distanced themselves from these assholes because they were 'too extreme' for even them. Of course the extreme, disproportionate violence aside, they're completely unprepared and unsuited to actually rule any population in any sort of fair and balanced way due to their extremist interpretations of the Quoran (assuming of course their alleged 'faith' isn't just window-dressing to justify their extremely violent actions) and absolute intolerance of anyone or anything that in any way, shape, or form, deviates from their rigidly narrow view of what the world should be. So do they want WW3? Nukes and all? Probably. Seriously, they make Iran look warm and fuzzy by comparison, because they're at least willing to talk to us; these Sunni extremists can't be reasoned with at all. They've bought themselves a one-way ticket to being exterminated, and there's nothing that's going to stop that from happening, now. We (the rest of the world, that is), however, have some sanity and restraint, though: we won't drop nukes on anyone. We'll blast them into oblivion with conventional weapons, though.

While we're talking about it, here's an opinion of mine that is relevant to the discussion, that is sure to be unpopular: Assad shouldn't be removed from power; he does, however, need to see the reality of his situation: He needs to make peace with the rebels, come to some sort of accord with them, and co-exist. Removing Assad will create yet another power vacuum, which is exactly, precisely what those Sunni extremists (who call themselves 'Islamic State') want; then they can swoop in to a severely weakened Syria, and just take over by force of arms. I think that's what Russia is thinking, coming in to help Assad; they see that a power vacuum would be the worst thing to happen. But Assad needs to chill the fuck out and learn to compromise, before someone manages to take him out, and before things reach the point where there isn't a country to govern anymore.

Re:What are they thinking?

[ToddInSF]

They believe they are the chosen people, like the Jews do. They intend to bring about Armageddon, like the Christians do. They believe they'll take back Israel, like the Jews have. They believe Jesus will then come back, like the Christians do. They will then install their own caliphate. It's not that difficult to understand, and the only people making it out to be inconceivable are other religious liars who share the same goals and intentions. Also, we helped put them in power, so pretty much all the bullshit from the right here is just more of the same arms industry profiteering that's made this country loathed and detested around the world. The United States is an embarrassment of epic proportions. We have plenty of Christians here that hold similar psychotic beliefs. We have GOP candidates that attend religious conferences hosted by religious leaders who call for the execution of gay people. The rampant lying and hypocrisy is only surpassed by the profiteering.

Re:What are they thinking?

[WSOGMM]

Ok, so then what's your definition of philosophy? Tell me specifically why you believe they are different.

If you're referring to the 'faith' aspects of some religions vs the 'scientific method' -- or 'rational argument' for philosophy, then you have a very specific definition of the word 'religion'. laxman was right in saying that my definition of religion is very broad, but to me, if you can lump Buddhism and other non-violent, seemingly rational, almost poetic religions into the same category, then both philosophy and science (in their many forms and interpretations) get very close to fitting the more general definition of religion.

Many (but certainly not all) atheists reject 'religion' as outright stupid -- whereas their own life practices are unique and superior. Sure, whatever. They're just making general claims about specific instances, and spouting off the same bullshit words that everybody everywhere at all times says when they don't agree.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[mi]

That's also one of the Israeli government's favorite tactics.

Citations?

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[unimacs]

I think religion often serves to help justify barbarous acts but the motivation comes from other sources. There is a clash of cultures and the belief that the success, wealth, and excess of one culture is coming at the expense of others.

There is no doubt that there are religious fanatics very much involved but if you look at who they are successfully able to recruit, it's not people who are exactly living the good life. It's people who feel they've been marginalized, - people who want to feel part of something bigger, people who want to feel powerful.

Putin profits

[mi]

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

Behind the dumb homicide bombers — full of hate and fanaticism — are the enablers, that provide them with explosives, training, targeting, and other logistics. And behind those are people, who pay for all that.

It is obvious, that France's Le Pen and other European "right" nationalists stand to rise enormously in the wake of this tragedy. It is also a fact, that Vladimir Putin finances these guys. Would he not be happy to see his allies gain ground — while the electorate's attention shifts away from his crimes?

In this case, the answer to the famous question: Cui bono? (who profits?), has an obvious answer.

Re:Thanks Bush/Cheney

[Bing Tsher E]

Anonymous Coward quoting Doonesbury.

Well, that wraps it all up.

"We need some muscle over here, this dude has everything figured out and needs to assume power!"

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[Bing Tsher E]

Read the book Kill Chain

The nice thing about books is there isn't really a peer review process. You can publish whatever you want, as long as you or one of your friends owns a printing press.

That's why nutballs like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, etc. do so well with their books. They can say whatever shit they want, and the 'peer review' comes from whatever various cranks write about them in the comments section of Amazon.com which nobody ever really reads anyway.

Re:Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism?

[Xenna]

Mod this guy up, this is one of the most maddening aspects of western society. Why must this fascist religion be defended so fanatically by the left?

There are 13 countries in which atheism is punishable by death. They are all muslim states!

Islam is religious fascism.

doubled murder, rape, and total violent crime

[raymorris]

Immediately after UK citizens were disarmed, murder, rape, and total violent crime DOUBLED. Yes, they were murdered with knives, hammers, etc - twice as many people murdered. Not exactly what I'd call a resounding success.

Did you know that if you ban food, removing all public access to food, far fewer violent crimes will be committed with food as the weapon? Did you also know crime will skyrocket? That's precisely what has happened in the UK. Twice as many murders and rapes, and those (like you) who disarm the victims are now directly responsible because this pattern has been repeated enough times that the deadly results of the actions you advocate are entirely predictable.

Re:doubled murder, rape, and total violent crime

[IamTheRealMike]

No they did not. You didn't read my post, did you? Reporting standards changed around that time so all crime figures went up, but that's a statistical artifact: the BCS figures show there was no spike around that time and crime started to steadily fall around the late 90's.

Re:doubled murder, rape, and total violent crime

[squiggleslash]

Immediately after UK citizens were disarmed, murder, rape, and total violent crime DOUBLED

"Immediately"?

When, pray, was that? On what date did most Britons, or even just a significant number, have firearms, with that situation changing the following day?

I can tell you that even pre-Hungerford, nobody engaged in crime in the UK expected their victims to be armed. If you're referring to either the post-Hungerford or post-Dublaine laws, any rise or fall in crime was purely coincidental.

Note: I support gun ownership, I just don't like absurd claims made against gun control. Britain has had increasingly strict laws on guns since the late 1940s, and very, very, few Britons have ever seen (outside of a museum or an armed law enforcer/soldier), let alone touched, a real gun since... well, before the 1970s.

Re:doubled murder, rape, and total violent crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you high ?

The UK was never armed like (say) the US is.
The murder and violent crime rate in the UK is nothing like the US is.
(Substitute almost any developed country for UK in the above)

Is your post a reference to some ancient historical event that you are suggesting has current relevance ?

Re:Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism?

[serviscope_minor]

What motivates educated people to sit in front of a keyboard for 40 minutes composing a thousand-word defense of the disgusting mass murder Islamists committed in Paris today?

Pics or it didn't happen. Do you actually have any examples of "the left" defending these attacks, or are you just finding someone to hate?

Re:The Bigger Problem *is* European law

[Opportunist]

Again, of the 129 dead, 89 were in a Metal concert. Do you honestly think if everyone in there was packing heat we'd have ended up now with a lower body count? For real?

Re:The Bigger Problem *is* European law

[IamTheRealMike]

The U.S. does not have shootings happening every day - and France just surpassed years of U.S. mass shootings of innocents.

Yes it does, actually more than one in 2015. As of August 26th the number of "mass shootings" (defined there as at least four people getting shot) had passed the number of days in the year. Multiplied out that's 247 shootings * 4 people == 988 minimum but those stats are for "at least" four people: each incident could have had more than four. So it's in reality higher.

So that's say around a thousand people, vs 129 people in this Paris attack. It simply is not comparable. Your attempted rebuttal is based on fiction, which is never a good start.

The U.S. has more gun deaths per year but almost all of that is gang violence, who aren't buying guns legally anyway so I'm not sure how you plan to stop them...

You seem to think that gangs are somehow special. The UK has gangs too. They're the ones renting the same gun to shoot at each other with because they can't obtain their own. Gun control, properly implemented, takes guns away from everyone. Or did you not read any of what I wrote above?

Over the next few years Europe will have a vastly higher death toll at the hands of guns, precisely because the populace has been disarmed and pacified.

You are delusional. What do you think is going to happen, some sort of mass EU-initiated genocide? Although the events in Paris are tragic, they don't fundamentally change anything: Europe isn't about to experience a "vastly higher death toll at the hands of guns". Even if the occurrence of Paris-style attacks becomes 10x more frequent, that'd merely bring it into the range of US mass shooting deaths, not exceed it.

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Read the book Kill Chain

The nice thing about books is there isn't really a peer review process.

Right, but that doesn't mean that what's in a book isn't true.

Kill Chain seems fairly well substantiated and draws from some credible sources, which you're free to ignore or discount as you like.

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[Cederic]

Is this a US definition of 'civilian' by any chance, where any male of military age is deemed a combatant?

Fuck that.

You're pretty much all wrong

[rsilvergun]

pulling boots off the ground has nothing to do with public opinion. Americans were pretty much opposed to the 2nd Iraq & Afghan wars. Our leaders ignored us, like they did with the bank bailouts. We accomplished everything we wanted though. In Afghanistan we wanted an oil pipeline and we got it. We also wanted a gov't sympathetic to our cause, and we got it. In Iraq we wanted control of their oil fields and we wanted to funnel money to military contractors under the guise of nation building. We got that too.

You're not following the money. That's where your mistaken. Everything is always about money. Always. Nothing else really matters. You're feeling instead of thinking. Your gut tells you that the ones you can see, the ones yelling 'Great Satan' are the ones that matter. It's the ones you can't see. The ones pulling the strings from behind that matter. I know I'm starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but come on, it's hardly a theory when the war profiteers were holding conventions out in the open leading up to the Iraq war. It's hardly theory when any fool could tell you Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11.

Re:You're pretty much all wrong

[Your.Master]

Americans were not opposed to the Afghanistan invasion after 9/11, what are you talking about? Support was near-universal even among groups that generally advocate peace. Some people *today* are tired and think it was a mistake in retrospect but they didn't think that in 2001 or for the most part even in 2010.

By contrast, the Iraq war was widely (though *not* universally) considered a mistake very quickly. Yet public opinion has barely shifted since shortly after it started, in contrast to Afghanistan where it was near universal and is now closing in on 50/50 in retrospect (and using polls that include people who were small children at the time of 9/11).

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[Kjella]

With a lie....and btw you find out it was a lie, too late to do anything about it.

A lot of people prefer a blissful lie over an uncomfortable truth. We humans are very good at seeing what we want to see.

"Social infrastructure, including baseline values and morals".....

Humans had baseline values and morals long before religion was invented.

Yes, but only religion has an omniscient force that always knows. Doesn't matter if it's God, Allah, karma or whatever they pretty much all have a similar concept. There's no doubt that humans act differently when they will be seen or caught as opposed to when they can get away with it. That it's only their imaginary friend that will see and know doesn't change that.

I think religion is a little bit like physical evolution, it's a game of numbers. Does a religious people with a sense of community, common cause and meaning, divine guidance, protection and punishment function and thrive better than a bunch of atheist individuals that don't have any common beliefs, self-made meaning and rely on their own moral compass? It's not a matter of true or false, it's a matter of which side can sustain and reproduce itself. Considering most the world's societies have at some point found religion while historically there's very few societies that never had any form of supernaturalism I'd say religion was more "fit" for the environment than atheism. But I hope with our advances in science and technology we can change that.

Good lord ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

... I know it shouldn't surprise me, but even after this, the top rated comments are still slamming generic "religion" and talking about "backlash" playing a role.

What exactly would it take to wake you up? Would anything do it? Your own head being sawed off? Your city being bombed?

Re:Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism?

[cascadingstylesheet]

What motivates educated people to sit in front of a keyboard for 40 minutes composing a thousand-word defense of the disgusting mass murder Islamists committed in Paris today?

Shared hatred of Christians. (And of observant Jews.)

Re:Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism?

[Beetle B.]

This is probably not worth my time, but let's try:

Reading this thread and the last, I am struck by how the Left is not just defending Islamism

Why does the Left defend Islamism like this?

Congratulations! You have just demonstrated the breakdown of reasonable dialogue by imposing your view of the world in your queries.

You made a general statement without addressing any specific comments. According to you, people are defending Islamism. Not just people, but "the Left".

• You provide no definition of Islamism. Hence, any comment could fix that description.
• You don't quote examples of these comments so people know what you're talking about. It's like me walking into a public meeting about the police's excessive use of tasers, and then just standing up and saying "Looking around in this room, why is the right defending racism?"
• You attribute all of these comments as coming from the "Left", with no evidence whatsoever. Essentially, you're just redefining Left to mean whatever you'd like (in this case, defending Islamism).

Re:Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism?

[phantomfive]

Nobody is defending the people who perpetrated these attacks.

Look at this. Who were they blaming for the bombing? Not the person who did it.

Re:The Bigger Problem *is* European law

[Cederic]

France just surpassed years of U.S. mass shootings of innocents.

Look you miserable cock I pointed out how facile a claim that is when you made it last night.

Reason?

[no-body]

Who will end his/her life with a suicide belt or -car?

In those cases here, with participants shouting "Allahu Akbar" - God is great - there must be some benefit in their brain to be doing this.
Maybe it's such a desolate and hopeless situation they live in, that a fantasy escape (hope, projection of rewards into the future) becomes necessary to make this very existence bearable.
Another possibility for reason may be education and intelligence - being able to understand and see motives of manipulators in relation to oneself.

<mischief>
Now, since many, if not all thought models, be they religious or ideological, depend to function and gain popularity on similar mechanisms, fighting them would also fight their own basis for existence.

Which gives rise to the question if societies depending on mechanisms can eliminate identical mechanisms in other societies and what are the consequences?
</mischief>

Re:Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism?

[maestroX]

All the love to the family and people in this tragedy--

Pics or it didn't happen. Do you actually have any examples of "the left" defending these attacks, or are you just finding someone to hate?

And yes, left oriented sites I frequently visit over the last years have turned a blind eye and react notoriously indignant.
Common responses:

• It's a false flag operation,
• You reap what you sow (Bush et al.)
• Anti-semitism.
• Request for citing examples or sources for something that is fucking obvious

After the previous attack I have seen an increase of this behavior alienating me from the left side.
I'm just so fed up with these excuses.

Re:Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism?

[jader3rd]

I haven't seen the Left defending Islam. Most of the comments seem to be along the lines of "All religions suck; let's get rid of all of them". Which certainly isn't a defense. Other comments have been along the lines of "Instead of continuing the violence, let's not retaliate and end the cycle." Which doesn't seem to have anything to do with Islam, but is more of a belief they would have in any situation. Can you provide a concrete example?

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[physicsphairy]

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

Clearly, plenty do. There's always some "disease to be eradicated." It could be a religion or other ideology, or an ethnicity. If you haven't had your turn yet to dig the mass graves I'm sure as time goes on the opportunity will arise. Then your ideological allies (if you're not around) can go about eradicating the disease and ushering in the new paradise. It's funny how eliminating these undesirable elements of humanity and thought never seems to produce the promised paradise, however. But I'm sure it will work for you.

Re:The Bigger Problem *is* European law

[jader3rd]

The U.S. has more gun deaths per year but almost all of that is gang violence, who aren't buying guns legally anyway so I'm not sure how you plan to stop them

The idea is if you make it so difficult to legally own a gun that significantly less would be produced. With there being less produced it would be harder for people to even obtain them illegally because they just wouldn't exist to be obtained illegally.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[whoever57]

Except the leaked Collateral Murder video shows Americans deliberately attacking and killing civilian first responders.

You don't need to go so far back.What about the recent attack on the MSF hospital in Afghanistan?

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[Jamu]

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

The funny part is that they already do. For example, Ra or Ptah aren't popular anymore.

Re:Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism?

[squiggleslash]

I've not seen a single person in this thread even defend ordinary Muslims (who had nothing to do with it) let alone anyone defend terrorism or Islamists.

It's convenient though for the extreme right to pretend that the "left" is the boogieman. Makes it easier to silence them as radical, anti-Muslim policies are promoted that assume every Muslim is a terrorist.

Me, I thought the bad guys were a bunch of religious extremists who killed 127 people in Paris today. But apparently it's straw left-wingers. Who knew?

1. • 
     

     
     

     
     

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[PopeRatzo]

Citations?

I was hoping you'd ask.

http://972mag.com/report-detai...

You can find more examples by Googling "double tap bombing".

Crackpipe insanity.

[foreverdisillusioned]

There isn't a single part of this post that isn't pure fantasy. I try not to complain about the mods too much but fuck me, +5 Insightful?

ISIS is just a bunch of men with no jobs, no wives, no future and no hope for a future.

Where do you get your news? ISIS's economy is a hell of a lot more robust and stable than many nations that have a seat at the UN. ISIS fighters and leaders routinely have wives. Many of the most high profile jihadis (including but not limited to ISIS) have had good career prospects and families or at least romantic interests, including the computer programmer "Jihadi "John" (whom we just killed yesterday) and the Ph. Ds and graduate students who flew into the WTC.

Go watch VICE's report on ISIS (one of the few organizations willing to send people to do some reporting on the ground.) Listen to the guy driving the car talk about how he's leaving his wife and children to go fight for ISIS because, bottom line, Allah means more to him.

the 1% war profiteering in the Middle East and stealing their oil.

The Iraq war was moronic. We gave a bunch of contracts to Haliburton and other American companies. And there were conflicts of interest there, yeah.

But we did not fucking steal anyone's oil. Stop making shit up. Iraq has been getting billions from it for quite a while now. That oil doesn't get shipped to American companies. It gets sold on the international market at regular market price.

We can't solve _anything_ until we start recognizing the real problem and start actually _rebuilding_ Iraq and Afghanistan.

How. Fucking HOW. It's hard enough to try to fathom what we could do to rebuild Iraq that we haven't already tried but... "rebuilding" Afghanistan is a contradiction in terms--there's nothing to rebuild. It's a shithole dominated by highly religious tent dwellers, petty warlords and Pakistani agents and slummers. It's been that way long before 2001.

If you're American though this probably means giving up your SUV.

Your post has now gone into stream-of-consciousness ranting. Yes, we need to achieve energy independence. That has fuck-all to do with rebuilding places that we've already spent hundreds of billions of dollars on trying to rebuild for over a decade.

I'm not trying to troll

lol.

Re: Crackpipe insanity.

[foreverdisillusioned]

You didn't touch a nerve--nonsense on the internet is nothing new. A string of unique nonsenses at +5 on Slashdot touched a nerve.

You're lying, simply lying at this point. Or willfully ignorant. Cheney is an asshole and the conflicts of interest are worrisome, but no one in America is siphoning off 40% of the Iraqi economy.

Jihadis have had wives before and/or after leaving their old lives behind. ISIS has even managed to convince a few females to travel on their own to Iraq, just to become jihadi brides. Go watch the VICE videos (VICE is not known as having a conservative stance, btw.) See the proud jihadi dads watching their kids playing in the river.

Re: Crackpipe insanity.

[foreverdisillusioned]

Also... what in the hell are you talking about re: Japan? There are two interpretations of what you just said, neither of which is sane:

1. You're implying we treated the Japanese better than we treated the Iraqis. That is just... trollish. No one could possibly be that ignorant.

2. You're implying we should have brutally crushed the Iraqis like we did with the Japanese. Can you possibly be that naive? That shit doesn't work in the age of CNN and cell phone cameras. The public won't stand for it. And the backfire from militant Muslims would be truly incredible.

Re:Thanks Bush/Cheney

[bongey]

FYI : Obama has been the president for the last 7 years. ISIS is clearly Obama's fault for not doing anything on Syria and pulling out troops from Iraq too soon.
Air strikes alone is like causal sex. All the gratification without any commitment. Obama did the same failed Clinton policy of using only air strikes. Air strikes alone didn't stop Al Qaeda then and it isn't going to stop ISIS now, it is just going to piss them off more.
I was in US Army deployed to northern Iraq and we controlled it with minor issues. Crap I use to drive back and forth from Tal Afar to Mosul without issue, go look up who controls those areas now. We took much longer to with draw down forces from Japan and Germany, which provided the governments there enough time to build up stability.
Don't say we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, we cannot go back in time, we can only improve going forward. Pulling out troops prematurely leads to security vacuum.

Re:The Bigger Problem *is* European law

[angel'o'sphere]

Over the next few years Europe will have a vastly higher death toll at the hands of guns, precisely because the populace has been disarmed and pacified.
I don't kniw if you have a weapon. However you seem not to know much about weapons.
First of all: the shootings happend partly in places where no one in the US would be allowed to carry a gun. Or do you want to claim that there are states where you can have a hard rock concert inside a danincing hall and all dancers have a gun?
What kind of gun? A milittary assault weapon or just a 6-8 shot colt?

Secondly: the shootings did not happen because some guys had 'illegal' guns and the victims where 'legaly disarmed and pacified'. The shootings happened because military trained infiltrators had a plan to kill lots of people without an extraction plan!
If I was responsible for the plan I simply would adjust at low cost to the fact that the victims are likely armed: the outcome would be no difference!

Your idea that armed civilians have any chance against trained millitary, with millitary weapons is a very very very stupid delusion (all 'terrorists' fall for that delusion when they face the special forces) Oh, you call those soldiers terrorists? Yes, the Nazi germans also liked to hang or shot guerrilla or resistance fighters. They called themselves soldiers, not terrorists.

It is the future of war to use infiltrators and 'terrorist' attacks ... and there is no way in avoiding them. You can either prepare like the Swiz and have a 'Militia' (which might be considered guerrilla and hung if they get conquered), or make peace with the attackers.

You americans with that hybris of weapons in the hand of laymen can safe you from your own government or an invasion, it is so laughable.

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[Applehu Akbar]

Given American rules of engagement, this would have little effect. Time to let Russia romp, now that they're fully motivated. And yes, that means let them have the oil resource too. We need to finish the job on energy independence, and the jihadists who claim that the west is 'plundering' petroleum by paying large amounts of dollars and Euros for it will learn the true meaning of that word.

I'll relay some words that sum up my sentiments

[Faust6]

From elsewhere: "Did you know that one of the most common ways for a con artist to gain the confidence of their victim is to say they are the same religion? One of the basic tenets of using charisma is to know what your target wants to hear. There is a dissatisfaction among the people of the middle east, and that dissatisfaction is being leveraged by charismatic opportunists who are able to become what these dissatisfied people want them to be...it doesn't matter if they believe what they are saying or not, what matters is that they are leveraging culture, beliefs, dissatisfaction, poverty, tribalism, or whatever works in order to manipulate them. That IS charisma. There is a portion of every single population on earth who are vulnerable to this sort of opportunist, and the greater that opportunist's charisma, the more followers he will have.

[...] Not to mention the more fucked up, violent and socially and economically unstable a region is, the greater the proportion of the population open to such charisma as a means to find 'solutions' for their grievances. You're seeing that effect play out now almost across the entire world now and it will only get worse as the various crises converge and intensify. I think I've said it before, but political ideologies and raw nationalism/ethnic identification can be very similar to religions in how they play upon and interact with whole populations of people, and the results of such fanaticism are usually about the same, and often intersect and intermingle with each other. All these are forms of anti-reason which appeal to myths, selective and tendentious interpretation of history and emotional and tribal identification end up having something like the same horrific consequences for those caught up in its effects. I don't think I need to present many examples of what should now be self-evident given that human history is a litany of this phenomenon playing out in one grotesque fashion or another. I also think it is too ingrained in human nature for it to be any other way, also. I've come to the conclusion that only works of sublime art and craftsmanship, products of ingenious engineering, scientific discoverers and writings that are the product of of minds of rationalist doubt are about the only products of human civilisation and history of any value and worthy of surviving."

Re:Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism?

[angel'o'sphere]

Any links or other proof where a 'left' or 'liberal' 'defended' or fought for Islamism?
Please show some ...

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Clearly, plenty do. There's always some "disease to be eradicated." It could be a religion or other ideology, or an ethnicity.

The difference is that the 3rd thing actually exists and can be proven or demonstrated.

Ideology is demonstrable (for better or worse), but religion has never had a good track record in the laboratory, to put it politely.

Re:Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism?

[angel'o'sphere]

Please link those countries ...
Hint: in early christian times being an atheist was forbidden, too. Having no god at all was considered being more savaged and bejond hope. At least you could convert a believer to your own believes. Atheists are hardly converted or made believers.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[Feral Nerd]

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

He wasn't, the FAC accompanying the US troops on scene was supposed to assess the situations with his MK.1 eyeball and make an informed judgement call based on his direct observations of what was happening. Unfortunately because there was no on-site FAC because his task had been relegated to a Twinkie munching drone pilot pool supervisor hundreds of miles away from the scene on the other end of a camera feed that did not have enough resolution to tell the difference between an AK-47 and a TV camera so a big fat screwup happened. That screwup was then made worse by the Pentagon's default reaction to such screws which is to cover them up.

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

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

The funny part is that they already do. For example, Ra or Ptah aren't popular anymore.

Exactly. No one will take you seriously if you say you worship Thor or Neptune or Ganesh or Anubis, but lots of people will happily try to lop off your head if you don't worship Jesus or Mohammad. And really, what's the difference?

(Although at least Mohammad appears to have been an actual living person, as opposed to Jesus, who is now pretty well proven to have never actually existed. And yes, I'm serious- there's a ton of proof now that Jesus never really existed.)

So yeah, we're ALL atheists to some degree. I just happen to believe in one less god than my neighbor (a devout Christian) does.

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[fyngyrz]

More people have died due to the Republican's failure to expand Medicaid than have died in terrorist attacks. So, who should we really nuke?

Now, as to who France might see fit to nuke, Mecca seems like it would make a fine object lesson about religion-based acts of terrorism.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of th

[golodh]

Thanks, seems like a well-informed article. I'll read it. I wasn't aware of this line of thinking.

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?

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[Iamthecheese]

Murder... Except that's not what it shows.

Re:Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism?

[serviscope_minor]

Request for citing examples or sources for something that is fucking obvious

Ahh so demanding evidence of the Lefty conspiracy proves I'm part of it.

Of course.

Re: Reality acceptance issues...

[oobayly]

Maybe (citation needed), but Christian dogma says that as long as you accept Jesus you're forgiven - basically, you can commit whatever crime you want and still be forgiven. How can that concept breed morality?

Re:The Bigger Problem *is* European law

[cold fjord]

Was there something different about the terrorists? AKs maybe?

BTW - Not everyone in the US "packs heat." Generally only a minor percentage of people that go to the trouble taking classes, spending a little range time, and having a background investigation to meet the requirements for licensing. Licensed concealed carry holders have a pretty good track record overall, and have stopped many crimes, including what were apparently going to be mass shootings. But I've probably told you things you already know, and more that you want to hear.

Hollande says it's war.

[jcr]

I guess now we'll see what the Foreign Legion and the rest of the French military is capable of. France is a nuclear power, after all.

-jcr

Re: Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism

[oobayly]

Meanwhile in the 21st century...

Re:Thanks Bush/Cheney

[Hognoxious]

Please cite the specific actionable intelligence that was available to the White House to stop those guys on the airplanes.

There must have been some.

But then there are some every day. Day before a major attack. Day after. 2D6 and a coin - heads it's that many before, tails it's after.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[Pentium100]

Ok, so use nerve gas to kill all the cockroaches

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[Pentium100]

No, we will not. You do not exterminate cockroaches with a sniper rifle. You may shoot a few of them like that for fun, but they breed much faster than you can kill them. Gas or a nuke would be much more effective. It only took two nukes to impress Japan enough to abandon its "no surrender" policy. With ISIS it may take more, but either all the terrorists will be afraid or they all die - a good result anyways.

As for the refugees in Europe - drop the sanctions on Russia in exchange for sending all the refugees to Siberia - Russia can probably place them somewhere at least 1000km away from the nearest village and without cars or trains they will stay put (or become bear food).

Re:The Bigger Problem *is* European law

[Opportunist]

In an enclosed space with usually not too perfect lighting, packed with people. Someone firing a shot.

I don't claim to be an expert for human behaviour. But I dare say that "level headed" is probably not how you'd describe the reaction of people in such a situation.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[dfenstrate]

>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?

Vietnam was lost in Washington, DC.

Re:The Bigger Problem *is* European law

[Opportunist]

If we could agree on gun trainings being part of the process of getting a gun, I'd be very much for a more relaxed handling of gun laws. I could very well envision something like this being done by the army. First, they know that shit. They're dealing with it on a professional basis. And they have the necessary no-bullshit staff to drill safety home, too. Plus, it would serve as a pretty good chance to not only present the military in a positive light, it would also maybe convince a few people that it is a viable career choice. Believe it or not, it was for me for a while.

The only thing I am worried about is that people are generally very emotional. And emotional people, coupled with fear, is rarely a good counsel when firearms are involved.

Like a "normal" day in contemporary Iraq

[ffkom]

Time and again it strikes me how unbalanced media coverage is with regards to reports on fatalities and risks of life in general.

In contemporary Iraq, for example, more than a thousand civilians are killed by acts of terror _every_month_ for quite a while now. The last day with more than a hundred civilian fatalities in Iraq is just two days ago. (Source: https://www.iraqbodycount.org/... )

And other risks of getting killed - like traffic accidents or contracting diseases - remain vastly more probable than falling victim to terrorism in some western city.

And yet, the media coverage plays along both with the terrorists who, of course, appreciate the amplification of their publicity and it works in the hands of those in the west who want to abandon freedom, claiming that such was necessary to "keep us safe".

I would like to ask the media to spend the same amount of air time on every single human who dies from an unnatural cause, maybe people and politicians would then see what the actually relevant risks are and address them rather than fantasizing about "wars on terrorism".

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[GLMDesigns]

Civilians - or not the primary target(s). Are bodyguards and affiliated soldiers part of the 96? I don't know. I'm not saying they are or not. I just would like more information.

For you to say 96 out of 100 then you obviously know the breakdown.

Please share it with us. I would like to know.

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[nbauman]

But note that France does not conduct any drone strikes,

France was bombing ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/...

I don't like ISIS, they've done horrible things, but if you attack someone, you can reasonably expect him to attack you back.

the two issues have nothing to do with each other, and there should be no doubt that terrorist attacks like in Paris are even more heinous crimes than any drone strikes anyone could imagine.

If I were Syrian I would have a hard time understanding why it's more henious to machine-gun down 100 people in a theater than it is to kill 100 people with a drone strike at, say, a wedding.

As I said, its a question of the intentions.

That's a distinction without a difference.

If I were a Syrian, I wouldn't care whether my wife and children were killed by someone who was intending to kill them or who just killed them as collateral damage.

If you drop a bomb, you know what's going to happen.

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[tnk1]

You may or may not be right about it being a delusion, but I doubt the world will be any better than before. People will just change the excuses for doing these things.

We've already given countries a chance to be atheist, and it may not be worse, but it's already been established to be no better.

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[tnk1]

Contrary to what you believe, religion does not provide any of these things. A trouble-free childhood with caring parents and a continuing lack of existential worries can do miracles, though.

Because you say so, I guess.

Yes, caring parents and lack of worries is very positive, but there were presumably caring parents and carefree individuals before anyone invented religion as well.

Religious belief has a purpose, that much is clear. Whether it is possible to replace it now with something else remains to be seen.

Not comparable

[aepervius]

At least in the case of Stalin and possibly mao, atheism card was more actually used against the local religions/churchs as a way to wrestle power from them. others used religion to get their goal and massacred christian or muslim. Others again used other way to get power. But make no mistake in all cases atheism and religion were used as an excuse for those in power seeking more. It may as well be anything else whatsoever.

Now let us look at the mob level. On the level of a mob (which terrorist are more or less) it does not function that way. You will need a reason to whip the people into a fury. That reason may be stupid to other group mind you. Religion (and other groups like politics and mostly racism or similar hate-ism) can whip such a group into a fury. Look at those persons getting killed because for example somebody said they burned a koran, or somebody said they were witch (look at people burned in africa nowadays !) or people were told to have eaten sacred crows. Whip a mob and kill them. There is no way you could whip into such a fury a group solely based on atheist and based on their core belief as atheist. Oh sure you could get a good lynch mob where *some* atheist would also participate for secular reason like lynching a pedophile murderer, but it would still be something which is not related to their atheism.

I defy you. Find us a mob of atheist which lynched somebody. Good luck on that. There is plenty current example of mob from *all* major religions lynching people. Heck ever remember the balkan genocide of muslim by christian ?

Re:Not comparable

[cold fjord]

I defy you. Find us a mob of atheist which lynched somebody. Good luck on that. There is plenty current example of mob from *all* major religions lynching people. Heck ever remember the balkan genocide of muslim by christian ?

Challenge accepted.

League of Militant Atheists

In addition, the League of Militant Atheists sometimes took a violent approach to those who would not accept the League's message. For example, "bishops, priests, and lay believers" were "arrested, shot, and sent to labour camps."

That wasn't just power grabs, they genuinely were combating religious belief in accordance with their beliefs and ideology. They were willing to shed blood to stamp out religion.

It turns out that atheists are ordinary people, subject to the same flaws as anyone else.

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[tnk1]

The Nazis were explicitly Christian,

Demonstrably false.

their membership was overwhelmingly Christian, and they were supported by both the Catholic and the protestant churches.

My next door neighbor hasn't been to church since his first communion, and he quotes Buddhist texts and thinks that Jesus was not particularly divine, but that he was sort of a cool guy, you know, if he existed. To you, however, because he was slightly brought up as a Catholic, he's now as Catholic as the Pope and the College of Cardinals.

Let's be clear, if there is overlap between Christianity and Nazi doctrine, it's probably a coincidence.

And communism is little more than a religion without a deity.

So, Communism was an atheistic religion? I have to admit, that is amusing.

Re:Thanks Bush/Cheney

[ScentCone]

There must have been some.

Oh, well then, that covers it. They definitely should have known about those particular people and their plan to to carry out never before seen suicide attacks of that particular type on those planes on that day.

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

You may or may not be right about it being a delusion

If a person has a belief that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, that's a delusion. And let's be honest- that's an excellent description of religion.

-

We've already given countries a chance to be atheist, and it may not be worse, but it's already been established to be no better.

I disagree. Sweden and Denmark are mostly atheist (according to the stats, anyway) and they have an excellent standard of living, low crime, and are generally considered to be good places to live and raise families. And they aren't the only ones by far.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[mi]

Interestingly, even that rag acknowledges, that the tactics they denounce in IDF, was "invented" by the Arabs. Says the article:

For Israelis it is reminiscent of our own traumas, like the Beit Lid double suicide bombing and other terror attacks that used the same tactic.

But your claim of it being "favorite" tactics of Israeli government omitted that important bit. Which makes you a liar (and thus, automatically, an asshole).

Also, you post no evidence to even suggest (much less prove), that this is something, IDF enjoys doing — to justify your claim of it being their "favorite".

And finally, on the legality of it... Killing medical personnel, such as a corpsman trying to evacuate a wounded soldier, is not illegal — not at all. It is perfectly legitimate. Snipers, for example, are trained to shoot their targets in the hip or pelvis, if they can — so that the victim remains conscious, but in pain so severe, his screams compel his comrades to try to get him out. This allows the sniper to shoot more enemies... Shocking — to a civilian like myself — but legal.

So, if your original target was legitimate — and even your link makes no claims to the contrary — shooting people first on the scene is usually Ok too. Not that your link proves IDF actually doing it — an article on some unknown blog, which cites anonymous "experts" is hardly credible...

Re:The Bigger Problem *is* European law

[SuperKendall]

There were two of the attackers in the theater, shooting slowly. Are you really so stupid as to think a single armed woman or man could not have changed that course quickly?

The only reason so many were killed is because many laid on the floor and the terrorists had all the time in the world to shoot each one in the head. A hail of bullets going into a crowd would have had a vastly lower cost in human life (a person can easily be shot a few times and live through it just fine), and the terrorists could have been stopped.

Re:The Bigger Problem *is* European law

[SuperKendall]

Not innocents - again gang violence is a wholly different thing.

Re:No it's the opposite

[Ungrounded Lightning]

It's more like, what's going to keep some sociopath like that in check if you can't instill some kind of external fear in to them.

Objectivism. B-)

Seriously. If the prospect of retaliation by the law (or by the armies of other countries if they've managed to put themselves "above the law") doesn't deter them, why would a story about punishment in the afterlife, (similar in structure to the Santa Claus story they've already rejected) do so?

Objectivism, on the other hand, offers them a carrot: "Do things THIS way and good things are in it for you, in this lifetime. You can see that it works, see how it works, and the logic is eeasy to understand." "Here's what's in it for YOU for CHOSING to be good (for this particular value of "good")."

In a study in the Canadian prison system, teaching Objectivism was the only intervention that substantially reduced the recidivism rate.

"Cures" can be worse than the disease.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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

One problem religion shares with alcoholism and drug addiction is that attempts to stop it usually both fail miserably and cause more harm than letting it run its course without intervention.

One problem it shares with Rabies, Herpes, and HIV is that those afflicted with some forms of it can not be cured. The choice is to leave them alone (and maybe treat the symptoms) or kill them off.

So get used to having religious people around, and figuring out to live in a world containing them.

Re:"Cures" can be worse than the disease.

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

One problem it shares with Rabies, Herpes, and HIV is that those afflicted with some forms of it can not be cured.

Not yet, anyway, but I suspect these diseases will eventually be conquered. Religion, I'm not so sure of but I still have hope there too. :)

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[PopeRatzo]

And finally, on the legality of it... Killing medical personnel, such as a corpsman trying to evacuate a wounded soldier, is not illegal — not at all. It is perfectly legitimate.

Well, I think you've proved my point, haven't you?

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[KGIII]

I served. This means that I learned the various ins and outs of the Geneva and Hague Conventions. I am not a lawyer. I am not an international lawyer. I have seen the video in the past. I'm *really* certain that it's neither a war crime nor would be considered a war crime by the US. What it is, potentially, is sad and unfortunate. What it isn't, is a crime.

Given the vast coverage of that event, had there been any crime, this would have been prosecuted. Or, if you wish, you can believe a bunch of people conspired to keep further secrets, give cause to additional outrage, and didn't prosecute evil criminals for - well, I don't actually know why they'd do that.

As an aside: There are some things in the Geneva Convention that I'm simply going to ignore in the middle of combat. If you're out of ammo and attacking me with a bayonet then I'm going to shoot you. If you're dropping in a bunch of paratroopers, I'm not going to wait nicely for you to land. Sorry. No, I won't be prosecuted for it. The other side wasn't going to listen either.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[KGIII]

Oh, I love history! I'm quite an aficionado. What real wars, in modernity, and how were they ended? What should the OP see from them?

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[ememisya]

That's right, let it out. There there.

Re: Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism

[DNS-and-BIND]

Have you not read the responses in this thread? The half that aren't condemning the terrorists are blaming America.

Re:The Bigger Problem *is* European law

[KGIII]

I'm a dyed in the wool fan of the 2nd who carries a firearm with him on a near daily basis. I think that, by itself, is enough to make me qualified to opine but I've many other qualifications if I need to list them.

Let me just say, the idea of everyone carrying a firearm and, more so, them all carrying a firearm into a heavy metal concert (or even an opera) is just plain stupid. Owning a firearm doesn't make one a good tactician or a good shot. That takes practice, dedication, and good judgment and education.

If these concert going folks had been armed then, assuming they still didn't just run away screaming, the chances are really good that the air would have been full of even more flying bits of lead and even more people would have died.

As a firearm aficionado, gun nuts piss me off.

Re:The Bigger Problem *is* European law

[angel'o'sphere]

You, and so many other people, think so simply in black and white, utterly ignoring the 4000 ways in which a single armed opponent can vastly change the course of an encounter...

In every civilized nation the "armed opponent" would be asked to either hand out his weapon or leave the building.

So in the moment of encounter, no one would have a weapon.

And you still fail to understand the difference between:
a: military training versus civilians
b: military weapons versus civilians

In the case we are talking about, as cynical as it sounds: armed civilians had perhaps reduced he death toll by one or two. Quite some numbers died to suicide bombers .... perhaps you missed that news

That is not the point ...

[kbahey]

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

That is not the point.

No one is saying they did this because they atheists.

The point is that despite their lack of religion, they committed atrocities that are as bad as, and sometimes worse, than those committed in the name of religion.

If you go back to an age where polytheism was widespread, you will still see conquests and genocide. The ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans had the habit of equating their own gods with gods from other cultures around them. Despite all this, they still fought bitter wars and conquered territories, ..etc, like what was done in the Middle Ages and what is done now ...

So, religion, or the lack of it, are not the cause of atrocities. It is humans who are the cause of it.

Re:That is not the point ...

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

No one is saying they did this because they atheists.

That's pretty much exactly what Bing Tsher E was saying, when he said "Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao were all atheists. Suck on it." Perhaps I misunderstood his comment, but it seemed fairly clear to me.

-

The point is that despite their lack of religion, they committed atrocities that are as bad as, and sometimes worse, than those committed in the name of religion.

Yes, and I've agreed with that, and I'm happy to do so again for the record.

Re:That is not the point ...

[kbahey]

Sorry for the misstep there.

I meant that he is wrong, even if he said as much.

"mercliess" response

[manu0601]

Francois Hollande has vowed to undertake a "mercliess" response to the attacks.

It is difficult for a bomb to tell the difference between an Islamic State militant, and the average person living in an Islamic State controlled area. That means the "mercliess" response will probably be a bloodbath for a lot of innocent Syrian people.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[mi]

Well, I think you've proved my point, haven't you?

Your "point" was, it is a favorite tactics of Israeli government. You failed to prove that they use such tactics at all — much less that it is their "favorite".

And, even if they did, their use would be against legitimate targets, while their (and our) enemies target civilians. You have no leg to stand on and have been exposed as a liar. Have a nice day.

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[C0R1D4N]

Yes, but civilized people attack the enemy military/governments. Not the people going to see a metal concert.

Re:Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism?

[cascadingstylesheet]

What motivates educated people to sit in front of a keyboard for 40 minutes composing a thousand-word defense of the disgusting mass murder Islamists committed in Paris today?

Pics or it didn't happen. Do you actually have any examples of "the left" defending these attacks, or are you just finding someone to hate?

You can't be serious.

A bunch of idiots slamming "religion" in this context is defending Islam. Because "religion" didn't do this; Islam did this.

Not to mention saying that "we" somehow caused this. The only way we caused this is by inviting them into our countries.

Exactly nobody is afraid that Presbyterians or Amish or Jews are going to shoot up innocents in their movie theaters and cartoonists offices. Everybody is afraid that Muslims will, and with good reason.

Some are so afraid that they refuse to even say who they are afraid of. They hope that keeping their voices down will keep them safe. And they try to silence anybody else who dares to notice the bleeding obvious.

You're thinking locally

[rsilvergun]

the people involved are global. None of the money was pillaged like in the old days. It was transferred to mega corps with well connected people sitting on their board of directors. It was moved and shuffled around to the right sort of people. You're world view is still local, while the people screwing you over are global.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[phorm]

Does anyone win when there's little left but a smoking hole in the ground? Even then there will probably be some people left over, and they're probably going to be feeling very angry towards your country. Bombing a hospital with civilians certainly didn't seem to win any points, and it's not like that's the only incident of collateral damage. Angry and hatred seem to a good foundation for recruiters of future terrorists. Hell now we have westerners flying off to join them...

Of course I'm not sure that my solution would be much better. When we catch the bastards, start sending them back minus a few important bits. It's not like they can respond more brutally than they already do. If they don't fear death, maybe we need to find something they do fear.

A "higher being"

[phorm]

Because when you claim to work for a "higher being" then you still get to claim some of the glory, while shifting the blame to "$deity works in mysterious ways" or "it is $deity's will". People will do a lot of terrible things in the name of a higher power that they might not for mere mortals, even though that where the actual message is coming from.

Look at all the idiots that supported miss "I've been divorced 3 times and cheated but marrying gays is against God's will"

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[tnk1]

In the 12th Century in Europe, it was overwhelmingly accepted that God is real, the Pope got to tell Kings what to do and regular old people would clamor for you to be burned/imprisoned/disputed if you were an atheist. If you had lived at that time, you could have defined yourself as being delusional because your definition is based on conventional wisdom, which shifts over time based on sentiment.

You can also discuss religion in rational argument all you like. You are confusing scientific method with reason, which it is not. Many, if not most religions can be discussed logically, you can ascertain certain facts, and new information can be brought into discussions which might change practices (an all too frequent occurrence). These discussions merely proceed from starting points which you do not share, for instance, the content and validity of certain revelations and the existence of deities.

As for Sweden and Denmark, I feel your reading of the statistics is misleading in a couple of ways.

First, while few in those countries indicate a Christian belief system, most of them believe in some sort of supernatural or spiritual existence. This is mostly agnostic, not atheistic. And not to split hairs, but it has also been suggested that most just respond in that manner because religion as an institution is not important to them, without suggesting anything about strict atheism.

Moreover, those countries, as indeed pretty much all of Scandinavia, are small, ethnically homogeneous, and geo-politically neutral places. Take Denmark, for instance. Population: 5,580,516. 89.6% of the population is of Danish descent. Of the rest of the immigrants, 34% of those are from Western Europe. Where Denmark does show crime issues is with the immigrant populations, which are mercifully small percentage wise, but completely outsize in the percentage of crime that is produced.

If you put the roiling mass of immigration and racial division and just the sheer size of the US (for example) against those countries, it's not really a particularly good comparison. I can find some nice places in the US that have similar sizes and characteristics too. We have cities with a similar population to Denmark. If you're suggesting that calm places where everyone resembles one another are doing well, I might agree, but I probably wouldn't start with their putative atheism.

But even if we accept your point at face value, you still can't No True Scotsman your way out of the various genocidal atheistic regimes of the 20th Century. There are also some very nice Christian places to live too, but I doubt you'd allow me to suggest that because I can find a nice Christian place to live, that the Inquisition or Crusades were just aberrations or "not really Christianity", because the people who make similar arguments as you do not distinguish the two. This is why I said, and history backs me up, that atheism has provided no relief from the burdens that some atheists suggest that religion has put upon us.

I personally feel that we're just as likely to find a better future by following the actual tenants of Christianity as we are by following a scientific, secular path into the future. As much as I love science and our advancements in technology, I don't actually see a better world coming about because of that alone.

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[nbauman]

Yes, but civilized people attack the enemy military/governments. Not the people going to see a metal concert.

I agree. Everyone should follow international law. People who violate international law should be prosecuted and punished.

But that doesn't happen. We kill innocent civilians all the time.

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

And if we ignore international humanitarian law, it's pretty difficult to convince the other side that they should follow international law too.

Although sometimes they do anyway.

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

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[khallow]

So what you are saying is that attacking civilian targets and killing many including children from a position of military power backed by a large government and from a nice safe distance is somehow OK but a bunch of seperarist religious nuts attacking civilians is unforgivable and the traction should be wars against reasonably moderate states?

What large government is attacking civilian targets? Just because there are civilians near a military target who are harmed or killed by a subsequent attack doesn't make the target a civilian target.

While on the other hand, it is quite clear that the Paris attacks targeted civilians without regard for any military justification.

And what wars against what "reasonably moderate" states?

Unless you see and agree both are horrific and needed to be addressed you are just part of the problem.

Horrific is a matter of degree. It's not a bit you set. I hope you think that killing 100 people in a concert is more horrific than wearing plaid and stripes, but I can't tell from your words how discerning you are. War ultimately is about not playing by rules. The more ethical rules you can actually get participants in a war to follow, the relatively more humane the war will be. But when such as in the case of ISIS, one party isn't following any rules to reduce harm to civilians, then you should expect lots of civilian deaths, no matter how horrific you find this sort of thing to be.

Re:The Bigger Problem *is* European law

[Zontar The Mindless]

A "voluntary duty"? o_O.

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[Zontar The Mindless]

Humans had baseline values and morals long before religion was invented.

I'm gonna have to call [citation needed] on that.

Re:Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Looks to me like RS were asking, "How did we [Americans] let this guy fall into murderous radicalism?" Which seems like a perfectly legitimate question.

Re:No it's the opposite

[NoOneInParticular]

Evidence is not on your side. Recent research indicates that kids with a religious upbringing are less altruistic than kids with an a-religious upbringing. Also, religious kids are more likely to condemn other people's shortcomings more harshly (big surprise).

If, as you state, religion is the prison to keep sociopaths in check, it might turn out that, analogously with criminals in prison, religion is the place where sociopaths become more experienced.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

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

He wasn't. He was supposed to follow the rules of engagement instead of being a trigger happy arse hole.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[PopeRatzo]

You failed to prove that they use such tactics at all

Here you go. Maybe you didn't read it the first time:

http://972mag.com/report-detai...

Re:Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism?

[serviscope_minor]

A bunch of idiots slamming "religion" in this context is defending Islam. Because "religion" didn't do this; Islam did this.

You have to be astonishingly perverse to interpret an attack on all religion as a defence of Islam. Islam is a religion ergo religion did this. Islam is also made of people, ergo people did this. Saying religion makes people do crappy things, or saying "people suck" is not defending Islam.

It seems like you're just cruising around lookin' for outrage. When something doesn't prefectly match exactly what you think, you get outraged. I can't see any other explanation for interpreting attacking religion to be defending it. Black is *not* white, war is not peace and we've never been at war with Eurasia.

Exactly nobody is afraid that Presbyterians or Amish or Jews are going to shoot up innocents in their movie theaters and cartoonists offices. Everybody is afraid that Muslims will, and with good reason.

As for me, I have a firm grasp of statistics and no, I don't walk through life full of fear, so you can remove me from the list of "Everybody" that you have. My only personal experience of muslims (I've never been involved in a terrorist attack) has been living along side them. There's a shop in Cambridge called Al-Amin. I went a lot as it had much better chili peppers than the more British style of supermarket, and cheaper spices. They actually gave store "credit" to the local drunks so they could get food. No one gives store credit any more and there's no way it was being repaid.

Am I afraid of those chaps? Nope, not one bit. They seemed like really upstanding members of the community. So, I do not fear muslims in general. That doesn't mean there aren't vicious idiotic nutjobs who I'd happily see dead however.

1997. See also Australia

[raymorris]

Handguns were banned in 1997. Official crime rate information from the Home Office (2002, 2013) indicates that in the five years prior to the ban, 1.2 million violent crimes were reported. After the ban took affect, there were over 5 million violent crimes in the following five years.

    Home Office data shows that rape went from 27,000 to nearly 47,000 when potential attackers were assured there was no risk that a law-abiding woman might defend herself with a firearm. Other serious crimes show the same pattern. Total sex offenses increased from 158,000 to over 245,00.

The same occurred in Australia, and to a leeser extent in US cities which have implemented near-bans. The effects of these laws are no longer a matter of predicting what might happen - we've tried it and know what happens. 20,000 more rapes is what happens. Now that you know that, in the future you have the choice- do you want to cause twice as many rapes, or admit that your first guess was wrong?

double and triple is a HUGE coincidence

[raymorris]

Maybe it's coincidence, here are the numbers.

Handguns were banned in 1997. Official crime rate information from the Home Office indicates that in the five years prior to the ban, 1.2 million violent crimes were reported. After the ban took affect, there were over 5 million violent crimes in the following five years.

        Home Office data shows that rape went from 27,000 to nearly 47,000 when potential attackers were assured there was no risk that a law-abiding woman might defend herself with a firearm. Other serious crimes show the same pattern. For example, total sex offenses increased from 158,000 to over 245,00.

Note I didn't look at just the month before and the month after - month to month numbers may vary by chance; the five years before vs the five years after is long enough you shouldn't see a huge swing by random chance. Note also it's not an increase of 10% or even 25% - crime doubled, no matter how you measure it, and it happened immediately. That's an awfully big coincidence.

The same occurred in Australia, and to a leeser extent in US cities which have implemented near-bans. The effects of these laws are no longer a matter of predicting what might happen - we've tried it and know what happens. 20,000 more rapes is what happens.

sexual assault reporting doesn't change murder rat

[raymorris]

The reporting standards for SEXUAL ASSUALT other than "rape" changed around the same time. Tell me how changing the reporting codes for- sexual assault- caused by murder rate to double.

It's hard to admit that your first guess regarding what the outcome might be was wrong. But the actual outcome is 20,000 more women getting raped. In the future, when this issue comes up, you'll have to decide, do you:
a) recognize the available evidence and adjust your predictions
b) stick to your first guess to protect your pride, and advocate policies that cause 20,000 women to be raped

Your choice.

Re:Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism?

[maestroX]

I see no conspiracy.
I see a large portion of left wing people defending religion as a first response to the attacks. And not for the first time.
When confronted, an aggressive posture including all of the mentioned points is being made,
and all arguments against a sect suddenly need unrefuted scientific research.
You got to be kidding me.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[mi]

He was supposed to follow the rules of engagement

Please, cite the rule you are accusing him of violating.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

What? You mean the crew lying to their chain of command isn't enough proof that they knew they were violating their own rules of engagement? You think you know something they didn't?

OK, here's the rule then. Specifically 1.c.

This wasn't a big surprise to the troops in conflict as the very first Geneva convention stated that. The US abides by that convention.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[MrKaos]

That's also one of the Israeli government's favorite tactics.

Citations?

The King David Hotel Bombings were actually the first terrorist attacks. They killed British citizens in an attempt to establish the Israeli state.

You could also look at the Shatila massacres in much the same way as what has happened in Paris.

Don't get me wrong, Islam has a lot to answer for with it's long history of human right violations that happened long before 9/11, what I'm saying is that you can't justify terrorist attacks at all and even less so if you are an occupying force with access to a wide variety of tactics.

State based terrorism is also terrorism.

Republican actions WRT Medicaid expansion

[fyngyrz]

I don't blame Medicaid.

I wasn't ascribing the effect to medicaid; it was due to republican legislators that voted to reject the medicaid expansion money that was being offered to their states. Medicaid could have saved many of those people, or delayed their demise, but it was kept from them.

I blame the Democrats' support of the AMA's rules limiting the number of doctors produced each year. This has limited the supply if[sic] healthcare providers

Currently, the additional load on the medical system is barely noticeable from the standpoint of available professionals to provide treatment. For instance, without enrollment in the ACA in 2015, there were about 280 million people insured in the USA. The ACA added about 18 million. That's under a 7% increase in total patient load on average. That's less noticeable to a doctor's office than what happens when there is a flu outbreak, which is a constantly reoccurring event.

If you can't get proper medical care because there is no money available to pay for it, it doesn't matter how many doctors there are anyway.

Eventually, we are going to see a meaningful shortfall in the number of active physicians due to the age demographics of the group and how many will be retiring compared to the rate of replacement from med schools, and yes, that's going to cause problems - but it's not here yet, and it doesn't in any way excuse the republicans from their responsibility for the early and/or needless deaths they caused by rejecting medicaid expansion.

(the AMA's rules limiting the number of doctors produced each year)...kept prices far too high.

The price of medical care is not set by scarcity. I was married to a surgeon for many years, and I can tell you first hand that the major expenses were running the office, including paying staff, the charges made by the hospital where she worked for OR time and so forth, and paying insurance. Those numbers were huge. Her income after all that was comfortable, but -- frankly -- I wouldn't indulge in the required number of years of grueling schooling to get it, even for a run of the mill GP. Increasing the number of doctors "because looser rules" would just incur those costs for them as well, and they wouldn't start trying to beat the other doctors prices by a few dollars. If you want to point a finger at significant consumer cost issues, I suggest you find the nearest tort lawyer and stick that finger right up their ass.

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[easyTree]

It's a question of intentions

Indeed; if we knew who requested this attack we might have a hint regarding intentions.

On an unrelated note, is anyone planning to visit the COP21 climate talks in Paris? I hear that certain governments and powerful oil interests have their backs up against the wall.

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[zijus]

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.

Hi there. Marc Trévidic was judge at anti-terrorist office in Paris for 10 years. On this [french] France-info 14.12.2015 radio interview, he states "Murderers motivation is at most 10% religion based. Main reason are personal path. Religion is only a varnish." At minute 18h 15m 25s [fr] http://www.franceinfo.fr/actu/.... So even though religions are indeed delusions, they are not guilty of these murders. Anger should be directed only at those persons who perpetrated murders, who individually hold responsibility. Let's not play terrorist game. Their goal is to divide and trigger retaliation against Muslims in France so a vicious circle is started. Every one : do _not_ sort people according religion or atheism.

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[vlad30]

Is this a US definition of 'civilian' by any chance, where any male of military age is deemed a combatant?

Islamic state will make a combatant of any one old enough and strong enough to hold and point a rifle or wear a suicide vest what we consider a civilian they likely call a soldier

Re: Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism

[angel'o'sphere]

And, what is wrong with that?
And, why are they "left" if they do that?
And, in what way is blaming America, defending Islamism?
And I wonder if you mix up the words Islam and Islamism ... just a thought.

I for my part find the idea that someone puts a label like "left" on one for what he is writing in a forum pretty stupid.

FYI: Calling someone left in my country is quite an insult as you associate left with communism/soviet socialism or even stalinism.

Re:The Bigger Problem *is* European law

[angel'o'sphere]

That's not who they were,
That is exactly what they where.
Guys who spent weeks or month in military training camps. Or do you really think they met in a pub (without alcohol ofc, only tea) and decided: lets make a timed attack?
WTF: how you think they got the weapons? Black market in Paris? Wake up: there is no black market in Paris where you can buy military grade weapons.

utterly ignoring the 4000 ways in which a single armed opponent can vastly change the course of an encounter...
No, we are not ignoring that.
You are ignoring that there would have been no likely way that there would have been a single armed opponent. BECAUSE: on a heavy metal concert, guns are not allowed, regardless of gun laws. So: the gun law is not the problem and not the solution.

Ah well, please make a video and post it on youtube where you with a single 6 shot colt kill 7 attackers with automatic weapons. I guess you have to throw it very hard into the face of the last one ... good luck.

Re:Reality acceptance issues...

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Thanks, but I've seen the effects of religion firsthand as well as in a historical context, and it's mindless bullshit designed to control people and fuck up the world at large. Don't waste your breath telling me that it's not the root cause of many of the world's problems, because it damn sure is.

Anger should be directed only at those persons who perpetrated murders, who individually hold responsibility

Yes, but anger should also be directed at those who perpetuate these myths in order to get others to commit atrocities in the name of their invisible magic sky-being.

Let's be real fucking clear here: If I deliberately mindfuck you and manage to convince you to murder someone, I'm guilty too.

And it doesn't matter if it's a religious mindfuck or a white supremacist mindfuck or a "we need some money" mindfuck.

In cases like that, responsibility doesn't stop at the handle of the knife.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[martas]

I bet if you'd lived in post-WWI Weimar Republic you'd be calling for the heads of the Novemberverbrecher.

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[znrt]

In my point of view, drone strikes are serious crimes just like terrorist attacks but the two things should be kept apart and not one can justify the other.

moot point since the other part hasn't the tech to respond with drones. bottom line is: you screw with people, they will respond with whatever they can respond with.

it's now a plague very difficult to deal with, but 'we' created it in the first place. that's not justification, it's just understanding cause and effect and why things happen. maybe there's other solutions besides sending in drones, and maybe we could learn from the past to not make the future even worse. sadly, i doubt it.

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[znrt]

Do we want keep being attacked for ever? Yes, a lot of civilians would die. They already are on both sides. If you eliminate the problem complete, it won't come back. We just need to grow some balls and do it.

do you realize that the number and virulence of armed groups has been increasing steadily since 2002?
there is no way you could possibly 'win' this 'war' throwing more fire at the fire. even the military know that.
and there is no way homeland security can actually protect its citizens. that's utter nonsense.

so citizen everywhere will be paying the price for someone's war and power games. my guess is that this has already been accounted for, and your little patriotic civilian life is equally expendable and on the line as any other. good luck with your crusade.

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[maple_shaft]

Umm, this is incorrect. Signers of international treaty on war agree that every effort should be made to avoid harming unarmed field medics if possible. A sniper firing on a field medic is only justified to fire on a medic if the medic is carrying a weapon and is threatening lives. Otherwise this is against rules of engagement.

Re:Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism?

[phantomfive]

Nah, RS was mainly trying to sell issues by being sensationalist.

Re:Why is the Left so fiercely defending Islamism?

[serviscope_minor]

I see no conspiracy.

Well, given the fruit loops seem to think that attacking religion is defending Islam, I'm sure you you don't see a conspiracy.

People: wow people do sucky things in the name of religion
You: OMG YOUR DEFENDING ISLAM YOU LIBERALCOMMIELEFTY!!111!!11!1one

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[vandamme]

Worked pretty well in our last nuclear war, against Japan.

When you use religion as a toy

[NuLL3rr0r]

Although religion was created by the ancient politicians in the first place, it's still in their hand to achieve their goals. So it comes back and haunts the world like this. This is very enlightening: http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[mi]

You mean the crew lying to their chain of command isn't enough proof

For an untruth to be a lie, the speaker has to know the speech to be untruthful. Did the crew know, they hit reporters instead of insurgents?

OK, here's the rule then. Specifically 1.c.

Oh, sure. Do not target civilians. If you know, they are civilians. The whole point here is, they didn't know. People aiming video cameras at you are indiscernible from people aiming grenade-launchers at you. I thought, you'd cite some more obscure rule, that would've — if properly followed — helped them identify the civilians as such....

Now, the Paris killers knew perfectly well, their targets were unarmed civilians. And yet, they targeted them — for publicity. Their rules not only don't prohibit, but, evidently, encourage terrorism. That such murders actually help one's cause in their society is indisputable evidence, that it is worse than ours. Case closed.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

I'm not talking about the reporters. Never have. While that was en error in hindsight, shit happens in war. It's my belief that even though american aircrews are notoriously trigger happy (just ask e.g. your British allies, who thought the US Air Force was more dangerous to them than the enemy) had they been tried for that they would not have been found in error.

I'm talking about their other behaviour, especially firing on the van, where the air crew in the run up clearly demonstrates that they know the rules of engagement as they're clearly heard saying "Just pick up a gun so I can shoot you" (paraphrase) in reference to one of the wounded men crawling away along the curb. When the van then enters, and stops before that crawling man, then the air crew (as they needed to according to the rules of engagement) contacts higher command to secure permission to fire, and lies to their CO, by stating "They're picking up weapons and bodies". They clearly weren't picking up bodies as the man they stopped by was very much alive at that point, and they weren't anywhere near a weapon. And the CO hearing this gives them the permission to fire.

It's a flagrant and quite clearly indefensible violation of the laws of war and their own rules of engagement, and they knew it.

Now what the attacks on Paris has to do with this, I'm at a complete loss to understand. The incident we're talking about happened years ago, long before any attack on France. And what other people do, at other times, and at other people likewise can't guide our behaviour. While we cannot take responsibility for other people's behaviour, we can, and should take responsibility for our own.

Quite frankly it reeks of the sentiment that was heard just after the Oklahoma city bombings, that "We should just bomb random cities in the middle east." Which made quite a few quip after the identity of the attacker became known that it would then by the same logic be OK to just bomb random cities in the mid west? The British were heard saying the same thing in reference to the IRA "troubles", that just parking the Hermes off the eastern seaboard and with a few well placed strikes in south Boston IRA's funding would dry up in no-time flat...

Now, if that behaviour is unconscionable, why would large scale indiscriminate bombing in the middle east be a) defensible and b) a good idea?

When it comes to the IS the solution is very simple. You broke the country, you bought it. Get your lazy arses back in there and finish the job.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[mi]

Now what the attacks on Paris has to do with this, I'm at a complete loss to understand.

This whole subthread started, when it was implied, that the West in general — and the US in particular — aren't any better than ISIS and is equally outrage-worthy. This incident was offered as proof of that.

My point is, it proves the opposite. We are better, because the "collateral murder" incident is clearly an outrage to most of us — with Pentagon trying to hide it — while the Paris murders are something, the enemy is proud of and publicizes it as much as they can.

You broke the country, you bought it. Get your lazy arses back in there and finish the job.

The cooler heads here didn't want to leave Iraq so early, but we are saddled with a President — whom you awarded with a Nobel Peace Prize (a stupid act, which progressives still would not acknowledge as a mistake) — who does not think, there is true evil in the world... Or, if there is, it is his own country. You can blame us for electing him, but his victory was not without your help. Twice.

Republican Guard

[DarthVain]

I have read somewhere that one of the unintended causes of much of the terrorism issues that exist was that when the US invaded IRAQ, they disbanded their Army, essentially putting thousands upon thousands of fighting age men with guns out of work... Not sure how much truth there is to that considering it was 18 years ago, however it does seem plausible at least in part.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[mi]

70% of American 8th-graders aren't proficient in reading — obviously, the sorry state of affairs is a reflection of the quality of the teachers...

Maybe, if I emphasize the important part, you'll be able to pick it up... Here you go, you missed this part the first time: an article on some unknown blog, which cites anonymous "experts" is hardly credible...

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[PopeRatzo]

an article on some unknown blog, which cites anonymous "experts" is hardly credible...

Let me point out that you've cited Breitbart articles here.

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[jdavidb]

No, it's called sacrificing some for the sake of many. Nuke 'em if they can't prevent these scumbags from running their countries.

Oh my God - you call yourself a Christian and advocate killing innocent children? No wonder atheists hate us.

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[mi]

Let me point out that you've cited Breitbart articles here.

First of all, clearly, you have heard of Breitbart. And second, the articles there contain attributed (rather than anonymous) quotes.

Sadly, reading comprehension really is a big problem for you. Maybe, you should stick to martial arts exclusively — if illiterate peasants could do it in China, you should be able to as well. But leave teaching to someone more capable.— so the healing may begin...

Re: NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[jdavidb]

No, it's called sacrificing some for the sake of many.

If it's okay to sacrifice some for the sake of many, then it is okay to kill embryos for their stem cells.

Anatomy of Caste system;

[NewYork]

Anatomy of Caste system; If you're not from my Caste, you're non-human to me; I can abuse/exploit/rape/harm you; Brahmin are covertly promoting Caste for past 2000 years in your country; Expel Brahmin From Your Country; http://wh.gov/iyhMK

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

First, I'm Swedish, what the Norwegians do with the only Nobel prize they're allowed to award, is on them. Not the rest of us.

Second, what Europe thinks about Obama of course has no bearing on how USians vote. Never have, never will.

Third, one of the main reasons you people even voted for him in the first place was that he promised to end your Iraq-ian adventure. So there is clearly no political majority to do what needs to be done. Hence, the responsibility for the current mess is on you not the president. (It's funny that, when it comes to US foreign policy it's always solely the work of the president, with the rest of american society, whistling and turning away as if it's none of your business.

Fifth, I haven't seen much outrage directed at the collateral murder incident. I have seen a lot of justification for all of their actions however. As a matter of fact, that clearly overwhelms. And no-one in general, and Pentagon in particular hasn't been taken to task for it. So, indifference to the whole thing is as high as that horse is ever going to get it seems. And I can say that without saying that it relativises Paris, or compares to Paris, or justifies Paris. It's clearly got nothing to do with it in the narrow sense. In the wider sense if of course has everything to do with it...

Re:NUKEM!! NUKEM NOW!!

[ElectronF]

Do you ever condemn the Israelis when they target civilians? And they do pretty much only target civilians. Or do you blame the Palestinian children for jumping in front of that poor blameless Israeli's gun/helicopter/rocket? If the Israeli's didn't attack Palestine in the 50's, then Palestine wouldn't have a reason to hit back. Now go back to throwing candy around and celebrating what is happening in Syria/Iraq/Gaza to Arab civilians. Why do you expect that people whose country was carved up by WWII refugees would just say 'oh well', they win, we should just go over here and live however they say we should. The Israeli's fought for what they believed in, so why would you not expect Palestinians to do the same?