Terror Attack in Paris. update page 23

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Kovnik Obama**

Experiment 626 wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Something of interest. Russia, Lebanon, and France have now been attacked by ISIS or at least, individuals who support them. All three countries are near the top of the list for Foreign Nationals fighting in Syria and Iraq.

All these attacks have come in a short time span. Possibly more coming?

The Canadian Parliament building was also stormed by a lone Islamic State inspired supporter, and a Canadian soldier standing ceremonial guard at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier was murdered.

Nothing on the level of the recent attacks, but our "fearless" overlord is using last October's attack in Ottawa, and the recent attacks as grounds for why we should tuck our tails and run away from the fight against these savage gakheads.

You've kept up your desinformation duty in my absence, I see. Scaling back our cooperation to the syrian situation to a support duty was an campaign point for Trudeau. He was elected, in a small part, because of this. And we are not "running away", we are converting our efforts from providing 2% of the strike capacity at work in Syria to focusing on the humanitarian crisis these savage gakheads have caused.

Between Operations Serval, Barkhane, Sangaris and Epervier, France has been "at war" with Daesh for 2 years now. While this is a horrible act (of war), an act of terror, it is not the senseless act of barbarian trashing against modern societies. It's a strategic act of war against an enemy state and its population.

**DutchWinsAll**

Have they proven that any of the attackers were migrants or somehow related yet? I have only heard about the one Syrian passport that isn't confirmed last I heard.

But why, and I mean this honestly, is the West so responsible for these people? Qatar, KSA, Bahrain, etc. all have more than enough money to help their Muslim "brothers", so why aren't they?

Why are countries like Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, etc responsible? Because they sent a few hundred soldiers into Iraq in '03? How many of these jihadis are Saudi? Why isn't the world condemning them for their lack of care for their "brothers"?

The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.

I've met some great, cool, and all around awesome Muslims before. But all of them would be considered apostates by the majority of the Muslim world, because they were normal people. Islam needs to be reformed, and that can only come from within; which doesn't seem all too likely lately, but I still have hope.

Bill Maher is way too correct about liberals and their tolerance to Muslim crimes against humanity. I hope more people will listen to him, only about that though.

**LordofHats**

DutchWinsAll wrote:
The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.

I've met some great, cool, and all around awesome Muslims before.

"Black people are the problem. I'm not racist. I have black friends too, but black people are the problem."

Oh is it that part of the thread where we damn huge swathes of people for superficial reasons already? Boy how time flies!

**DutchWinsAll**

LordofHats wrote:
DutchWinsAll wrote:
The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.

I've met some great, cool, and all around awesome Muslims before.

"Black people are the problem. I'm not racist. I have black friends too, but black people are the problem."

Oh is it that part of the thread where we damn huge swathes of people for superficial reasons already? Boy how time flies!

I didn't realize Black people choose to be Black. I like how you purposefully edited my comment to leave out how I thought they wouldn't be considered Muslims though. Keep your head in the sand, because I don't see Jains acting like this.

So Islam's treatment of women, gays, foreign workers, and Western civilians is similar to Black people? News to me.

I'm not trying to say I'm not prejudiced against Islam, a la your "I'm not racist, but..." statement, I am prejudiced against Islam. I believe in basic human rights. Islam treats other people like chattel. And I find it disgusting. I only added that because I do think Islam can be reformed, but only from within.
.

**H.B.M.C.**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Dont know if this is off topic.
But what is with people who do that "What about X, this happened to them and no one changed their flag"
or the Rip for the innocent 100 people in paris, and RIP for the 1000000 innocent people who are gonna die for the acts of a few people? Why do people feel the need need to make the topic ALWAYs about them?

There's no one thing that defines this. No single answer that puts everything into a black and white, easily-definable box. It is many things.

1. As I mentioned before, it's complacency. Something blew up in the Middle East? Arabs are slaughtering Arabs with suicide weapons? Ok, and water's wet. What else is new? Something that keeps happening isn't going to hold the attention of the news for very long.

2. It's sensationalism. TV ratings will have spiked during their tragedy as people turned to major news outlets to find everything out. Of course the news stations are going to keep at it to keep their ratings up. That's cynical, but it's also business.

3. It's a lie. I'm pretty sure news outlets would have reported these other events, just not to the same degree, so the idea that no one said anything about them is a fabrication. It would be lower in the running order of whoever's national news it is (eg. Australia would have talked about the Cricket test against NZ before moving onto someting else, and eventually getting to this story), but it would have at least got a mention.

4. It's hypocrisy. I'd put real money on the notion that the people who say "But [this event] also happened!", "Leave religion out of it!" and "#PrayForTheWorld" are the same people who were making fun of Christians for getting up in arms about satantic Starbucks coffee cups, or who opposed #AllLivesMatter. People might get up in arms for me saying this, but the hypocrisy of the left is often far more insidious than the lunacy of the right (ie. Trump's idiotic comments) because it's couched in terms of concern and caring when really it's just another form of closet totalitarianism. The people screaming about how this tragedy is taking focus away from the meaningless 'safe space' bull gak in Missouri are all giant hypocrites.

5. It is a big deal. Multiple coordinated strikes resulting in mass casualties. It's different to (yet another) roadside bomb in Whateverstan. It gets talked about a lot because it is a big deal.

DutchWinsAll wrote:
The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.

Certain sets of people in Western society are either unwilling or incapable of accepting this because to do so would make their strongly held views on multiculturalism collapse before their very eyes.

If there truly is a group of people that does not play well with others, so to speak, then that's a core world view challenged. People will drift into cognitive dissonance and goal-post moving to avoid it.

**DutchWinsAll**

H.B.M.C. wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:
The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.

Certain sets of people in Western society are either unwilling or incapable of accepting this because to do so would make their strongly held views on multiculturalism collapse before their very eyes.

If there truly is a group of people that does not play well with others, so to speak, then that's a core world view challenged. People will drift into cognitive dissonance and goal-post moving to avoid it.

Exalted. My first one I think.

I actually consider myself very much to the Left, and it boggles my mind that massive and flagrant human rights abuses are overlooked because, I dunno, feelings? I thought we were supposed to believe in, and fight for, egalitarianism.

**Kovnik Obama**

DutchWinsAll wrote:

The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.

The very simple fact that the Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, the Islamic Front and many many other Islamic extremist groups are in conflict against Daesh should suffice to show that your analysis of the situation is lacking. Both the Arab League and the GCC are part of the Counter-Daesh Coalition.

We are talking about a group of 25,000 man terrorizing a total population of 10 millions, many sharing the same religion as the ones committing these atrocities. Pretty frakking obviously, the problem isn't just "Islam".

**insaniak**

DutchWinsAll wrote:

I didn't realize Black people choose to be Black. .

I would suspect that most muslims don't choose to be muslim, either. Particularly if they live in predominantly muslim countries.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

I actually consider myself very much to the Left, and it boggles my mind that massive and flagrant human rights abuses are overlooked because, I dunno, feelings? I thought we were supposed to believe in, and fight for, egalitarianism.

I don't think it's so much that it's overlooked as that it's a little hard to be too judgemental about it when similar human rights abuses lie not so very far in our own past...

Screaming 'Hey, I stopped kicking gay people in the face, like, hours ago, so if you're still doing it, you're a barbarian!' doesn't tend to sway people towards your point of view.

**Kojiro**

LordofHats wrote:
DutchWinsAll wrote:
The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.

I've met some great, cool, and all around awesome Muslims before.

"Black people are the problem. I'm not racist. I have black friends too, but black people are the problem."

Did you just try to equate skin pigmentation with a set of ideological beliefs?

**Kovnik Obama**

Kojiro wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
DutchWinsAll wrote:
The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.

I've met some great, cool, and all around awesome Muslims before.

"Black people are the problem. I'm not racist. I have black friends too, but black people are the problem."

Did you just try to equate skin pigmentation with a set of ideological beliefs?

An analogy is not an adequation. It's an inference from a particular to another particular. In this case, the inference being that a certain degree of hasty generalization makes you a douche.

**Dreadclaw69**

Orlanth wrote:
Where is this leprechaun dream of 'forced to quit the field'?

Railing against "Fenians" before, now "leprechauns"? If all you have are bigoted statements you have already lost.

**DutchWinsAll**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Kojiro wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
DutchWinsAll wrote:
The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.

I've met some great, cool, and all around awesome Muslims before.

"Black people are the problem. I'm not racist. I have black friends too, but black people are the problem."

Did you just try to equate skin pigmentation with a set of ideological beliefs?

An analogy is not an adequation. It's an inference from a particular to another particular. In this case, the inference being that a certain degree of hasty generalization makes you a douche.

But Black people are inherently Black. They don't do anything different from other people because they believe in being Black. Islam is not an inherent belief. And a large part of it's adherents either allow or practice in some amount of brutality that the world does not accept anymore. Think about how just women are treated, just in regards to the law. Why is that acceptable to the tune of millions of dollars in aid?

**Tactical_Spam**

H.B.M.C. wrote:

4. It's hypocrisy. I'd put real money on the notion that the people who say "But [this event] also happened!", "Leave religion out of it!" and "#PrayForTheWorld" are the same people who were making fun of Christians for getting up in arms about satantic Starbucks coffee cups, or who opposed #AllLivesMatter. People might get up in arms for me saying this, but the hypocrisy of the left is often far more insidious than the lunacy of the right (ie. Trump's idiotic comments) because it's couched in terms of concern and caring when really it's just another form of closet totalitarianism. The people screaming about how this tragedy is taking focus away from the meaningless 'safe space' bull gak in Missouri are all giant hypocrites.

Hypocracy drives the nation, how dare you attack it!

**d-usa**

We tolerate gun owners, despite the actions of their murderous majority.

They weren't born holding on to their guns, but they choose to own them. How many must be mowed down by their bullets before we realize that gun ownership is not compatible with the west and that owning guns is a deranged ideology that breeds violence. Sure, I know some peaceful gun owners, but they are just a perversion of gun owners. You don't know the truth of being armed until you killed your first human.

Some day we will realize that our PC constitution is outdated and we will get rid of the scourge of gun owners who love to kill.

Or maybe we don't paint the majority with a brush tainted by the few.

**Tactical_Spam**

DutchWinsAll wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Kojiro wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
DutchWinsAll wrote:
The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.

I've met some great, cool, and all around awesome Muslims before.

"Black people are the problem. I'm not racist. I have black friends too, but black people are the problem."

Did you just try to equate skin pigmentation with a set of ideological beliefs?

An analogy is not an adequation. It's an inference from a particular to another particular. In this case, the inference being that a certain degree of hasty generalization makes you a douche.

But Black people are inherently Black. They don't do anything different from other people because they believe in being Black. Islam is not an inherent belief. And a large part of it's adherents either allow or practice in some amount of brutality that the world does not accept anymore. Think about how just women are treated, just in regards to the law. Why is that acceptable to the tune of millions of dollars in aid?

Explain how you think the women are treated and I'll line that up with what people who lived there fore 6 years experienced

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
We tolerate gun owners, despite the actions of their murderous majority.

They weren't born holding on to their guns, but they choose to own them. How many must be mowed down by their bullets before we realize that gun ownership is not compatible with the west and that owning guns is a deranged ideology that breeds violence. Sure, I know some peaceful gun owners, but they are just a perversion of gun owners. You don't know the truth of being armed until you killed your first human.

Some day we will realize that our PC constitution is outdated and we will get rid of the scourge of gun owners who love to kill.

Or maybe we don't paint the majority with a brush tainted by the few.

I was about to say something about not generalizing but I read that last sentence

**insaniak**

DutchWinsAll wrote:
But Black people are inherently Black. They don't do anything different from other people because they believe in being Black.

And yet people constantly make generalisations that suggest that all black people conform to certain stereotypes. Exactly as you just did with Muslims.

Islam is not an inherent belief.

To many of those who follow it, as with any religion, it might as well be.

And a large part of it's adherents either allow or practice in some amount of brutality that the world does not accept anymore.

Sure. Because those things are culturally acceptable in large parts of the world. And were culturally acceptable in even more of the world not so very long ago.

Culture changes over time. Sometimes it happens quite slowly. Writing a whole religion off as a 'problem' just because they're not adapting in accordance with your personal advancement timetable seems somewhat arrogant.

**H.B.M.C.**

d-usa wrote:
We tolerate gun owners, despite the actions of their murderous majority.

They weren't born holding on to their guns, but they choose to own them. How many must be mowed down by their bullets before we realize that gun ownership is not compatible with the west and that owning guns is a deranged ideology that breeds violence. Sure, I know some peaceful gun owners, but they are just a perversion of gun owners. You don't know the truth of being armed until you killed your first human.

Some day we will realize that our PC constitution is outdated and we will get rid of the scourge of gun owners who love to kill.

Or maybe we don't paint the majority with a brush tainted by the few.

False equivalencies do you no favours.

**Kovnik Obama**

DutchWinsAll wrote:

But Black people are inherently Black. They don't do anything different from other people because they believe in being Black.

Of course black people can consider being black as part of their identity, and a part that implies much more than simple skin pigmentation. Being a social human implies having an image of what it is to be such an man, and this image determines much of the rest of our identity.

Islam is not an inherent belief.

So what? Just because something can be eschewed doesn't mean you'll be able to make a proper argument as to why it should be eschewed by those that value it above all else.

And a large part of it's adherents either allow or practice in some amount of brutality that the world does not accept anymore.

Guilt by association. What do you do to stop the violence made by atheist/christian/whateverfloatyourboat? I bet a big nothing.

Think about how just women are treated, just in regards to the law. Why is that acceptable to the tune of millions of dollars in aid?

Ask those women if they are being oppressed. They will tell you to mind your business and accept their religious practices. You are now left with the conundrum of trying to convince someone that you know better then them their most intimate choices.

**Bromsy**

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Ask those women if they are being oppressed. They will tell you to mind your business and accept their religious practices. You are now left with the conundrum of trying to convince someone that you know better then them their most intimate choices.

Did you check with all of them?

**Kovnik Obama**

Bromsy wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:

Ask those women if they are being oppressed. They will tell you to mind your business and accept their religious practices. You are now left with the conundrum of trying to convince someone that you know better then them their most intimate choices.

Did you check with all of them?

Getting around to it.

**Kojiro**

Kovnik Obama wrote:

An analogy is not an adequation. It's an inference from a particular to another particular. In this case, the inference being that a certain degree of hasty generalization makes you a douche.

He's not making an analogy, he's making a substitution. He's trying to conflate saying 'IDEOLOGY X is a problem' with 'SKIN COLOUR X is a problem, because racism is bad. Except that ideologies contain information- doctrines, beliefs, ideals and other motivations- some of which yes, can be a problem. Skin colour on the other hand is a superficial trait and contains no information direct about the person beyond the colour of their skin.

The problem is Islam. Not the West. Not poverty. It's Islam. And it amazes me that people still can't admit this.

The correct response to this is not a bad 'Black people are the problem' substitute. The correct response is to explain why the criticised ideology is not inherently problematic. Or ignore the criticism. But always argue in good faith. This is an attempt to draw an equivalence between people (who have rights and are protected) and ideologies (which do not have rights or deserve protection) and attempting to shield the latter as the former.

**DutchWinsAll**

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Ask those women if they are being oppressed. They will tell you to mind your business and accept their religious practices. You are now left with the conundrum of trying to convince someone that you know better then them their most intimate choices.

I just wish I could ask more of them

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/afghan-woman-stoned-death-adultery-151104040814183.html

Lovely practices.

Of course some are doing great, and are well respected. Pakistan beat us to a female leader, though then shot her. But many millions are kept in base servitude based on those beliefs. Many are killed or tortured. Why is that acceptable?

**insaniak**

DutchWinsAll wrote:
I just wish I could ask more of them

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/afghan-woman-stoned-death-adultery-151104040814183.html

Lovely practices.

Of course some are doing great, and are well respected. Pakistan beat us to a female leader, though then shot her. But many millions are kept in base servitude based on those beliefs. Many are killed or tortured. Why is that acceptable?

Sorry, just to be clear - you're linking to a news story that met with fairly widespread condemnation around the world as an example of people finding this sort of behaviour 'acceptable'...?

Added to which, you're pointing to an incident that happened in a Taliban-controlled area as an example of why Islam is bad.

You can't hold up the behaviour of extremists as proof that it's not just the extremists who are the problem...

**LordofHats**

Kovnik Obama wrote:

An analogy is not an adequation. It's an inference from a particular to another particular. In this case, the inference being that a certain degree of hasty generalization makes you a douche.

^This

Calling 'Islam' the problem with the Middle East is as superficial as saying being 'black' is the problem. You're boiling down a huge swathe of people to a single attribute and making that one attribute the sole determinator of an outlandish claim.

Feel free to harp on "but Islam isn't a race" but it says infinitely more about your cognitive reasoning skills than anything

**Kovnik Obama**

DutchWinsAll wrote:

I just wish I could ask more of them.

You can if you want to. I meet a few each session at my Uni. They don't bite and they don't run away from your gaze.

Lovely practices.

Of course some are doing great, and are well respected. Pakistan beat us to a female leader, though then shot her. But many millions are kept in base servitude based on those beliefs. Many are killed or tortured. Why is that acceptable?

It is not acceptable. Not anymore to me than to any of the muslim women (and men) I have met here. In fact, the only people I have ever heard say that it was acceptable (beside self-proclaimed imams) are westerners committing the moral relativism fallacy. But the problem of the state of feminism within Islam is not the problem of the use of terrorism by Islamist groups. Those two have no relation to another.

**LordofHats**

I can think of a lot of things wrong with the ME;

Tribalism/Oligarchy
Extreme Class Inequality
Horrible dependence on Oil for economic development
Their selection of Hats is lacking
Political corruption
Some extreme cases of nationalism and racism

Some of these things are related to Islam, some of them aren't, but either way, saying "Islam is the problem" is ignorance.

**Torga_DW**

Without wanting to interrupt the whole islam may be the problem debate, or the subsequent black and female followups, just saw this and thought it might be of interest:

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/iraqi-officials-warned-of-isis-attack-before-paris-massacre/ar-BBn2h7n?li=AAavLaF&ocid=mailsignout

Spoiler:

They were warned.

Iraqi intelligence officers warned France and other allies of an imminent assault by ISIS one day before the terrorist attacks in Paris that killed 132 people.

An Iraqi intel dispatch from coalition countries said the Islamic State’s leader, Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi had ordered an attack on countries fighting them in Syria and Iraq “through bombings or assassinations or hostage taking in the coming days."

Iran and Russia were also targets, according to the dispatch obtained by the Associated Press.
People are evacuated on rue Oberkampf near the Bataclan concert hall in central Paris. © AFP PHOTO/MIGUEL MEDINA People are evacuated on rue Oberkampf near the Bataclan concert hall in central Paris.

French authorities sought to downplay the signficance of the dispatch, saying it lacked specific details on when or where the attack would take place.

But six senior Iraqi officials said otherwise. Two of those officials said France had in fact been told of details regarding the attacks, which have not yet been made public.

Among them: that the Paris attacks appear to have been planned in Raqqa, Syria — the Islamic State's de-facto capital — where the attackers were trained specifically for this operation and with the intention of sending them to France.

The officials also said a sleeper cell in France met with the attackers after their training and helped them execute the plan.

There were 24 people involved in the operation, they said — 19 attackers and five others in charge of logistics and planning.

Iraq's Foreign Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, also told journalists in Vienna on Sunday that Iraqi intelligence agencies had obtained information that some countries would be targeted, including France, the United States and Iran, and had shared the intelligence with those countries.

Meanwhile the hunt was on for accomplices of the ISIS militants.

French police released the name of a German man suspected of renting the black Volkswagen Polo that dropped off attackers at the Bataclan theater, where at least 89 concert-goers were gunned down.

The alleged wheelman, Salah Abdeslam, of Brussels, is the brother of Ibrahim Abdeslam, who blew himself up during the attack, authorities said.

The fugitive is dangerous, police said, warning the public to “not intervene yourself” if he is spotted.

Authorities detained seven people in Belgium Sunday. Those detentions spurred a manhunt for a French suspect who is the brother of a man who died in the attacks and another man in custody.

Authorities also closed in on a car found in the Paris suburb Montreuil, which was believed to have carried a group of gunmen who struck Paris restaurants. Investigators found AK-47s in the abandoned black Seat Leon, about four miles from the eateries, French media reported.

As authorities continued their hunt President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin had a stern face-to-face on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Turkey.

The people of Paris remained on-edge. Mourners panicked and fled a memorial for the 132 who died — according to the latest figures from CNN — after hearing fireworks, police said.

**Tactical_Spam**

insaniak wrote:
DutchWinsAll wrote:
I just wish I could ask more of them

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/afghan-woman-stoned-death-adultery-151104040814183.html

Lovely practices.

Of course some are doing great, and are well respected. Pakistan beat us to a female leader, though then shot her. But many millions are kept in base servitude based on those beliefs. Many are killed or tortured. Why is that acceptable?

Sorry, just to be clear - you're linking to a news story that met with fairly widespread condemnation around the world as an example of people finding this sort of behaviour 'acceptable'...?

Added to which, you're pointing to an incident that happened in a Taliban-controlled area as an example of why Islam is bad.

You can't hold up the behaviour of extremists as proof that it's not just the extremists who are the problem...

Or maybe because Islam is a few centuries behind us. Stoning would've been a common thing 500-600 years ago (This probably isnt 100% accurate, but I am making a point)

**LordofHats**

Stoning was never very popular in the West. We much preferred burning at the stake

**Kojiro**

LordofHats wrote:
I
Some of these things are related to Islam, some of them aren't, but either way, saying "Islam is the problem" is ignorance.

This makes it sound like you're arguing over the exact percentage Islam contributes to the unrest in the ME rather than whether or not it does.