• 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.
So now they need to figure out what kids born in their own country are going to be terrorists?

Fuck, America better start screening white males ASAP.

They've allowed a fifth column to grow within their countries. I can't offer any solutions for the radicalized second and third generation Muslims within Europe with citizenship, but I at least have the sense to not allow the problem to grow even larger or to lay the blame on the victims for not being accepting enough. Europeans have opened their hearts and homes to Muslim immigrants for decades and have been repeatedly slapped in the face.
 

Laughing Banana

Weeping Pickle
These are the Grand Mufti of Australia's comment on the attacks:

“These recent incidents highlight the fact that current strategies to deal with the threat of terrorism are not working,” Dr Mohammed said.
“It is therefore imperative that all causative factors such as racism, Islamophobia, curtailing freedoms through securitisation, duplicitous foreign policies and military intervention must be comprehensively addressed.”

While the West defends the majority of Muslims, the leader of the majority of Muslims blames the West.

...well, it's true, right? You're posting this as if he is saying something nebulous.

I live in Australia. I'm posting what an Australian Muslim leader has said AFTER the recent events. Is that ok? Or are we only allowed to post one side?

I am legit asking cause I thought a forum is meant for discussion.

That's great about all those leaders in India back in September and I'm sure all those feelings are the same in a majority of leaders here but I see people making entire threads picking apart each word a US politican says so what's wrong what me posting what the Grand Mufti of Australia said today?

It's funny you said this since you seem to immediately have a problem of DiipuSurotu posting what other leaders of Muslim communities are saying, just like you?
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
How to you make the difference between a genuine refugee and a terrorist that tries to go back to EU? You need some sort of control.

Border controls won't work. What exactly do you want to control anyway? It's not like a terrorist would state his intentions to a border guard. In any case, Europe exports more terrorism than it imports. We need to address radicalization at home.

It would also be fatal to give these terrorists the satisfaction of treating refugees how the terrorists want us to treat them.
 
Border controls won't work. What exactly do you want to control anyway? It's not like a terrorist would state his intentions to a border guard. In any case, Europe exports more terrorism than it imports. We need to address radicalization at home.

It would also be fatal to give these terrorists the satisfaction of treating refugees how the terrorists want us to treat them.

Everyone always says "X won't work, we should do Y because Z" and people respond "Y won't work, we shoudl do X because of W". And both people are right. Nothing works in isolation. You need to do all of it at the same time.
 

ElTorro

I wanted to dominate the living room. Then I took an ESRAM in the knee.
Everyone always says "X won't work, we should do Y because Z" and people respond "Y won't work, we shoudl do X because of W". And both people are right. Nothing works in isolation. You need to do all of it at the same time.

But "controlling the border" is such an abstract thing. What exactly should we do that we are not doing already other than closing the borders and shooting everyone on sight who tries to cross the many miles of unguarded natural border in Europe? It's not like Refugees are currently just walking into Europe without anybody caring.
 

Moza

Member
...well, it's true, right? You're posting this as if he is saying something nebulous.



It's funny you said this since you seem to immediately have a problem of DiipuSurotu posting what other leaders of Muslim communities are saying, just like you?
'That's great about all those leaders in India back in September and I'm sure all those feelings are the same in a majority of leaders here'

Yeah, I clearly immediately had a problem with him posting that.

How about less bolding of some lines and responding to everything. Such as the next sentence where he says racism and islamhopbia are part of the reasons for the attacks.

Since no one replied to my earlier example either, I'll ask again,

What if someone was raped and then someone said 'My deepest condolences to the victim and I reiterate that the act of rape is an unforgivable offence. The victim however shouldn't be wearing such sexualised clothing and suggestive appearance.
'
 

Laughing Banana

Weeping Pickle
What if someone was raped and then someone said 'My deepest condolences to the victim and I reiterate that the act of rape is an unforgivable offence. The victim however shouldn't be wearing such sexualised clothing and suggestive appearance.
'

Oh come on this is such a stupid, idiotic comparison.
 

Dai101

Banned
Border controls won't work. What exactly do you want to control anyway?

It's hillarious to see that in every DS-156 form i have to fill in behalf of people that aren't that savvy in internet forms (and also because the whole form is completely in english) to state your motives for traveling to the US. Yeah, i'm going to state that i'm going to involve myself in terrorism, human traffic, crime, prostitution or anything related.
 

Moza

Member
Oh come on this is such a stupid, idiotic comparison.
How? Horrible act (say the french in this situation). Condolences offered. Then give reason for the act that are not in control of the perpetrators but are the victim's actions.

But I am sure you would view it as stupid.
 

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
What if someone was raped and then someone said 'My deepest condolences to the victim and I reiterate that the act of rape is an unforgivable offence. The victim however shouldn't be wearing such sexualised clothing and suggestive appearance.
'

I feel a more accurate analogy would be if he brought up more abstract issues like the sexualisation and objectification of women, the idea that society can sometimes make men feel they are entitled to sex or that it is a "reward" for certain behaviour, how governments and societies have failed to combat this and that they should re-evaluate policies going forward to help deal with it.
 

Animator

Member
How can you possibly accurately background check the refugees anyway? It is not like you can call Syria and ask for a background check, the country is at war. Let's say they cross reference everyone's hopefully accurate info with intelligence agencies records that is still such a minuscule portion. Are they going to give one of those questionnaires that ask if you are ever convicted, did jail time, etc?
 

Moza

Member
CHEEZMO™;185750057 said:
I feel a more accurate analogy would be if he brought up more abstract issues like the sexualisation and objectification of women, the idea that society can sometimes make men feel they are entitled to sex or that it is a "reward" for certain behaviour, how governments and societies have failed to combat this and that they should re-evaluate policies going forward to help deal with it.
Fair enough, but even then it's still giving excuses to rape. For eg I am heavily against the sexualistation of everything these days but I still won't ever use it as an excuse for someone getting sexually abused.
 

Laughing Banana

Weeping Pickle
How? Horrible act (say the french in this situation). Condolences offered. Then give reason for the act that are not in control of the perpetrators but are the victim's actions.

But I am sure you would view it as stupid.

What is that supposed to mean?

Anyways, sure the responsibility ultimately lies within the hands of the perpetrators, but you must have a really limited world-view if you don't think that the action of the west countries in the middle east has a LOT to do with all the mess we are having today right now. And yes, incidents like these certainly do prove that whatever strategies they are currently employing to battle terrorism, it just doesn't work the way it should. I don't see it as "victim blaming" the way you saw it as.

Saying that is not equal as saying the victims of this incident "deserved" it or whatever malicious thing you seem to assume people thinking about.
 

CHEEZMO™

Obsidian fan
Fair enough, but even then it's still giving excuses to rape. For eg I am heavily against the sexualistation of everything these days but I still won't ever use it as an excuse for someone getting sexually abused.

I disagree. To draw another comparison (and bring up another hot-button issue) I don't think it would be fair to accuse someone in the US talking about mental health care, and the ease of availability mentally unstable people can have to firearms following a mass shooting, to be making excuses for mass murder.

But this is getting off topic now so I'll stop there.
 

Moza

Member
What is that supposed to mean?

Are you having a problem of me being a Muslim? Just say so if you do.

Anyways, sure the responsibility ultimately lies within the hands of the perpetrators, but you must have a really limited world-view if you don't think that the action of the west countries in the middle east has a LOT to do with all the mess we are having today right now. And yes, incidents like these certainly do prove that whatever strategies they are currently employing to battle terrorism, it just doesn't work the way it should. I don't see it as "victim blaming" the way you saw it as.
I don't even know that you are Muslim so how can I have a problem with it? You're the one that assumed I had a problem with the other person's post when I didn't. You're the one that called my post stupid or idiotic yet apparently I have a problem with you? I said it's clear you'll find it stupid because that's been your attitude to all my posts.

Thank you for replying to the issue now though as all I want is a proper dialogue. I totally agree that the cause of a lot of the issues have to do with the actions for the west, actions that I am and always have been heavily against. Just how I would stand up against those actions when they were committed and offer no excuse I will do the same here. Everyone needs to be responsible for their own actions. You seem more caught up on the sentence where he says the strategies aren't working, which is obvious, while I'm obviously talking more about the follow up sentence.
 
But "controlling the border" is such an abstract thing. What exactly should we do that we are not doing already other than closing the borders and shooting everyone on sight who tries to cross the many miles of unguarded natural border in Europe? It's not like Refugees are currently just walking into Europe without anybody caring.

They certainly were a few weeks ago. Didn't you see the pictures of people literally running across borders?

Hungary put up razor wire at their borders. Guess how many got into hungary? Not many. Maybe 0, I don't know.

They're always going to use the easiest path to gain entry. Right now the easiest path is just being a refugee and go in. If they take that away they'll have to resort to being smuggled in. Not like it's hard, but it's certainly harder than just having 100 people show up with fake passports and getting in.

On the extreme side, they could literally close the border to ground entry. I mean, that's something they can do if they have to. It's much harder to be smuggled in by air. There's various levels of things they can do in between there as well. You just have to keep taking away the weakest link
 

kitch9

Banned
Thinking about it if I were an ISIL commander and was going to kick off a series of attacks I would use the local muscle to divert attention from the army I'd got going in through the back door.

I'd know there was too many trusting types waving the welcome flags so I wouldn't want to change that.

They've played us like a fiddle so far, no reason to suspect that they will stop soon.
 

Glasshole

Banned
They raised the terror alert for Belgium from 2 to 3, with 3 being serious threats and 4 being an active situation. It is in that light Belgium versus Spain got cancelled.


I would say it sends a bad signal, but on the other hand, no Red Devils in the newspaper tomorrow kinda makes up for it.

Comprehensible action. It's a question of time until the two fugitives are caught - so it would make sense to postpone the game in order to prevent them from sacrificing themselves in a suicide bombing, knowing they'll be caught eventually anyway.
 

Alx

Member
So I have not kept up with the news, what is France going to do? I heard about the airstrikes.

It's only general propositions right now, but apart from the air strikes :
- state of emergency has been validated for 3 more months
- a proposition to add the state of emergency (probably in a lesser form, but easier to declare) to the Constitution will be made. It seems to be more for convenience/consistency, it wouldn't really change how it's handled today (some politicians already argued it wasn't really necessary).
- a proposition for a change of law, allowing to demote more easily people with double nationality from their French nationality (and kick them out).
- no more reduction of budget/personel for the military until 2020

President Hollande asked for tighter control of European external borders in a joint effort. He'll probably call a clause in the EU texts that asks for full cooperation of members of the union when one of its members is under attack (although there's no clear detail in what kind of cooperation is expected, and military action won't concern neutral members like Sweden, Ireland, Austria, Finland)

Nothing really specific in the end except for the legal aspects, it's mostly "we'll work harder against the threats and expect help from our allies" right now.
 

azyless

Member
So I have not kept up with the news, what is France going to do? I heard about the airstrikes.
President Francois Hollande has just finished addressing a rare joint session of French two houses of parliament.
Here are some of the key points:
Tighter EU border controls: Mr Hollande warned: "If Europe doesn't control its external borders, then it is the return of national borders... This would mean the dismantling of the European Union."
Extending state of emergency: The government will table a bill in parliament to extend France's state of emergency by three months. It is currently limited to 12 days
New deportation powers: Mr Hollande called for a change to France's constitution to make it easier to expel people deemed to pose a threat to national security
Security resources: He announced funding for an additional 5,000 police officers, 2,500 judicial staff, and 1,000 border personnel
No cuts to the armed forces: The presidents said there would be no cuts to the country's armed forces before 2017, and that the power of the military would be returned to its 2007 level
More air strikes in Syria: He vowed to intensify air strikes targeting the jihadist group Islamic State in Syria: "Terrorism will not destroy the Republic because the Republic will destroy terrorism," he said
Meeting with Obama and Putin: Mr Hollande said he would meet with US President Barack Obama and Russia's Vladimir Putin in the coming week to discuss co-operating in the fight against IS
Nothing definitive of course. The investigation is still going on.
 

Alx

Member
Wow very good article from The Guardian:
(Don't know if it was posted already so sorry if that's the case)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/isis-bombs-hostage-syria-islamic-state-paris-attacks

Very interesting, thanks. Both for his inside view of Isis as a hostage, and his opinion on military actions in Syria.
For the former, it confirms that it will hard, probably impossible to reason with such people. Seeing how far they're indoctrinated (and not too smart apparently), they'll just keep seeing things their way. ""Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain".
For the latter, I can see his point in general, but I can't imagine how we could justify removing Abbas first and Isis second.
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
Wow very good article from The Guardian:
(Don't know if it was posted already so sorry if that's the case)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/isis-bombs-hostage-syria-islamic-state-paris-attacks

While it is a nice story, it is also idealism in its pure form. Like around here more than once. "Don't fight back, that's what they want". Ok, I guess we just let them murder people until they get bored of it or something.

Also, Assad created ISIS? Come on.
 
Nothing definitive of course. The investigation is still going on.

It's only general propositions right now, but apart from the air strikes :
- state of emergency has been validated for 3 more months
- a proposition to add the state of emergency (probably in a lesser form, but easier to declare) to the Constitution will be made. It seems to be more for convenience/consistency, it wouldn't really change how it's handled today (some politicians already argued it wasn't really necessary).
- a proposition for a change of law, allowing to demote more easily people with double nationality from their French nationality (and kick them out).
- no more reduction of budget/personel for the military until 2020

President Hollande asked for tighter control of European external borders in a joint effort. He'll probably call a clause in the EU texts that asks for full cooperation of members of the union when one of its members is under attack (although there's no clear detail in what kind of cooperation is expected, and military action won't concern neutral members like Sweden, Ireland, Austria, Finland)

Nothing really specific in the end except for the legal aspects, it's mostly "we'll work harder against the threats and expect help from our allies" right now.

Thanks.
 

woen

Member
While it is a nice story, it is also idealism in its pure form. Like around here more than once. "Don't fight back, that's what they want". Ok, I guess we just let them murder people until they get bored of it or something.

Also, Assad created ISIS? Come on.

Guess who's the "idealist"

http://www.newsweek.com/how-syrias-assad-helped-forge-isis-255631

“In 2011, the majority of the current ISIS leadership was released from jail by Bashar Al Assad,”

“The situation in there was like the middle ages. There were too many people and not enough space. There wasn’t enough water to drink. There wasn’t enough food to eat and what there was would have been ignored by dogs in the street. Torture was an everyday reality. After years in there, all of those people became Salafists and in a bad, bad way.”

“From the first days of the revolution (in March 2011), Assad denounced the organisation as being the work of radical Salafists, so he released the Salafists he had created in his prisons to justify the claim ... If you do not have an enemy, you create an enemy.”

“The regime did not just open the door to the prisons and let these extremists out, it facilitated them in their work, in their creation of armed brigades,”

“In jail, you have leaders, then you have leaders of leaders. Things form their own structure,” Alghorani recalled. “When these guys were released they all became leaders. They all developed their own followers. My jail was an academy for radical Salafist fighters.”

So yeah as Nicolas Hénin says "The Syrian president is responsible for the rise of Isis in Syria" (which is the right word for it).
 
Assad was incapable of protecting his country, he allowed Hezboloah to interfere which a militia before ISIS was created, many of the Radicals used to hide in Syria during the US occupation of Iraq, his army was engaged in war crimes and using banned weapons, etc etc etc

Main point is ISIS was created under him and he couldn't do anything, I see him as part of the problem not the solution.
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
Guess who's the "idealist"

http://www.newsweek.com/how-syrias-assad-helped-forge-isis-255631



So yeah as Nicolas Hénin says "The Syrian president is responsible for the rise of Isis in Syria" (which is the right word for it).

IS was brought into light in Iraq way before that, riding on the Sunni insurgence against the stupid Iraqi government.

Al-Baghdadi was actually arrested by Americans and detained until 2004. I found no mention of him being in any Syrian prison.

IS extended the operations in Syria once the revolution has began.

So blaming the existence of IS on Assad is a little naive if not propagandistic. To support the idea that Assad should go first.

Edit: don't get me wrong, Assad should go, but the last thing needed is another power vacuum from which IS can profit.
 

spineduke

Unconfirmed Member
While it is a nice story, it is also idealism in its pure form. Like around here more than once. "Don't fight back, that's what they want". Ok, I guess we just let them murder people until they get bored of it or something.

Also, Assad created ISIS? Come on.

Ask yourself what exactly ISIS hope to achieve in Europe? You have a large muslim body who just migrated, who were welcomed openly in many spaces. Now alienate every single one and have them treated unfairly by the people and the media based on the actions of the suicide bombers. You've gone from zero to potentially recruiting hundreds of operatives many years down the line.

It may be a hard pill to swallow - but there's plenty of evidence that he had an important role in creating a force to de-legitimize the original protests that occurred in May 2011. Anyone familiar with Syrian stasi style tactics would say this is very much in line in terms of Bashar's behaviour. It's doubtful that he intended this to go this far though, but you never really know. He's created a false dichotomy of him or ISIS.

edit: anyone claiming Bashar is a victim of circumstance is demonstrating at best their naivety of what incredible fore planning and manipulation the regime is capable of. Their prior work and tactics in the Lebanese civil war is an attestation to that truth.
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
Ask yourself what exactly ISIS hope to achieve in Europe? You have a large muslim body who just migrated, who were welcomed openly in many spaces. Now alienate every single one and have them treated unfairly by the people and the media based on the actions of the suicide bombers. You've gone from zero to potentially recruiting hundreds of operatives many years down the line.

It may be a hard pill to swallow - but there's plenty of evidence that he had an important role in creating a force to de-legitimize the original protests that occurred in May 2011. Anyone familiar with Syrian stasi style tactics would say this is very much in line in terms of Bashar's behaviour. It's doubtful that he intended this to go this far though, but you never really know. He's created a false dichotomy of him or ISIS.

IS existed before 2011. I love conspiracy theories, but at least I expect them to be documented properly.
 

spineduke

Unconfirmed Member
IS existed before 2011. I love conspiracy theories, but at least I expect them to be documented properly.

It's not a conspiracy theory, as much as you wish it to be. There are documented instances of the Syrian intelligence services releasing radicals from their prisoners back in 2011, shortly after the original protests. Keep dreaming.
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
It's not a conspiracy theory, as much as you wish it to be. There are documented instances of the Syrian intelligence services releasing radicals from their prisoners back in 2011, shortly after the original protests. Keep dreaming.

I'm not contesting this. I'm contesting the fact that those radicals created IS because IS existed for some time before that.

I don't know what I should dream about though.
 

woen

Member
IS was brought into light in Iraq way before that, riding on the Sunni insurgence against the stupid Iraqi government.

Al-Baghdadi was actually arrested by Americans and detained until 2004. I found no mention of him being in any Syrian prison.

IS extended the operations in Syria once the revolution has began.

So blaming the existence of IS on Assad is a little naive if not propagandistic. To support the idea that Assad should go first.

Edit: don't get me wrong, Assad should go, but the last thing needed is another power vacuum from which IS can profit.

Do you read the posts (and articles) you answer to or you just try to convince yourself that you are right ?

Read again the quotes I picked from the article, which support the fact that Assad and his regime are responsible for the rise of Daech in Syria. It means that the actions he has taken have, at the end of the process, greatly contributed in the growth of Deach's army, leaders, supports and finally territorial conquests in Syria (but obviously it goes further since we all know that attacks on Europe are planned from Syrian territories).

You can deny all the facts. You can say that I am "naive" and "propagandistic". But all you do is supporting Assad's official version. Which is naive and propagandistic, not to say dangerous and stupid.

If you don't know how to read, or don't want to, what has been written in order to mislead others, please abstain yourself.
 
You can pick any major event and correctly (or at least impossible to prove incorrect) state that without it there would be no ISIS:

-Without the crackdown by Assad there would be no ISIS
-Without the Iraqi government maginalizing sunnis post-2008 there would be no ISIS
-Without the US withdrawal of troops from Iraq there would be no ISIS
-Without the 2003 US invasion of Iraq there would be no ISIS
-Without the 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq there would be no ISIS
-Without the 1979 Iran revolution there would be no ISIS
-Without the 1953 coup in Iran there would be no ISIS
-Without the Sykes-Picot agreement there would be no ISIS
-Without the Ottoman Empire attacking Russia in WW1 and allying with Germany there would be no ISIS

This can repeated as far back as you want until you get someone you disagree with to put the blame on.
 

M.Bluth

Member
Assad was incapable of protecting his country, he allowed Hezboloah to interfere which a militia before ISIS was created, many of the Radicals used to hide in Syria during the US occupation of Iraq, his army was engaged in war crimes and using banned weapons, etc etc etc

Main point is ISIS was created under him and he couldn't do anything, I see him as part of the problem not the solution.

ISIS didn't just pop up AFTER the Syrian war started. ISIS has been around since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. They were simply still under the AlQaeda banner. Same people ran AlQaeda in Iraq and Syria that are running ISIS now.
 

Polari

Member
Kind of weird though that we bang on about what an asshole Assad is, considering we had no problem propping up the Shah when he was frying Iranians alive.
 

Matt

Member
Kind of weird though that we bang on about what an asshole Assad is, considering we had no problem propping up the Shah when he was frying Iranians alive.
Proof that a statement can be both essentially true, and absolutely pointless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom