Paris Attacks, Terrorism in France

[kurczak]

Yeah,  but when it starts looking like one basket has consistently more bad apples than the other baskets, it's maybe a good idea to check if the problem is in the basket.

Rather where the apples grow.

What exactly are you referring to? The situation in the Middle East? If that were the case, we would have even more terrorist attacks from Middle East's Christians who not only have to suffer the same (admittedly not great at all) living conditions as Muslims, but on top of that are also heavily discriminated and in some cases outright oppressed by Middle East's Muslims. But "strangely" we don't get those.

If you are referring to the situation of Muslims immigrants and their descendants in Europe, then pretty much the same argument applies. There are other religious groups immigrating from the Middle East or other regions, facing not-so-warm welcome from native Europeans. Yet, "strangely" we only have Islam-driven terrorist attacks.

Sure, there have been terrorist attacks motivated by things other than Islam. Irish and Basque nationalism, Red Brigades, those crazy Italian neofascists or Italian mafia(s) etc. But the thing is, they are mostly a thing of the past, except ETA. Terrorism, generally speaking, if obviously not something unique to Islam. But right here (Europe) and right now, it is pretty much the only ideology resorting to it. Maybe they have some crazy child armies recruited by insane Pentecostal preachers in Uganda or someplace. That's fine, let the Ugandans keep any eye on (Pentecostal) Christianity.

If there were bets open for what religion will the next terrorist attack's (in Europe) perpetrators be, no bookie in their right mind would give the same odds for Islam and other religions.

Pretending there is purely random distribution of the probability a person resorts to terrorism across religious and ideological groups, not only serves no real purpose, it is also cowardly and selfish. It means the person prefers the fuzzy feeling of being "open-minded" and "tolerant" to preventing terrorism.

Like what?

Upholding arbitrary regimes, invasions, exploiting resources, leaving companies unchecked. I'm not implying that that justifies their cause, but there is this oversimplified grude among muslims that they've been and are mistreated.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't? When the West is friends with the Saudis it's hypocrisy and upholding arbitrary regimes. When the West invades Iraq and deposes its dictator (even if the ultimate motivations for doing so was different) it's an invasion that destabilizes the region. When the West indirectly supports home-grown opposition to local dictators (Arab Spring) then I don't what exactly that is, but I have a hunch it is one way or another the West's fault. When Muslims start a civil war and kill each other like there is no tomorrow, it's also the West's fault.

That's not only unfair to the West - what are we supposed to do? Ignore the whole region and have no interaction with it whatsoever? That's unrealistic and even if it happened, I'm sure the West would be blamed for "not doing anything". But more importantly it is unfair and condescending to Muslims themselves, it takes away any meaningful concept of agency from them. Whatever happens, the Muslims are always only passive, powerless victims of the circumstance.

 

[Flin Flon]

What exactly are you referring to? The situation in the Middle East? If that were the case, we would have even more terrorist attacks from Middle East's Christians who not only have to suffer the same (admittedly not great at all) living conditions as Muslims, but on top of that are also heavily discriminated and in some cases outright oppressed by Middle East's Muslims. But "strangely" we don't get those.

Middle-East's Christians are aware of the consequences they would have to endure if they acted in the same manner as Euro's Muslim terrorists. Which would be complete decimation. Euro Muslims aren't threatened by that.

If you are referring to the situation of Muslims immigrants and their descendants in Europe, then pretty much the same argument applies. There are other religious groups immigrating from the Middle East or other regions, facing not-so-warm welcome from native Europeans. Yet, "strangely" we only have Islam-driven terrorist attacks.

But none are as severely treated as muslims, correct?

Sure, there have been terrorist attacks motivated by things other than Islam. Irish and Basque nationalism, Red Brigades, those crazy Italian neofascists or Italian mafia(s) etc. But the thing is, they are mostly a thing of the past, except ETA. Terrorism, generally speaking, if obviously not something unique to Islam. But right here (Europe) and right now, it is pretty much the only ideology resorting to it.

But then you're agreeing that it isn't necessary inherit in Islam, but rather the present social and political composition of Europe and the Middle-East (and their relationship). Of course I'm not saying that Islam doesn't contribute on its own.

Pretending there is purely random distribution of the probability a person resorts to terrorism across religious and ideological groups, not only serves no real purpose, it is also cowardly and selfish. It means the person prefers the fuzzy feeling of being "open-minded" and "tolerant" to preventing terrorism.

I think you're very much underestimating tolerance and its effects in preventing terrorism, ironically.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't? When the West is friends with the Saudis it's hypocrisy and upholding arbitrary regimes. When the West invades Iraq and deposes its dictator (even if the ultimate motivations for doing so was different) it's an invasion that destabilizes the region. When the West indirectly supports home-grown opposition to local dictators (Arab Spring) then I don't what exactly that is, but I have a hunch it is one way or another the West's fault. When Muslims start a civil war and kill each other like there is no tomorrow, it's also the West's fault.

Eh, first of all those are all extremes and you know it. But yea, definitely. Key word is proportionality. It sucks that people pretend that there are no alternatives but the extremes.

Anyway sorry if I'm too brief, I'll expand if you'd prefer if a few hours.

 

[DrBlacksmith]

Any reasonable person that does not want to be affiliated with them has already left that area.

What? I know you are a troll and that, but that is just a ridiculous statement. Some people go there and realise what a mistake they have made; they then try to leave but simply can't.

If they do they die. Not only that, the hostages they take can't leave either. They also control land. Not everyone can escape. Let's not forget the elderly who are simply too weak to make the journey.

 

[Armie_knock]

Any reasonable person that does not want to be affiliated with them has already left that area.

I know you are a troll and that

What?

 

[An Irish Noob]

Being afraid is exactly what the terrorists want of you. What happened in Paris is but a taste of what happens in the Middle East every day. This seems bad now, but we will soon move on and forget it as we do everything else.

 

[AreJohn]

Spoiler: Best stance to take on this situation.

 

[kurczak]

Being afraid is exactly what the terrorists want of you. What happened in Paris is but a taste of what happens in the Middle East every day. This seems bad now, but we will soon move on and forget it as we do everything else.

Could you give it at least 24 hours from the attacks before you fail to resist the urge to tell us how you couldn't care less about mass murder? 

Flin Flon:

Sure, whenever you want.

Edit: In the meanwhile

Middle-East's Christians are aware of the consequences they would have to endure if they acted in the same manner as Euro's Muslim terrorists. Which would be complete decimation. Euro Muslims aren't threatened by that.

I didn't mean why they don't bomb ME Muslims. I meant why they don't bomb us.

But none are as severely treated as muslims, correct?

I honestly don't think so. Would I want to be a Muslim in Europe? No. There is a lot (for my taste, anyway) prejudice against Muslims going on, but I don't think it is any worse than Sub-Saharans (yes, I know, some of whom are also Muslims on top of their ethnicity/race, but let's face it, for a common person a Muslim means Arab/Turk/Persian/Afghan etc) or any worse than Indians or Carribeans (used to?) have it.

But then you're agreeing that it isn't necessary inherit in Islam, but rather the present social and political composition of Europe and the Middle-East (and their relationship). Of course I'm not saying that Islam doesn't contribute on its own.

No it is not. Probably no ideology or religion is necessarily, inherently terrorist. You can even be a hardcore White Supremacist with swastikas and I heart Adolf tattoos all over your pale white body and refrain from terrorism. But that doesn't mean that all ideologies and religions are equally as likely to be used for terrorist purposes. All proselytizing, apocalyptic religions are more likely than those who are not such. Put simply, if you have a group of 1000 Muslims in ****ty socioeconomic conditions and a control group of 1000 Jains in exactly the same conditions, I'm willing to bet my left ovary you will get more radicals/terrorists in the Muslim group than in the Jain group, because the amount of mental gymnastics you have to do make Islam terrorism-friendly is much smaller.

Also, while poor living conditions are definitely a massive risk factor in the creation of a terrorist, they are not a necessary prerequisite. A lot of Islamist are middle class people and some, notably Osama himself, come from haute bourgeoisie/aristocracy.

I think you're very much underestimating tolerance and its effects in preventing terrorism, ironically.

I'm seriously not. But tolerance and respect are two way streets. And when I put on high heels and a pencil skirt and go to Molenbeek in Brussels, the feeling I'm getting is not "oh what nice people, the only thing this place needs to become a true heaven on Earth is that I respect and tolerate them more. And I don't think I'm scared easily, I roamed freely through New Orleans and once I even went to Alphabet City

 

[Hospes fori]

This seems bad now, but we will soon move on and forget it as we do everything else.

Possible future attacks may prevent people from forgetting all that quickly.

 

[AreJohn]

Just seen on BBC news, one or more of the attackers was syrian. 
Time to leave methinks.

 

[3dBoy]

Just seen on BBC news, one or more of the attackers was syrian. 
Time to leave methinks.

I guess everyone who was interested in so called "refugees" and "migrants" topic is not surpised at all...

 

[Jock]

Poland says cannot accept migrants under EU quotas after Paris attacks

 

[Delora Filth]

Anyone got updated casualty numbers? I've got three different radio channels reporting three different numbers.

 

[Jock]

The Guardian reported 158.

 

[AreJohn]

I heard there were around 8 attackers, I also heard one of them was a woman?    Need someone to confirm this for me, i'm too lazy to search up my own answers.

 

[Rujasu]

 

[DrBlacksmith]

Well said. Couldn't of put it any better.

 

[AreJohn]

Spoiler

I'll just invest my spite in Bacon sandwiches, just had one right now, was delicious.

I am thoroughly enjoying this anti immigration movement.

 

[Adaham]

Being afraid is exactly what the terrorists want of you.

No, they don't want use to be afraid, they want to kill us. What you just posted is a hollow phrase that gets repeated ad nauseam whenever something like this happens, but it's meaningless. Fear isn't a bad thing. It's a survival instinct that served as well during our history. Fear is triggered by danger, and the danger is real.

Less than a year ago Facebook was full of the same crap that it's full of now. "Solidarity profile pics", warnings against the right wing (who inevitably profits from everything that ever happens), defiant announcements that we're "not afraid" and that we'll "stand by our values" (whatever they may be). Almost everybody was Charlie, now almost everybody is Paris. People made a point of not being afraid, "because that's what the terrorists want". Did it help? Less than a year later, terrorists killed 10 times as many people in one night, than what they killed during Charlie Hebdo.

So yes, I am afraid, and I think everybody should be. And I know there's a difference between IS and Islam, but as long as Europe, it's politicians and it's inhabitants think that we might cuddle it out with them by becoming even more liberal, these things will happen again. The agitators of the IS call the western world "weak" and "decadent". As long as our reaction to these things consists of updating our profile pic and posting hollow phrases about "our values" and "not being afraid", I'm afraid they are right.

 

[Beny]

As bloody and messy as it will no doubt become, I think an invasion is now very likely and to be honest, I think I'd support it.

 

[Krik]

An invasion would be the dumbest possible outcome. Do you think it would even go as "well" as the US invasion? Because that's being optimistic about a French invasion.