Support NeoGAF

[GoldenEye 007]

...Because the US (the occupiers) dropped TWO atom-bombs on them. What do you think they're going to do? "Oh yeah, fuck the US! We're still going to be an axis power! Nukes? What are those, we can shrug them off. RAH-RAH-RAH?"

Times are different. You can't simply "wipe the enemy off the face of the map" in regards to the Middle East. While the US may have "weakened" Al Quada (at how much of a cost of her military/civilian volunteers to go over?) another "terrorist" faction (ISIS) has formed because of the actions of the US/"world."

Wiping ISIS out will not but the same as making Japan surrender. Unless you are able to completely remove the resentment some people in the region feel toward the US (or whoever invades) and stabilize the country, it's pointless.

I mean, I've been saying total war. So yes, that does imply breaking the will of ISIS supporters. Or at least trying as much as possible with a full-blown systematic ground invasion. Given the decentralized nature of terrorism, though, of course nukes are not and should not be an option.

I've also been very adamant in a sustained occupation and support system after the fact to assist in rebuilding, establishing a competent and strong government, education, etc. Not doing a half-assed job on part of the US government in rebuilding like in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Again, I don't want this as I know the implications are realistically the loss of millions of lives and absolute hell. But I just don't know anymore what to do. Situations like these are not sustainable. It has to end. Now.

 

[Griss]

The Guardian has their first opinion piece about the attacks up. The subline?

"Muslims will increasingly fear being associated with terror; far-right groups may well fuel more hatred"

Not about the victims, not about the terrorists. Far-right groups may fuel more hatred? Seriously? 150 people have been killed by terrorists but the right-wingers are the boogeyman who will fuel hatred. They are always the boogeyman. I mean, the fucking enemy is out there in the streets killing people, causing hate and terror, and you're afraid of people shifting right being what causes fear? And this is the first article you put up?

Jesus CHRIST Guardian why are you surprised that Europe is shifting right at all when your response to the fucking tragedy is so callous and out of touch with bodies still warm in the streets? I just cannot understand the bizarrely cold liberal european reaction to these things at all, I really can't. It's their failure to adequately address this situation and talk about it and emote about it in a way that the public understand and agree with that's driving people rightward, and this article is a prime example. I don't want to see the rise of far-right parties at all, but fuck me if I don't want the side in charge who can adequately identify where the blame for causing terror lies literal hours after a terror attack...

EDIT: I'm sorry for ranting but as an fiscally liberal left-leaning dude I read the Guardian every day and their take on certain issues makes my blood boil. That frustration spilled out here.

 

[Tagyhag]

pretty weak for jeselnik

dunno what I expected but I was certainly curious

I'm a fan of dark humor.

His joke didn't even have an ounce of humor.

 

[Erevador]

The Guardian has their first opinion piece about the attacks up. The subline?

"Muslims will increasingly fear being associated with terror; far-right groups may well fuel more hatred"

Supposition about hypothetical future hatred rather than condemnation of murderous hatred we have just witnessed...

How very like the Guardian.

 

[Dangansona]

The Guardian has their first opinion piece about the attacks up. The subline?

"Muslims will increasingly fear being associated with terror; far-right groups may well fuel more hatred"

Not about the victims, not about the terrorists. Far-right groups may fuel more hatred? Seriously? 150 people have been killed by terrorists but the right-wingers are the boogeyman who will fuel hatred. They are always the boogeyman. I mean, the fucking enemy is out there in the streets killing people, causing hate and terror, and you're afraid of people shifting right being what causes fear? And this is the first article you put up?

Jesus CHRIST Guardian why are you surprised that Europe is shifting right at all when your response to the fucking tragedy is so callous and out of touch with bodies still warm in the streets? I just cannot understand the bizarrely cold liberal european reaction to these things at all, I really can't. It's their failure to adequately address this situation and talk about it and emote about it in a way that the public understand and agree with that's driving people rightward, and this article is a prime example. I don't want to see the rise of far-right parties at all, but fuck me if I don't want the side in charge who can adequately identify where the blame for causing terror lies literal hours after a terror attack...

EDIT: I'm sorry for ranting but as an fiscally liberal left-leaning dude I read the Guardian every day and their take on certain issues makes my blood boil. That frustration spilled out here.

Pretty much in the same boat, no worries.

 

[xenist]

I'm a fan of dark humor.

His joke didn't even have an ounce of humor.

I laughed.

 

[Trojita]

I'm pretty sure a friend died. Sent a million messages to her facebook and she hasn't replied...

There's a chance they fell asleep.

 

[woen]

The january attack was a much smaller operation though. The events that took place tonight likely have been in development for a long time.

Not 14 months ago. Please be serious.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

The Guardian has their first opinion piece about the attacks up. The subline?

"Muslims will increasingly fear being associated with terror; far-right groups may well fuel more hatred"

Not about the victims, not about the terrorists. Far-right groups may fuel more hatred? Seriously? 150 people have been killed by terrorists but the right-wingers are the boogeyman who will fuel hatred. They are always the boogeyman. I mean, the fucking enemy is out there in the streets killing people, causing hate and terror, and you're afraid of people shifting right being what causes fear? And this is the first article you put up?

Jesus CHRIST Guardian why are you surprised that Europe is shifting right at all when your response to the fucking tragedy is so callous and out of touch with bodies still warm in the streets? I just cannot understand the bizarrely cold liberal european reaction to these things at all, I really can't. It's their failure to adequately address this situation and talk about it and emote about it in a way that the public understand and agree with that's driving people rightward, and this article is a prime example. I don't want to see the rise of far-right parties at all, but fuck me if I don't want the side in charge who can adequately identify where the blame for causing terror lies literal hours after a terror attack...

EDIT: I'm sorry for ranting but as an fiscally liberal left-leaning dude I read the Guardian every day and their take on certain issues makes my blood boil. That frustration spilled out here.

You can be concerned about two things at the same time :s

 

[Mifune]

The Guardian has their first opinion piece about the attacks up. The subline?

"Muslims will increasingly fear being associated with terror; far-right groups may well fuel more hatred"

Not about the victims, not about the terrorists. Far-right groups may fuel more hatred? Seriously? 150 people have been killed by terrorists but the right-wingers are the boogeyman who will fuel hatred. They are always the boogeyman. I mean, the fucking enemy is out there in the streets killing people, causing hate and terror, and you're afraid of people shifting right being what causes fear? And this is the first article you put up?

Jesus CHRIST Guardian why are you surprised that Europe is shifting right at all when your response to the fucking tragedy is so callous and out of touch with bodies still warm in the streets? I just cannot understand the bizarrely cold liberal european reaction to these things at all, I really can't. It's their failure to adequately address this situation and talk about it and emote about it in a way that the public understand and agree with that's driving people rightward, and this article is a prime example. I don't want to see the rise of far-right parties at all, but fuck me if I don't want the side in charge who can adequately identify where the blame for causing terror lies literal hours after a terror attack...

EDIT: I'm sorry for ranting but as an fiscally liberal left-leaning dude I read the Guardian every day and their take on certain issues makes my blood boil. That frustration spilled out here.

It's just an opinion piece. The Guardian has had excellent fact-based coverage of the tragedy all day.

 

[Boss Mog]

Don't allow this horrific act allow you to be drawn into the loss of your humanity or tolerance. That is the intended outcome. #ParisAttacks

— Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) November 14, 2015

Wow you really have no shame. To just keep posting your propaganda like this...

Meanwhile in all your posts in this thread not one word for the victims.

 

[Tagyhag]

I laughed.

It's too cliche.

"Speaking of bad things happening today, this thing sucks AM I RIGHT?"

It's like the very first joke you learn.

 

[Maninthemirror]

The Guardian has their first opinion piece about the attacks up. The subline?

"Muslims will increasingly fear being associated with terror; far-right groups may well fuel more hatred"

Not about the victims, not about the terrorists. Far-right groups may fuel more hatred? Seriously? 150 people have been killed by terrorists but the right-wingers are the boogeyman who will fuel hatred. They are always the boogeyman. I mean, the fucking enemy is out there in the streets killing people, causing hate and terror, and you're afraid of people shifting right being what causes fear? And this is the first article you put up?

Jesus CHRIST Guardian why are you surprised that Europe is shifting right at all when your response to the fucking tragedy is so callous and out of touch with bodies still warm in the streets? I just cannot understand the bizarrely cold liberal european reaction to these things at all, I really can't. It's their failure to adequately address this situation and talk about it and emote about it in a way that the public understand and agree with that's driving people rightward, and this article is a prime example. I don't want to see the rise of far-right parties at all, but fuck me if I don't want the side in charge who can adequately identify where the blame for causing terror lies literal hours after a terror attack...

EDIT: I'm sorry for ranting but as an fiscally liberal left-leaning dude I read the Guardian every day and their take on certain issues makes my blood boil. That frustration spilled out here.

What are your reading

15 paragraphs

10 paragraphs stating facts of what happened where did it happen and who was the victims
1 about the Muslim victims potentially

 

[Klossen]

The Guardian has their first opinion piece about the attacks up. The subline?

"Muslims will increasingly fear being associated with terror; far-right groups may well fuel more hatred"

Not about the victims, not about the terrorists. Far-right groups may fuel more hatred? Seriously? 150 people have been killed by terrorists but the right-wingers are the boogeyman who will fuel hatred. They are always the boogeyman. I mean, the fucking enemy is out there in the streets killing people, causing hate and terror, and you're afraid of people shifting right being what causes fear? And this is the first article you put up?

Jesus CHRIST Guardian why are you surprised that Europe is shifting right at all when your response to the fucking tragedy is so callous and out of touch with bodies still warm in the streets? I just cannot understand the bizarrely cold liberal european reaction to these things at all, I really can't. It's their failure to adequately address this situation and talk about it and emote about it in a way that the public understand and agree with that's driving people rightward, and this article is a prime example. I don't want to see the rise of far-right parties at all, but fuck me if I don't want the side in charge who can adequately identify where the blame for causing terror lies literal hours after a terror attack...

It happened on NeoGaf as the killings were still happening. "I feel bad for muslim minorities now" or "right-wingers are having a party now". All to take the attention away from those who committed the act and those lost to us by the attacks. Insensitive political correctness with no sense of sympathy to the actual victims.

 

[lednerg]

The Guardian has their first opinion piece about the attacks up. The subline?

"Muslims will increasingly fear being associated with terror; far-right groups may well fuel more hatred"

...

Read past the subline.

 

[Griss]

You can be concerned about two things at the same time :s

You certainly can. But your first opinion piece after an utterly devastating tragedy should be a damn site more concerned about either the terrorists or the victims than a shift away from your side of politics. It looks terrible, it is fucking terrible.

Read past the subline.

I read the entire thing before posting, for fuck's sake, and you know that.

It happened on NeoGaf as the killings were still happening. "I feel bad for muslim minorities now" or "right-wingers are having a party now". All to take the attention away from those who committed the act and those lost to us by the attacks. Insensitive political correctness with no sense of sympathy to the actual victims.

It did and it was disgusting then too.

It's just an opinion piece. The Guardian has had excellent fact-based coverage of the tragedy all day.

They have. Their rolling coverage has been typically superb. There's a reason they're my paper, after all.

 

[zsynqx]

Not 14 months ago. Please be serious.

I was being serious. I have been awake all night though, so maybe not thinking completely rationally.

 

[toastyToast]

RIP to the dead.

Hopefully this is a signal to form a concrete plan to deal with the systematic violence being wrought in the middle east, africa and in another instance, the west. Remain compassionate to those who have and continue to flee from the epicentre of brutality and let us stand together knowing we have a common foe.

Also please remember that ISIS and other terrorist organisations have killed more moderate muslims than anything else. Those that sympathise are foolish and those that don't have more reason to hate them than anyone else. Nothing should change in how you interact with muslims in your day to day lives.

 

[Nappuccino]

It happened on NeoGaf as the killings were still happening. "I feel bad for muslim minorities now" or "right-wingers are having a party now". All to take the attention away from those who committed the act and those lost to us by the attacks. Insensitive political correctness with no sense of sympathy to the actual victims.

I have a lot of sympathy for both parties. I think people are trying to express the less expected but equally valid view. I don't think anyone doesn't feel horrible for the innocent victims. That response is taken for granted, I think.

 

[lednerg]

I read the entire thing before posting, for fuck's sake, and you know that.

I know that? You sure didn't give me any clues since your rant was based on the subline.

EDIT: Look, it's been a tense 12 hours or so. No hard feelings or anything. I know I'm a bit fried.

 

[Chichikov]

The Guardian has their first opinion piece about the attacks up. The subline?

"Muslims will increasingly fear being associated with terror; far-right groups may well fuel more hatred"

Not about the victims, not about the terrorists. Far-right groups may fuel more hatred? Seriously? 150 people have been killed by terrorists but the right-wingers are the boogeyman who will fuel hatred. They are always the boogeyman. I mean, the fucking enemy is out there in the streets killing people, causing hate and terror, and you're afraid of people shifting right being what causes fear? And this is the first article you put up?

Jesus CHRIST Guardian why are you surprised that Europe is shifting right at all when your response to the fucking tragedy is so callous and out of touch with bodies still warm in the streets? I just cannot understand the bizarrely cold liberal european reaction to these things at all, I really can't. It's their failure to adequately address this situation and talk about it and emote about it in a way that the public understand and agree with that's driving people rightward, and this article is a prime example. I don't want to see the rise of far-right parties at all, but fuck me if I don't want the side in charge who can adequately identify where the blame for causing terror lies literal hours after a terror attack...

EDIT: I'm sorry for ranting but as an fiscally liberal left-leaning dude I read the Guardian every day and their take on certain issues makes my blood boil. That frustration spilled out here.

Have you actually read the article or did you just lost your shit after the subline?
Because it very much talk about the terrorists and the victims.

Also, while this article isn't all that great in my mind (it kinda meander around the issue) there's nothing wrong with trying to assess the political implication such attacks can cause.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Wow you really have no shame. To just keep posting your propaganda like this...

Meanwhile in all your posts in this thread not one word for the victims.

I let my outrage at the attackers do the talking . Do you want to direct my posts as how I should post ? Why are you offended by that tweet? Id really like to know

 

[HK-47]

The Guardian has their first opinion piece about the attacks up. The subline?

"Muslims will increasingly fear being associated with terror; far-right groups may well fuel more hatred"

Not about the victims, not about the terrorists. Far-right groups may fuel more hatred? Seriously? 150 people have been killed by terrorists but the right-wingers are the boogeyman who will fuel hatred. They are always the boogeyman. I mean, the fucking enemy is out there in the streets killing people, causing hate and terror, and you're afraid of people shifting right being what causes fear? And this is the first article you put up?

Jesus CHRIST Guardian why are you surprised that Europe is shifting right at all when your response to the fucking tragedy is so callous and out of touch with bodies still warm in the streets? I just cannot understand the bizarrely cold liberal european reaction to these things at all, I really can't. It's their failure to adequately address this situation and talk about it and emote about it in a way that the public understand and agree with that's driving people rightward, and this article is a prime example. I don't want to see the rise of far-right parties at all, but fuck me if I don't want the side in charge who can adequately identify where the blame for causing terror lies literal hours after a terror attack...

EDIT: I'm sorry for ranting but as an fiscally liberal left-leaning dude I read the Guardian every day and their take on certain issues makes my blood boil. That frustration spilled out here.

Ummm they have been covering the whole thing since it broke. That definitely isnt a cold reaction. Its a forward looking opinion piece and mostly covers the actual attacks. I think you are being dishonest.

 

[Maninthemirror]

You certainly can. But your first opinion piece after an utterly devastating tragedy should be a damn site more concerned about either the terrorists or the victims than a shift away from your side of politics. It looks terrible, it is fucking terrible.



I read the entire thing before posting, for fuck's sake, and you know that.



It did and it was disgusting then too.



They have. Their rolling coverage has been typically superb. There's a reason they're my paper, after all.

It has 1 paragraph on Muslims

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I'd just like to point that IS have been losing ground in Syria and Iraq very recently so things are being done there to move in the right direction. But like anything, it's not going to be some overnight success.

Even if you had a force of all the coalition nations doing the work it would still take quite some time when you consider they are working against an insurgency.

 

[Basileus777]

It happened on NeoGaf as the killings were still happening. "I feel bad for muslim minorities now" or "right-wingers are having a party now". All to take the attention away from those who committed the act and those lost to us by the attacks. Insensitive political correctness with no sense of sympathy to the actual victims.

Yeah, no. Anyone talking about something else is not part of some deliberate attempt to take attention from the victims. Nor is political correctness a term that makes much sense in this context.

 

[Piggus]

Feeling overwhelmed from the stories and coverage of this event to the point where I'm in fucking tears for our friends in France... The only other events to make me feel this way were the Sandy Hook Shooting and 9/11.

Wish I could give every Parisian a hug right now. You all are truly in my thoughts. We may have some political and ideological differences but I think I can safely speak for my fellow Americans in saying that we will always stand by you.

 

[Griss]

I know that? You sure didn't give me any clues since your rant was based on the subline.

Have you actually read the article or did you just lost your shit after the subline?
Because it very much talk about the terrorists and the victims.

Also, while this article isn't all that great in my mind (it kinda meander around the issue) there's nothing wrong with trying to assess the political implication such attacks can cause.

By the second paragraph she is discussing political fallout, the fourth is

"The scenes in Paris are ones of a warzone and will be remembered as such. The trauma will be deep and among the many questions that will arise (how could this happen? where were the security lapses?) there will be the expectation of political consequences: what gains will the far-right Front National make from this?"

And the bolded is clearly what she's after here. It's just not an appropriate piece right now. I have no problem with calls for unity, but following that paragraph they come across as calls to stay on her political side.

Look, I'm upset, I was looking for a bit more empathy before she dove into the politics.

 

[RustyNails]

You certainly can. But your first opinion piece after an utterly devastating tragedy should be a damn site more concerned about either the terrorists or the victims than a shift away from your side of politics. It looks terrible, it is fucking terrible.



I read the entire thing before posting, for fuck's sake, and you know that.



It did and it was disgusting then too.

I'm not sure what you're the fuck on about. First off, you ignored the headline and posted the sub title, next you cherry pick the last few sentences that talk about state of France's 10% minority population: Muslims. Not sure what you wanted out of the opinion piece? Some chest thumping and cries of war? Give me a break.

 

[GKSilKamina]

I'm pretty sure a friend died. Sent a million messages to her facebook and she hasn't replied...

Praying that that's not the case. Don't give up hope.

 

[Klossen]

Yeah, no. Anyone talking about something else is not part of some deliberate attempt to take attention from the victims. Nor is political correctness a word that makes much sense in this context.

It is insensitive when during a terrorist attack, you seem to be more concerned with those not affected by the attacks rather than those dying. Show some sympathy.

 

[HK-47]

I'd just like to point that IS have been losing ground in Syria and Iraq very recently so things are being done there to move in the right direction. But like anything, it's not going to be some overnight success.

Even if you had a force of all the coalition nations doing the work it would still take quite some time when you consider they are working against an insurgency.

Nah dude we will just roll in there and itll be over in the few months. Just like Iraq and Afghanistan...

 

[Jeels]

God this is bad...prayers and condolences to the families affected but I fear now how people will react and how minority groups will be attacked...

 

[Hoya Destroyer]

It would probably be a lot easier if western governments hadnt been fucking up the region for oil and arms deals for the military industrial complex for decades. Hawks wonder why they get struck by lightning when they fly into a storm.

Without any Western intervention, I still think it would be impossible.

Ah. It's a noble cause but I would have to agree, basically seems to be impossible.

It would have been great if it worked. I remember seeing some US general or top government guy on tv saying (paraphrased) "we thought we could just ride in, kick Sadam out and everyone would be happy and grateful and a peaceful democracy would be built". That was the jist of it anyway. I remember it because it sounds so nice, clean and simple (in theory).

So not even try? Just let it get even worse, while we sit here pretending that this shit isn't going on to innocent families in that region? I get it I want to feel safe in life, I'm a father of 2 children who I want to keep safe beyond anything in the world. But it doesn't stop me from thinking about the other fathers in those countries who feel the same way.

I feel like we have given it a good shot and like I said before, it would be nice if we could help - from a distance. Euro governments should be prioritizing their own citizens safety. It sucks that women get their noses cut off in Afghanistan, people get blown up in markets in Iraq and gay dudes get thrown off building in Syria (or hung from trucks in Iran), but its just too hard to change the nature of cultures that are so old, without endangering the locals in peaceful countries. I hope in time, that they will evolve and modernize themselves.

Haha, there is your answer. Thank you, your posts sum up everything that "we" did wrong — but lots of people still believe that was the right thing to do. Building a western vision of "democracy" with war, territory occupation and making grub local politics/societies does not work. In fact it kills the idea of democracy and peace.

From what I know about Sadam and the Taliban, getting rid of them was morally justified. I think the Wests intentions there were good, so if thats what you mean by "war", then that was really the only way to get rid of those two evils. Territory occupation? Well, foreign militaries had to hang around in the hopes of a peaceful transition. Or are you talking Israel now? I dont know about "grub local politics" either. It kinda sounds like you are blaming the failure of a peaceful Middle East entirely on the West, whilst ignoring the local culture of violence, poor treatment of others (women, gays etc) and all the tribal hatreds.

 

[AYF 001]

I was pointing to what happened after the war. The West fucked the identity of Germany and Japan after the war. That's enough meddling in the German/Japanese affairs to produce terrorists from these countries.

And I was pointing out the fact that "The West" basically created those conditions in the first place as well.

As for Germany, I wouldn't consider the U.S.S.R to be "Western", since they were the ones that caused the country to be split in two after the fall of the Third Reich. It was also a necessity since the U.S.S.R. likely would've continued to advance westward had the U.S. not developed and used nuclear weapons so shortly after winning in the European theater. Not to mention most of the Nazi leadership was found and executed shortly after the war, preventing them from doing any such thing, unlike surviving Iraqi Republican Guard officers who joined ISIS.

With regards to Japan, if nukes were not used, the situation would've been much worse. Operation Downfall would've been a full-scale invasion of the mainland, which had casualty estimates placed in the hundreds of thousands up to one million for U.S. forces alone. It was also believed that Japanese citizens would also fight, and that five to ten million would die in the process. What sounds more "disruptive to their culture": having their leader deposed, or an additional 7-14% of their population being wiped out?

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Nah dude we will just roll in there and itll be over in the few months. Just like Iraq and Afghanistan...

Who is saying this? This is a multi-decade issue at minimum of continued, sustained presence.

 

[Paracelsus]

I'm not sure what you're the fuck on about. First off, you ignored the headline and posted the sub title, next you cherry pick the last few sentences that talk about state of France's 10% minority population: Muslims. Not sure what you wanted out of the opinion piece? Some chest thumping and cries of war? Give me a break.

Nah, they should have just avoided this little piece right here

[

France is one of the European countries from which hundreds of Isis recruits, often French-born and educated and sometimes converts, have travelled to Syria. Online radicalisation has been growing – a phenomenon not unlike a sect. A lot of this plugs, of course, into a social and economic context of high youth unemployment, especially in suburbs, and racist discrimination against Arabs and Africans.

Which is clearly and unmistakenly victim blaming.

 

[lednerg]

It is insensitive when during a terrorist attack, you seem to be more concerned with those not affected by the attacks rather than those dying. Show some sympathy.

Maybe you want that to be true, but I can assure you it isn't. I mean, holy shit, that's a fucked up thing to say.

 

[HK-47]

It is insensitive when during a terrorist attack, you seem to be more concerned with those not affected by the attacks rather than those dying. Show some sympathy.

Mischaracterizing what is being reported is okay though, as long as your have moral outrage, right?

 

[Basileus777]

It is insensitive when during a terrorist attack, you seem to be more concerned with those not affected by the attacks rather than those dying. Show some sympathy.

I hope you're not directing this at me, because I did no such thing. Use better pronouns unless you're deliberately attempting to randomly sling mud.

 

[Nightbird]

What the fuck?
100 people died overnight? Those are are horrible news to start the day with .

Stay safe Paris-Gaf

 

[Klossen]

I hope you're not directing this at me, because I did no such thing. Use better pronouns unless you're deliberately attempting to randomly sling mud.

It wasn't directed at you. "You" was meant in general terms.

Mischaracterizing what is being reported is okay though, as long as your have moral outrage, right?

No. When did I say that was ok?

 

[Mifune]

Nah, they should have just avoided this little piece right here

[

Which is clearly and unmistakenly victim blaming.

Victim blaming? What in the world are you talking about?

 

[DECK'ARD]

Nah, they should have just avoided this little piece right here

[

Which is clearly and unmistakenly victim blaming.

No it isn't?

 

[HK-47]

Who is saying this? This is a multi-decade issue at minimum of continued, sustained presence.

Because western governments and citizenry have shown a stomach for that in the Middle East. But this time it'll be different!

 

[Deadbeat]

The cycle always repeats itself in these situations:

-Victim blaming
-Concern trolling
-"America is worse"

Its like poetry. It never changes.

 

[danm999]

It is insensitive when during a terrorist attack, you seem to be more concerned with those not affected by the attacks rather than those dying. Show some sympathy.

The Guardian's front page is full of information about the victims, including figures, witness accounts and pictures.

What are you on about.

 

[sphagnum]

Which is clearly and unmistakenly victim blaming.

Nobody is blaming the dead Parisians, it's giving context.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Who is saying this? This is a multi-decade issue at minimum of continued, sustained presence.

Given how pissed off Americans, even conservatives, got with all the lives and money spent on Iraq do you really think anyone has the appetite for that? We'd be talking trillions to occupy and rebuild other people's countries and then some other group would show up somewhere else and you're playing whack a mole again.

I think the last poll I saw somewhere when it came up to ground troops in Syria or Iraq had a pretty tight split and the people who supported it only support it with a caveat of "just a short time" like that's any kind of answer. Just a short time is not remotely possible, it would have to be years at least.

 

[Chichikov]

By the second paragraph she is discussing political fallout, the fourth is

"The scenes in Paris are ones of a warzone and will be remembered as such. The trauma will be deep and among the many questions that will arise (how could this happen? where were the security lapses?) there will be the expectation of political consequences: what gains will the far-right Front National make from this?"

And the bolded is clearly what she's after here. It's just not an appropriate piece right now. I have no problem with calls for unity, but following that paragraph they come across as calls to stay on her political side.

Look, I'm upset, I was looking for a bit more empathy before she dove into the politics.

I get that you're upset, but you're just upset at the wrong people.
It's not only okay to post analysis of the political fallout of such attacks, it's required, I don't think this article is particularly insightful, but I have no issue with with the angle it's taking.
If you're not ready to engage in such discussions (which is fair) I suggest you just skip such articles until you are.
And you know, getting angry at the gaurdain is not exactly showing empathy to the victims either.