• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Paris Terrorist Attacks, 120+ dead. Do not post hearsay/unsourced/old news.

Status
Not open for further replies.

velociraptor

Junior Member
So will doing nothing...
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I can't imagine this threat going away any time soon, and I guess we're fucked either way. The only losers will be us 'people'. We will see further restrictions upon our lives in the name of security.
 
Probably. Hope they track him and punish him for that bullshit.


But he isn't calling for that right? I don't follow the Pope that much, but as far as I know he always calls for peace and avoiding conflict. I doubt he wants any violence or 'crusade' mentality in the world or his own church.

If you call something a war, and even a world war with all the historical meanings and stuff, then there is a we against the other ones. That's how a war is defined.
 
That is a bullshit stance. Why?

Because the terrorist are Muslims, they are extremist and they aren't a representation of all Muslims but there has to be a clear cut here and call a cat for its name. Jihadist extremist are Muslims, they follow the Quran and want to form a Caliphate and establish Sharia Law. You can't get more Muslim that than, those where the foundation of the Sunni slit in the 7th century from the Shiite (among others of course but this isn't a clear explanation and in deep in the division of Islam).

You have to part from the point that this attacks are Suunis that have a clear goal (that isn't terror or attack freedom) but for that you have to understand why they are extremist and why they separate themselves from the rest of the Muslim world.

I am not saying that all Muslims should be religiously profiled but people need to leave this stupid idea that "terrorist aren't Muslims!", because they are, they have an extremist vision of the religion and they validate their actions thanks to their interpretation of the Quran, pointing out a fact shouldn't be addressed as islamophia or hatred. Now talking that every single Muslim is a terrorist, now THAT is islamophobia and racism but in this discussion there seems to be 2 camps that either want to deport all Muslims out of the country and send them back to sandagistan or people that say "Terrorist are not Muslims!" when that is a naive view of reality, the true is in the middle and the solution can only come if people realize that on the current state of debate no one good answer will come.
Holy shit that's not what the image says at all. The image says exactly what you view as being fearful of Muslims as a whole. Those words are proven by your post
 
Our (dutch) prime minister states that our way of live is going to restaurants, going to concerts and visiting theaters. Do you actually belief these activities have anything to do with these attacks? It's like he believes that people elsewhere (outside the Western world) would not like to do those things.
That's the way you are taking it. Nowhere did he say those things are exclusive to Western society. You are making that up yourself.

If you call something a war, and even a world war with all the historical meanings and stuff, then there is a we against the other ones. That's how a war is defined.
Is there a link somewhere about what he said? Because I sincerely doubt he would do anything else then call for peace and the end of these kinds of terror attacks.
 

Quotient

Member
It's going to take a Middle East that isn't war torn and constantly in a state of violence and turmoil. Prior to 9/11, how much Islamic terrorist violence was there in the West, or even in these parts of the Middle East?

In Iraq, there were zero suicide attacks in the country's history until 2003. Since then, there have been 1,892.

In Pakistan, there was one suicide attack in the 14 years before 9/11. In the fourteen years since, there have been 486.

Let's be honest here, the war on terror, $5 trillion dollars later, has not only failed to stop Islamic terrorism, it has actually massively fuelled and empowered it.

Violence, war, bombings, poverty, instability, lack of mobility, limited prosperity etc, all of these things cripple the chances of progress. What the Middle East needs is more infrastructure, education, funding, science, academia etc. Though if the Middle East went back to that, I doubt elements of Western powers could profit from the military industrial complex or oil contracts quite so easily. I can't see this all getting any better any time soon. The self perpetuating cycle of violence and hatred wages on.

Very well said.

It also doesn't help that the West supported and backed both with economic and military aid some pretty brutal dictatorships, which leads to a breeding ground of radical ideology and a hate towards the west for helping their oppressors.
 

LNBL

Member
That's the way you are taking it. Nowhere did he say those things are exclusive to Western society. You are making that up yourself.

That's the way I perceive it when he says it's our way of living. Still don't see the connection between these activities and the attacks, which was in reaction to the other user's post.
 

Beefy

Member
That's ridiculous. ISIS is not a far-flung network like Al-Qaeda. While it obviously has international cells, the vast majority of its power is centered around Raqqa and Mosul. If these cities fell to foreign forces, ISIS will lose nearly all of its ability to project power.

So you don't think ISIS wouldn't twist that a christian force is on muslim soil? They wouldn't enjoy capturing troops and videoing them getting tortured. ISIS would step up their PR badly if troops were on the ground. Yes the may end up losing in the end but not before the twist some other persons thoughts.
 
That's the way I perceive it when he says it's our way of living. Still don't see the connection between these activities and the attacks, which was in reaction to the other user's post.
The connection is that these terrorist want people to live in fear while doing every day things, like visiting a concert, football match, taking an airplane, etc.
 

Go_Ly_Dow

Member
Non violence only works if there's a societal distaste for violence on both sides. Sure our side could turn the other cheek, but these extremists never will. So I turn to a better option, fight fire with dynamite.

It's not really a point about not fighting back at extremism, but more at how the hate and fear that breeds within society towards another group of people during these instances, in turn leads to a further distance and step towards a unified world.

You get right wing Governments and media thriving off that fear and getting votes and then choosing to vote out of Europe, cutting down on foreign aid, turning away refugees and many other things to create a more insular society. Socialism is regressed.

Progress reverses, nations stay isolated, conflicts arise within troubled nations and inevitably those conflicts trickle over across the world again.

You get the UK PM making deals with Saudi Arabia, instead of using his standing to push for greater human rights and stability in the region.
 

Drifters

Junior Member
I would've never thought that terrorists would be making threats via twitter, but I suppose this is the brave new world we live in.
 

caleb1915

Member

Hey wait a minute! Refugees don't have homes!!

4jzB8yR.png
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
At the same time there is also a disturbingly large number of people who want to give credence and legibility to the clerics who have an extremist interpretation, they also have the view that due to what they view is equal footing in religious interpretation thus in their logical view it does not matter if someone is moderate or extremist in their interpretation, [...]

I doubt that any islamist or potential recruit really cares about the theological credence that the west gives them. The islamists are apparently very good at doing this all by themselves. So I have no idea what benefit there could be in not talking about these issues publicly as an issue in current Islam. I reckon that you actually agree with that, because your argument that Wahhabism is a relatively new strand of Islam is part of the discussion that I was alluding too. And the audience for such statements are not non-muslims in the west. It's the Wahhabists and potential new Wahhabists who would say to you that it does not matter at all that it is a new movement. Not talking to them publicly about that or say barely more than "you are wrong, and this is not Islam" out of fear that any discussion would lend them credence is a shitty strategy in any war of ideas, and has never worked ever.
 

Jag

Member
Our (dutch) prime minister states that our way of live is going to restaurants, going to concerts and visiting theaters. Do you actually belief these activities have anything to do with these attacks? It's like he believes that people elsewhere (outside the Western world) would not like to do those things.

I think it is a factor, although not a primary one. I think they pick their targets based on multiple factors.

I think they attack areas that they know are important. When they attack Muslims, they bomb Mosques. When they attack Christians like today (as claimed in their "statement"), they bomb entertainment and leisure.
 

DMczaf

Member
I got people on my Facebook wall posting stuff like "‪#‎prayforparis‬ is good, however ‪#‎prayforeveryone‬ is better." and "Fuck Paris there are innocent people dying in Palestine every day no one gives a fuck about them."

I'll just avoid that for now.
 
It's going to take a Middle East that isn't war torn and constantly in a state of violence and turmoil. Prior to 9/11, how much Islamic terrorist violence was there in the West, or even in these parts of the Middle East?

In Iraq, there were zero suicide attacks in the country's history until 2003. Since then, there have been 1,892.

In Pakistan, there was one suicide attack in the 14 years before 9/11. In the fourteen years since, there have been 486.

Let's be honest here, the war on terror, $5 trillion dollars later, has not only failed to stop Islamic terrorism, it has actually massively fuelled and empowered it.

Violence, war, bombings, poverty, instability, lack of mobility, limited prosperity etc, all of these things cripple the chances of progress. What the Middle East needs is more infrastructure, education, funding, science, academia etc. Though if the Middle East went back to that, I doubt elements of Western powers could profit from the military industrial complex or oil contracts quite so easily. I can't see this all getting any better any time soon. The self perpetuating cycle of violence and hatred wages on.

Very well said

People should realize that terrorism as we know today started in 1950s no 1200s
 

stupei

Member
People are demonstratively wrong to think this is solely a religious component that motivate people like this. It is ideological, economical, social, and militaristic factors that contribute to this. Blaming Islam is short-sighted and narrow-minded and it only reduces a very complex issue to a worldview that hurts other people.

Second, the measures to fix this isn't to just "kill the bad guys". The world isn't a Western flick where you just kill or bomb someone and they stop doing what they are doing (although the US and Europe tends to think along these lines). You have to approach this unilaterally and multilaterally through economic, social, military, security, and diplomatic measures.

Sending of drones or bombs or supplying weapons just cause more grief and hurt because it not only destabilizes peace and prosperity, but it also hurts innocents.

Basically this. It is not exactly "religion" so much as all those other factors are combined and drilled into impressionable people's heads and then given the label of religion because it is an easy and clear differentiating factor that is also easy to inflame hatred around on both sides. It is the easiest way to create an "us vs them" dichotomy that can continue to fuel motivation.

Likewise (I know, I know), the Nazis did not go after Jewish people because of religious differences, although many people understandably make that mistake. They saw them as foreign agents of Israel invading European soil, taking jobs and resources away from "real" Germans. Judaism was simply a distinguishing factor to clearly and cleanly place blame on one group for economic and social factors of unrest. This doesn't seem that different from ISIS insisting they believe Muslims living in westernized nations are living amongst the enemy and may feel free to behave as though they are invading agents themselves.

Groups like this don't view religion as an ideology but rather as a means of forming a new nation-state. They don't treat religion as a faith or practice but a brand of identification. It's not the same as faith-based religion at all, and this idea that somehow getting rid of religion will stop fanatics who are essentially acting the same as most nationalist extremists is naive. Stop thinking of them as a religion and look at them as the newly formed rogue nation that they actually are.

Increased violence and bloodshed only creates more of those factors that will be rebranded and used to recruit more countrymen for them.
 
Western involvement in manipulating the resources of the middle east create incentives for the disenfranchised to attack externally. Conflict wages world-wide, but is not exported elsewhere to the extent the middle east does. My hope is that as energy production shifts away from fossil fuels the political pressures that create terrorism will be weakened.
 

Geeker

Member
Yeah, an invasion by infidels of the holiest site in Islam sounds like a winner. I'm sure the Muslim world will be cheering that one on.

To be fair the major oil fields are to the east while mecca is on the west coast. Seizing the oil fields would really limit funding to all the crazies without collapsing the world economy (assuming supplies are not disrupted of course)
 

Lime

Member
Basically this. It is not exactly "religion" so much as all those other factors are combined and drilled into impressionable people's heads and then given the label of religion because it is an easy and clear differentiating factor that is also easy to inflame hatred around on both sides. It is the easiest way to create an "us vs them" dichotomy that can continue to fuel motivation.

Likewise (I know, I know), the Nazis did not go after Jewish people because of religious differences, although many people understandably make that mistake. They saw them as foreign agents of Israel invading European soil, taking jobs and resources away from "real" Germans. Judaism was simply a distinguishing factor to clearly and cleanly place blame on one group for economic and social factors of unrest. This doesn't seem that different from ISIS insisting they believe Muslims living in westernized nations are living amongst the enemy and may feel free to behave as though they are invading agents themselves.

Groups like this don't view religion as an ideology but rather as a means of forming a new nation-state. They don't treat religion as a faith or practice but a brand of identification. It's not the same as faith-based religion at all, and this idea that somehow getting rid of religion will stop fanatics who are essentially acting the same as most nationalist extremists is naive. Stop thinking of them as a religion and look at them as the newly formed rogue nation that they actually are.

Increased violence and bloodshed only creates more of those factors that will be rebranded and used to recruit more countrymen for them.

Yup. I hope other people realize this.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
People are demonstratively wrong to think this is solely a religious component that motivate people like this. It is ideological, economical, social, and militaristic factors that contribute to this. Blaming Islam is short-sighted and narrow-minded and it only reduces a very complex issue to a worldview that hurts other people.

It's not the sole component, but if you think that the expectation of paradise through martyrdom played no role at all when those terrorists blew themselves up yesterday after having already killed many tens of people, then you are just blind to the role of religion here. I would guess that it's actually very unattractive and hard to blow yourself up unless you have certain beliefs to support you in that strategy.
 

nib95

Banned
Non violence only works if there's a societal distaste for violence on both sides. Sure our side could turn the other cheek, but these extremists never will. So I turn to a better option, fight fire with dynamite.

That is exactly what laid the foundation for the birth of ISIS, and the exponential growth and expansion of Al-Qaeda in the first place. No Iraq war, no ISIS. No Iranian coup d'état, no Shah or Ayatollah. When will people actually learn. Using dynamite to fight a fire in this instance only causes a volcanic eruption, time, and time, and time again. There needs to be a radical change in strategy.
 
I doubt that any islamist or potential recruit really cares about the theological credence that the west gives them. The islamists are apparently very good at doing this all by themselves. So I have no idea what benefit there could be in not talking about these issues publicly as an issue in current Islam. I reckon that you actually agree with that, because your argument that Wahhabism is a relatively new strand of Islam is part of the discussion that I was alluding too. And the audience for such statements are not non-muslims in the west. It's the Wahhabists and potential new Wahhabists who would say to you that it does not matter at all that it is a new movement. Not talking to them publicly about that or say barely more than "you are wrong, and this is not Islam" out of fear that any discussion would lend them credence is a shitty strategy in any war of ideas, and has never worked ever.

They don't but the common man in west can be easily hoodwinked into the us vs Muslims mantra especially when not attacking the interpretation rather the religion as a whole lends to people thinking it's the Muslim Faith which is the ehich is a broad statement and could lead to bigotry and harassment
 
The real root of the problem is Saudi Arabia. The have been the backbone of radical Islam's funding and ideologues and no one touches them because of oil. Get a coalition of Russia China and NATO to agree to divide the oil between all three so an invasion doesn't trigger WW 3 then go solve the Saudi problem and you could actually make progress towards stopping terrorism.

And the rest of the muslim world will stay silent during an invasion of Saudi Arabia? Arm chair foreign policy in this thread is pretty amusing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom