11/13/2015 Paris Terrorist Attack

I've already treated this point in one of my previous posts. I clearly explain that you need to remove your pink tainted glasses.

Jeez, why do Americans always have to bring things on the racism side of the argument. Even more so from you, who has clearly seen me defend Arabs/Muslims. Many times.

Say, France is the cradle of terrorism. You want to make it stop, you wipe the country (trying to avoid killing innocent but we're going back to a previous post here). You just killed people from every possible religion, skin color, political belief and so on.

The way you should see it is, Syria (to name one place), is unfortunately populated of Muslims/Arabs, so yes, if you wipe terrorism based in Syria, you will obviously kill Muslims/Arabs. I don't see where you see any racism in that. I also do not understand how you reach the conclusion that we have to persecute a specific kind of people, and so on.

Pretty sure Hitler didn't kill people because they bombed his country. So I have no idea why you compare them. The only common point is the situational lack of humanity.

Based on my intel, it's not an inside job. I'm all for being suspicious at buildings that fall as if they were being destroyed, I'm fine with being suspicious of an unseen plane sent to destroy Pentagon and the CCTV footage disappearing. I don't think you can call open terrorism "suspicious", in comparison.

Also we wouldn't have given them AKs but Famas©.

It's because you can't look at a map.

The only place that isn't centered is the Stade de France. SDF has 80k people capacity, so it makes perfect sense to bomb it.

Regarding the rest, it's a very popular part of the city, so it makes perfect sense to bomb it when people think they're safe/having a good time (which they were). They simply bombed the popular places that were around the central attraction: the Bataclan.

There are only 3 things that make no sense (in a way): 3 of the terrorist blew themselves without killing anyone but themselves. We will never know why, I guess, but this is the only thing you can take as "why?".

The problem is that "something else/bigger" is so vague that you'll have people jump on Islam, jump on Arabs and so on. Need to pinpoint it so that Muslims/Arabs worldwide aren't victim of even more racism.

My neighbors who are perfectly respectable people have had their head facing the ground ever since those attacks happened. The Muslim/Arab part of my neighborhood has had its shops closed and none of the usual people who happily talk on the benches were out.

The actual impact of such terrorism goes beyond killing 100+ people.

hmm ~ heard the explosives used were made by household items/chemicals/stuff.

Wondering if something like this is just a trial run for another country but on a larger scale. Possibly like the US or Germany

You misunderstand my point. You did call for the systematic destruction of a region (or in this case in your response, a country) because it has a few bad characters in it. What you are calling for is the exact same thing as what Hitler (sorry, had to invoke Godwin in this conversation) did to the Jews, systematically destroying a culture he deemed inferior. You are calling for the systematic destruction of France because the country, as you described it, is a cradle of terrorism and therefor must be destroyed. How are you any different from Hitler, besides the obvious lack of power you hold?

Same as for Syria, since terrorism is bred from that region, you are calling for the destruction of the country, or at least, to wipe out terrorism in that region.

How about this: Instead of destroying a culture/region/country that has terrorists in it, let's get rid of those who wish to do harm to others?

Only problem is, how can we truly stop terrorism from happening all the time? Answer: We cannot. We may stop most acts from happening, but we cannot stop all acts from happening. So, we go back to your argument, to stop a group of people from killing each other, we should kill all people in that area. Which is very counterproductive to say the least (in order to stop terrorism in total, we would have to wipe humanity off the face of the earth).

This isn't a racism issue. This is a human issue.

The key point is to destroy the brain. Lone wolves scattered throughout the world will remain but they will lose resources, intel and coordination and even if they might still cause damage they will be much easier to deal with as well.

Furthermore, authorities already know about said lone wolves and only need motivation to deal with them once and for all. See the attacks on Paris that finally motivated them to coordinate raids on various people from Paris to Brussels.

As it is, it's stupid to attack lone wolves if you can't kill the brain as the arms/legs can always be replaced whereas the brain is pretty unique and is very hard to replace.

Hitler killed PEOPLE, he didn't ONLY target Jews, he targetted PEOPLE. If you want to make any sense and be taken seriously, do not immediately limit your argument to the most obnoxious part of it.

The difference being that, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, handicapped etc never actively tried to destroy Germany itself, they were attacked. We could argue whether Hitler had a good point to attack or not, but the main point remains that he attacked them. He literally had the same position as ISIS has right now except he was on a different scale. That's it.

Actually, since you really like the godwin point meme, you could argue that we should do in Middle East what happened in WWII: liberate the region.

The systematic killing refers to extremists who use Islam as a mean to hurt people (whether it is their own citizens or foreigners). These people are as much of a nuisance to "us" than they are toward their own people by shitting on their values.
However, I'm not blind, there will be collateral damage. It cannot be avoided so while we would obviously rather keep it low, you have to think about efficiency. It's a compromise, a balance to find.

Regarding stopping terrorism, I already went over that. Every single thread I ever "argue" with you it's always the same "I can't read" spiral.

We have terrorists group in every country. In France we have 2/3 notorious, one of them being in Corsica, the other in the South West and one in the North West. They barely ever attack, and when they do, it's always toward the "foreigners". It's strangely similar to what ISIS does, just on a much smaller scale.

So, how did we do to make those guy be more "peaceful"? We left them alone, we imprisoned the heads, some of the lone wolves got killed, etc.
But now, it's come to a point where if they ever get too big, they'll be stopped instantly without hurting anyone. We need to reach this with Middle East until as many as possible people in the Middle East cherish peace over war and conflicts. I mean, right now "we", I, am angry regarding the Paris attack, but it's just as annoying to hear about internal attacks. Paris is just another incident.

I would agree if it was an centrally organized system (aka a country or faction). These terrorists aren't like that because while there may be a central person or small group of people controlling all aspects of the organization, there are multiple cells in said organization that operate independently and can produce much of their funding on their own if need be (most weapons can be produced cheaply, which is what makes them so effective).

I wouldn't doubt it at all if some cells have never even communicated with the central organization since they were "deployed" to their current location. Meaning that they are still in a position to produce mass murder but either are waiting for the right time or haven't quite made their predetermined point of attack.

While attacking their central hub may slow them down, under the structure we know they have, I highly doubt it would make much of a difference, if any.

Best point of attack, in my viewpoint, is to go after their funding. I'm pretty sure the governments in power are doing so, but I'm not sure if they are actually doing any real damage.

Anonymous is doing the next best point of attack, which is to silence their messages. They already declared war on ISIS because of the attacks last Friday. Don't agree with their philosophy but anyone actually doing anything against this terrorist group is better than doing nothing.

Holocaust doesn't exist to you, does it?

Yes, he targeted Jews among other groups, but his attacks were mostly against Jews, as they were the ones who suffered the most. I mean, the Jews were the one's who lost the most, and were roughly half of the victims of the Holocaust. That means that all other groups put together suffered about as much as the single group itself.

Should we ignore one group over another? No, but with that, you shouldn't ignore/dismiss the largest group either.

That wasn't the rhetoric passed on in Germany from 1919 to 1945.

Why do we have to have collateral damage to begin with? Why not just stop the attacks before they happen instead of systematically destroying an area that harbors said terrorists?

Personal attacks, check.

If they are known, why are they still free? Why hasn't your country actually reigned in said terrorists? Is it lack of effort or lack of evidence?

I click this thread about Paris terrorist attack and instead of Paris terrorist attack i see a convo about Nazis, homosexuals, and jews....

Well Im out.
Good luck everyone.

I mean, it's the internet...

Well ignorance or bombing dunes and deserts from airplanes while not even confirming what is actually beeing hit beside civilians.

On that note - how they tried to enter a soccer stadion wich failed badly due to security (who would have guessed - you cant enter a soccer stadion with selfmadebombs) made me kinda think this was so poorly planned and not working as they wanted. Evereyone beeing to a stadion once know - security is tight there.

That post is borderline hate speech against a religion, which is prohibited on any online community. edit: it was deleted

Pure speculation as obviously we can't know for sure, but I'd wager that simply most homosexuals hid their sexuality and people with mental impairments aren't that many.

I don't care if we talk about possible solutions, even discussing the more extreme ideas but...


...calling for or encouraging mass genocide doesn't sit well with me. Don't do that.

^ This sort of detracts I think from the issue. I am not religious but believe on some level people are entitled to their faith.

The issue we have is extremism and a belief in 'purity'; Christian fundamentalist terrorism would be something people can relate to. But fundamentalist forms of Christianity is largely a fringe element in the west, and although lone-wolf actors and militias and sects can sometimes cause terror, the law enforcement and institutions as well as public opinion in countries victimized are often strong enough to withstand it.

The problem with fundamentalist Islam as an ideology is it is now seen as a catch all ideology by disenfranchised young men in the west to join to stick it to the 'man'; the way say Maoist//far-leftists/as well far-right terror movements were the outlets back 30-40 years ago.

But add on top of that an extant entity egging on these recruits, a culture of grievance in certain communities, and you get a toxic mix that is explosive.

I don't really agree that things are equivalent in this case. Yes there are religious extremism of all stripes, and as an agnostic, I tend to view the current problem as one about religion and I feel this is a negative element I oppose, but if pushed, I will state the religion is specifically Islam.

The need to equivocate is not helpful. Not everything needs to be fair and balanced. One religion is causing a large amount of terrorist attacks.

Funny that you note the Golden Age of Islam. That was centuries ago. The religion has regressed and there are many reasons why. Resistance to the scientific revolution and the printed words were among them. This was not the west's fault. Besides, the tolerant confident form of Islam practiced during its Golden Age is not the same one we see today. Not to mention the world has moved on. The incredibly progressive nature of the religion in the 1400s is regressive and oppressive today.

Hey, it's almost like we're going in the same circles we've gone in before. We just need Blazed around.

Plenty of right-wing white/Christian/etc. terrorists exist, they just tend to not get labeled as such because then the people in those groups would have to admit maybe the problem isn't just someone else's religion, and maybe the problem is one that needs addressed as a global society as a whole.

But nah.

We've got territorial pissing to be involved in instead because world leaders are just kinds in a bigger sandbox fighting over more expensive toys, and the flies the pull the wings off of? The ants they roast with magnifying glasses?

Yeah. Just us little people caught up in the whole thing.

In the words of George Carlin: "My god has a bigger *** than your god."

I feel like I need to add that most of Christianity's violent tendency lies in the past. It still exists today, of course, but in much smaller douses and not something people openly admit in public... outside of the internet, of course.

The problem with Islam is that their text does condone under certain circumstances, as previously mentioned. So while large Islamic organizations come out and condone the attacks; privately, a percentage of common people just shrug their shoulders at it, similar to how a percentage of Christians shrug their shoulders whenever abortion clinics get bombed. It's not something they'll do themselves, but if someone else does it, it's not something they'll protest too heavily about.

I've been thinking a lot about islamic extremist and christian extremists lately. It's fascinating how similar they are to one another.

Deleting the truth will not change the truth.

That deleted post someone made about the quran and sharia law was correct and accurate.

Yet as a society we're far more ready to launch global attack against one and tacitly approve -- or at least ignore -- the other.

Yet as a society we're far more ready to launch global attack against one and tacitly approve -- or at least ignore -- the other.


Except:

Cue someone entering and saying that's all "Old Testament" and "Jesus waved his hands and erased all that," etc.

Whatever, man. I've said before, I'll say again. Believe what you want to believe but once it starts negatively affecting the lives of others, it's gone too far and you need to be stopped.

^ Big difference here is a lot of people in the west simply aren't religious anymore or only belong to said religion on a superficial nature

Equivalency falls apart when large swaths of a society is 1) highly conservative 2) highly religious

I simply don't see as a 1-1 or 'we're just as bad' even if we allow of the terrible foreign policy interventions of the west.

The hardening of opinions with continued terrorist attacks may change my assessment , but I tend to see the tide of Islamist insurgency to be akin to the surprise the Muslims must have felt with the early christian Crusades

I wonder if Buddhism has any elements of violence within it's dogma.

Also this is worth reading to learn more about the IS and how they came to be due to shitty foreign policy over the past decade or so. Sadly an inevitable outcome of poor decision making.

Nope, unless you live in myanmar for some reason.

Sri Lanka and Burma both have sizable "violent Buddhist" sects, but there isn't anything in the dogma that I know of.

I wonder what it is about Burma that would initiate any kind of outward acts of force from something that is mostly established inward as individuals reaching enlightenment.

I'm well aware of all that.

I'm a Maher/Harris lib, so I do believe in discussing the issue no matter how difficult it may be, though I don't fault the mod from deleting the post. The problem with trying to have this discussion is that it frequently gets highjacked/mixed in with people who just think islam is evil and needs to be erased from humanity.

As Maher puts it, Christianity did go through its own 'Renaissances' where they got over things like selling your daughter into slavery or when to slip in abortion substances into your wife's food (look it up, it's in there), something that's condoned by the bible. The problem is that Islam has not, and it's not something people seem to want to acknowledge out of fear of being lumped in with xenophobes. We turn on the TV and get horrified whenever we see Al Qaeda/ISIS beheads someone and we call them evil and barbaric. Well, our 'ally' Saudi Arabi does it all the bloody time and no one seems to care. The difference/reason is because we're told we're allowed to be horrified at the actions of specific terrorist while we need to respect other cultures.

I don't know when it's going to come or who's going to lead it, but this discussion needs to happen. I feel one of the problems it hasn't is because people are stupid. And by that, I mean, regardless of whatever intellectual fallout this discussion may have, there will always be people who don't care anymore than to read a headline and then use it to justify more violence and hatred towards other people.

@Art

I wouldn't venture a guess at this juncture, but there are plenty of articles out there, if a guy is bored.