• 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.

orochi91

Member
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.

What do you mean by "discussing these issues publicly"?

The governments of the West have had ample opportunities to lambaste Saudi Arabia, Wahhabi capital of the world, and its partners for their role in spreading/funding such severe interpretations of Islam.

No country says anything to them and I sincerely doubt it's because of Islamic/religious sensitivities.
 
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.

No, it's the only option or nothing will change at all.
 

LNBL

Member
Toestel Schiphol: niets gevonden

In het toestel van Air France dat zaterdagmiddag op Schiphol aan de grond is gehouden, is niets gevonden. De passagiers kunnen weer aan boord. Dat zegt de marechaussee.

Het toestel, vlucht AF1741 van Air France, werd doorzocht omdat er een dreigtweet was binnengekomen. Het vliegtuig moest om 14.45 uur naar Parijs vertrekken. Tijdens het doorzoeken is ook even het Panoramadek (met uitzicht over de vliegtuigen op de luchthaven) afgesloten.
http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland...ol-aan-grond-gehouden-om-dreigtweet~a4186308/

Nothing found on the Air France airplane, false threat
 

Kin5290

Member
Increased force doesn't mean ground troops. It could more aggressive airstrike, police action, and allied military action.
Police action and allied military action are ground troops. And airstrikes are useless because they can only hit individual targets, not control territory.
 
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.

Isis thrived from a vacuum when the U.S. pulled from Iraq. I was on the forefront of this, I was stationed in Tal Afar and sinjar.
 

szaromir

Banned
Now I'm anti-Polish? Ok bud, can you explain to me what the situation is like now?

Was an anti-immigration, anti-gay rights, anti-abortion, European conservative part NOT elected to the parliament majority and Presidency just a couple of weeks ago?

Please inform me.
Anti-abortion rights yes, anti-immigration no, I have no clue about their stance on gay rights, "European conservative party" is technically correct but I have no idea what you're implying as there are plenty of European conservative parties governing across Europe.
 

Scrooged

Totally wronger about Nintendo's business decisions.
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.

How can you say stuff like this when their stated goal is to crate a new caliphate, which is a merging of religion and the state? Their religion is giving them all they need to commit their atrocities, in particular the martyrdom aspect. They belive that heretics deserve hell, and if they die while killing them they will be in paradise.

Their faith is the bedrock of their entire worldview. Shrugging that off is incredibly dangerous.
 

Oersted

Member
What do you mean by "discussing these issues publicly"?

The governments of the West have had ample opportunities to lambaste Saudi Arabia, Wahhabi capital of the world, and its partners for their role in spreading/funding such severe interpretations of Islam.

No country says anything to them and I sincerely doubt it's because of Islamic sensitivities.

Western values mostly go out for most reliable and highest bidders.
 

chadskin

Member
CTyKrEFWoAAj8iX.jpg

https://twitter.com/boehningb/status/665559321141510144
 

pompidu

Member
Leave the middle east alone, stop trading with them, dont even acknowledge their existence. Take in refugees if you must but that whole area needs to evolve on its own.
 
What do you mean by "discussing these issues publicly"?

The governments of the West have had ample opportunities to lambaste Saudi Arabia, Wahhabi capital of the world, and its partners for their role in spreading/funding such severe interpretations of Islam.

No country says anything to them and I sincerely doubt it's because of Islamic sensitivities.

Western nations continue to do business with that horrible dictatorship (Saudi Arabia), Western nations continue to sell military arms, vehicles to Saudi Arabia.

and Saudi Arabia got a free pass after 9/11, then the Bush administration decided to attack Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11

the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals while 0 were Iraqi
 

Chaplain

Member
Their faith is the bedrock of their entire worldview. Shrugging that off is incredibly dangerous.

You are right.

“Your worldview is like an invisible pair of eyeglasses – glasses you put on to help you see reality clearly. If you choose the right pair of eyeglasses, you can see everything vividly, and can behave in sync with the real world (that is, your won’t walk into walls, fall into wells, or talk to mannequins). But if you choose the wrong pair of eyeglasses, you may find yourself in a worse plight than the blind man – thinking you see things clearly when in reality your vision is severely distorted.” (J. F. Baldwin)
 
It's a feeling I have that they will.

France won't send ground troops. Where are they going to send them? I doubt Iraq wants them. The Russians won't want them in Syria. Look what happened when they sent peacekeepers to Lebanon. Hezbollah blew them up with a truck bomb.
 
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.
Dude, Israel was born after WW2. The Jews were seen as the few who controlled everything and had all the wealth.
 

Cromat

Member
I've said this on this forum many times, but it was a dangerous and frankly disgraceful decision to not intervene in Syria all these years. Syria has over 250,000 people dead, most of them civilians. Its infrastructure is destroyed, landmarks and monuments defied and damaged, millions of internally displaced, and millions pouring out looking for refuge. This scale of human misery cannot be abided by. We have a regime that used chemical weapons against its own people in its own capital city and the world did nothing. We have an organisation that routinely tortures and publically executes innocent people, all while enforcing one of the most oppressive regimes in history on unsuspecting people in two countries, with zero decisive action by the international community.

I get it, the West was burnt by the Iraq experience, but that war cannot now be used as an excuse to never act even in the face of untold suffering. The chaos of Syria is now, predictably, spilling into neighbouring countries and into Europe, in the shape of refugees and terrorism. After the Russian intervention, it will be very hard to take decisive action in Syria because the Russians would insist on keeping their puppet Assad. However that is a complete non-starter as Assad bears the brunt of responsibility for the situation in his country, his regime will never be legitimate again.

Really tragic situation all around. Not acting can have consequences that are as or even more dangerous than acting. The vacuum in Syria was filled by the worst the world has to offer, and now innocents around the world are suffering.
 

Oersted

Member
Leave the middle east alone, stop trading with them, dont even acknowledge their existence. Take in refugees if you must but that whole area needs to evolve on its own.

Cultural/economic/humanitarian exchange is one of the most important things to do. It is exactly Isis plan to prevent that.
 

LNBL

Member
France won't send ground troops. Where are they going to send them? I doubt Iraq wants them. The Russians won't want them in Syria. Look what happened when they sent peacekeepers to Lebanon. Hezbollah blew them up with a truck bomb.

That's not the whole story behind it and it's too easy to post this here as an arugment. Like another user explained yesterday when you posted the same in the Beirut bombing thread.
 

Nuova

Banned
Leave the middle east alone, stop trading with them, dont even acknowledge their existence. Take in refugees if you must but that whole area needs to evolve on its own.
So give them time and room to train and supply themselves? Just because NATO cuts them off dosent mean Saudi Arabia or Qatar will.
 
Iraq wanted you out.

What you have done in that scenario?

Perpetually remained an occupational force?

We trained Iraqi police/army/border patrol and Kurds. By 2010 we were in a supervisor and training mode only going out to hunt high value targets or play support. We ripped the backbone out of Iraqi forces before they were fully developed. This isn't something you can just leave like that, it's going to take a decade and people need to accept that it's the only way to solve the security situation.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
What do you mean by "discussing these issues publicly"?

The governments of the West have had ample opportunities to lambaste Saudi Arabia, Wahhabi capital of the world, and its partners for their role in spreading/funding such severe interpretations of Islam.

No country says anything to them and I sincerely doubt it's because of Islamic/religious sensitivities.

I agree that the West's relationship with Saudi Arabia is a disgrace that is motivated purely by economic and geopolitical interests. But as long as, for instance, President Obama does not even publicly recognize that there is a link between religious ideology and terrorism, how can the public start to demand that the supporters of such religious ideology should be sanctioned for that. With such taboos in place is very easy for Saudi Arabia to depict their support of their brand of Islam as benign religion and the Islamists who base actions on that ideology as completely unrelated to that.
 

Jag

Member
I agree that the West's relationship with Saudi Arabia is a disgrace that is motivated purely by economic and geopolitical interests. But as long as, for instance, President Obama does not even publicly recognize that there is a link between religious ideology and terrorism, how can the public start to demand that the supporters of such religious ideology should be sanctioned for that. With such taboos in place is very easy for Saudi Arabia to depict their support of their brand of Islam as benign religion and the Islamists who base actions on that ideology as completely unrelated to that.

It's true and he really missed an opportunity to do something about it during his terms.
 

nib95

Banned
No, it's the only option or nothing will change at all.

No, it's not the only option. It's the option that has been resorted to countless times in the past, and massively failed each and every time. It will only breed ISIS 2, 3 4 and 5. Only giving each new version of the group more ammunition to recruit, and more displaced and ignorant people to pray on.

The key is education, infrastructure, trade, academia, dialogue, improved foreign policy etc. Basically these places that are currently breeding grounds, need to cease being areas of constant war, violence, destruction, fear, turmoil and poverty. These things are perfect catalysts with which such groups thrive.
 

C0unter

Member
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.

There have been countless people that have committed suicide attacks believing it to be for a greater cause without motivation of religion.
 

caleb1915

Member
Anti-abortion rights yes, anti-immigration no, I have no clue about their stance on gay rights, "European conservative party" is technically correct but I have no idea what you're implying as there are plenty of European conservative parties governing across Europe.

So wait, you are less informed than I am?

By European Conservative I meant a political party in Europe that has right to centre conservative leanings much like our own here in the U.S. Less radical only in economic policy. The only other differences being a few issues on the death penalty and a more socialist oriented economy.

How are they not anti-immigration with the stances the newly elected "Law and Justice" politicians they've shown in the past elections?

What does their current policy that they are now deciding not to honor in response to an attack from a group of individuals who were more than likely not even refugees less than 24 hours later suggest?

It certainly doesn't scream "Open-Door", and once again I'm not talking about the government from eariler this year who let Ukrainian refugees in, and agreed to mitigate 7,000 the hundreds of thousands of refugees flooding Europe.

I'm wondering how any of that is Anti-Polish considering I'm literally listing the stances on issues they have commented on relating to their country.

Edit: "Law and Order" Party? I watch too much goddamn TV....
 

Klossen

Banned
No, it's not the only option. It's the option that has been resorted to countless times in the past, and massively failed each and every time. It will only breed ISIS 2, 3 4 and 5. Only giving each new version of the group more ammunition to recruit, and more displaced and ignorant people to pray on.

The key is education, infrastructure, trade, academia, dialogue, improved foreign policy etc. Basically these places that are currently breeding grounds, need to cease being areas of constant war, violence, destruction, fear, turmoil and poverty. These things are perfect catalysts with which such groups thrive.
How do you propose diplomatic relations with ISIS to work?
 
No, it's not the only option. It's the option that has been resorted to countless times in the past, and massively failed each and every time. It will only breed ISIS 2, 3 4 and 5. Only giving each new version of the group more ammunition to recruit, and more displaced and ignorant people to pray on.

The key is education, infrastructure, trade, academia, dialogue, improved foreign policy etc. Basically these places that are currently breeding grounds, need to cease being areas of constant war, violence, destruction, fear, turmoil and poverty. These things are perfect catalysts with which such groups thrive.

Umm you know that this is pretty much impossible, right? It's never going to happen unless we sent ground troops and start rebuilding everything. And don't mention the Iraq war. That was something entirely different.
 

mnz

Unconfirmed Member
Leave the middle east alone, stop trading with them, dont even acknowledge their existence. Take in refugees if you must but that whole area needs to evolve on its own.
Have you heard of oil?

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.
That's not what the Nazis thought of jews, Israel didn't even exist by then and most European jews had been there for centuries.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
There have been countless people that have committed suicide attacks believing it to be for a greater cause without motivation of religion.

But not without the motivation of a death cult ideology. This is, to my knowledge, universal and apparent in examples like Japanese kamikaze pilots. And the idea of being particularly rewarded when sacrificing yourself for the cause is the most extreme manifestation of such a death cult ideology.
 
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

Because he thinks this isn't already a clash of civilizations or religions. ISIS is a Muslim caliphate (Is in the name the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIL The Islamic State of Iraq and Lebanon) created by a mostly Sunni majority that is following the most extreme vision of Sunni Islam and see themselves in danger of extermination thanks to a Shiia governments become more abundant in the Middle East.

This is already a war of (extreme) Sunni Islam towards the rest of the world (That includes the rest of the Muslim world like Kurds or Shiias, as well as well as other Sunni armed rebels like Al Qaeda, not just the western world). Thinking that there isn't a HUGE influence of Islam in this actions and acts of terrorism is completely naive.

His intentions are good, since that is what it should happen, people need to understand that not all Muslims are like this but also need to understand that saying "terrorism has no religion!" or stuff like that is completely idiotic at best, people need to see the reality and understand that this conflict is already highly religious at nature and that an extreme interpretation of the Quran and Islam is the base of that fanaticism and that a lot of those extremist Sunnis are in Europe already (not may, they are) because Sunnis represent over 80% of the Muslims and can be influenced by ISIS to join their forces thanks to their propaganda about how Sunnies are being targeted and in danger. Incarcerating all Muslims is not a solution but thinking that not a single one of the Syrian refugees or part of the already existing Muslim population in Europe aren't potential terrorist is also completely naive and incompatible with reality.
 
BBC reminds people to be careful about misinformation

The lies

Donald Trump, a man who hopes to win the White House next year, tweeted about the attacks.

"My prayers are with the victims and hostages in the horrible Paris attacks," he wrote. "May God be with you all."

But that wasn't the tweet that people shared. Instead, it was a post he wrote in January, making reference to the Charlie Hebdo attacks, and noting that France has strict gun laws.

But while all tweets have their date clearly visible, this didn't stop the tweet being shared rapidly - with Mr Trump getting bombarded with abuse for using the incident for political gain.

Elsewhere, others tweeted that a "revenge attack" was taking place at a refugee camp in Calais - when it appears an electrical fire was the cause of a blaze.

And the Eiffel Tower was apparently "turned dark" in respect for the victims, when in fact the lights are turn off every night to save electricity.

Why do people spread misinformation during major events? Attention seeking, perhaps - no made up story is ever boring. Naivety plays a role, people wrapped up in a moment don't always give themselves a moment to apply common sense, or to check.

But increasingly, misinformation seems to be a method of making ourselves feel better about the world. Seeing scenes of solidarity - even if they're not true - acts as a small distraction from the real horrors at hand.
 

Kin5290

Member
I have no real desire to conquer Syria tbh. I don't think any Western power does.
The US doesn't. European countries don't have the means to do so. And Russia can only afford a "Good Victorious War".

I'm just saying that "police action" and "allied military action" are just euphemisms for "ground troops". The former specifically has been used to put American combat units into a war without it officially being a war.

The problem is that you can't hold territory with aircraft, and the only ground forces in the area are the Syrian Army (who has a vested interest and may or may not be actually leaving ISIS to its own devices), the Kurds, who are relatively few and not particularly well equipped, and a bunch of secular or moderate Syrian nationalist rebels who may or may not actually exist (and would be more interested in fighting Assad anyways). And of course, a bunch of Islamist nationalist rebels and Al Nusra Front.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom