CorruptUser wrote:The Bataclan theatre was owned by Jews and was for years under constant death threats because they held pro-Israel events. So the terrorists didn't forget to target Jews this time around. Hooray, all is right with the world! Wait, no, not at all.
But anyway, for reasons I'm not sure of, the Paris attacks seem to be more horrific than the recent plane bombing in Egypt. I can't figure out why, when more people were killed in the bombing. Is it the "personal" nature of the gunmen actually shooting people that they see as opposed to simply planting a bomb and never having to see exactly who they murder? I don't know.
Personal murders do seem worse, somehow. Logical, perhaps not, but it really does seem particularly horrible. There's the "impending death" aspect as well. If you're in a situation where death is coming, and you can't do anything about it, that's pretty awful. The mix of the two makes such an event particularly horrific, I think.
Shivahn wrote:I'm skeptical that the Bataclan was targetted because Jews rather than simply because it was a large, soft target.
It is likely both. I would imagine that neither factor is likely to be coincidence. There is a trend of anti-jewish violence and rhetoric among that lot, so they probably regarded that as a point in it's favor for target selection.
dg61 wrote:I suspect also that it is easier to carry out a bombing/other attack on a nightclub or someplace like that then a plane, especially after 9/11(presumably you need either a missile, or a bomb powerful enough to destroy/render inoperable and non-aerodynamic the plane that isn't going to be easily found). And of course there's less of they "you could be basically doing your normal, everyday shit and get killed" with a plane bombing since on average people fly on planes less often than they do other day-to-day things.
It is a particularly hard form of target to stop. For airplanes, we can at least slap security at airports and hope really hard that the odds have gone down(despite my skepticism that this is really effective). For "large gathering of people", well...that happens basically constantly. The number of potential targets is high, and the opportunity for pre-emptive identification is relatively low. A few more folks walking into a crowd is really, really common, and how on earth do you realize in time that this lot is dangerous and stop them?
sardia wrote:If you're gonna blame radical elements that split off from the original teachings, why aren't you blaming Jesus for being a shitty prophet? A good prophet would have kept all his followers.
*shrug* I think it's entirely fair to blame Christianity for crazy things that Christians do, sure.
sardia wrote:All was right =/= they did something as I expected. You do realize that?
It was a clearly sarcastic comment.
leady wrote:Can we please avoid the ludicrous false equivocations between Christianity vs Islam with regards to terrorism
Certainly. Christianity has a particularly bloody past, but is now somewhat more sedate, at least as concerns overt murder.
It's like a more mature Islam. Islam's just going through it's bloody phase.
I wonder if it's a universal trait to religions. I wouldn't *think* so...Christianity and Islam are more closely related than many others, so it's hard to generalize to all from them, but it's certainly interesting.
Chen wrote:Or you could just not base judgement of the people based on their religion, but rather based on their actions. You know, condemn the violent Jihadis rather than all Muslims. Same way I can blame people like the Westboro Baptist Church for their bad actions, rather than just blaming all Baptists (or all Christians if you want to go even higher level).
The Quran has as many ridiculous rules in it as the Bible (notably Old testament) does. I don't see how it's reasonable to call on the religion to somehow reform itself, when it's a relative few that are the ones espousing ridiculous parts of the ideology.
Well, those of us who are not religious generally do give Christianity at large some credit for creating the environment in which Westboro, etc thrives. Yeah, signs with 'god hates fags' are extreme, even for Christianity, but one doesn't have to search too hard to find a pretty popular sentiment that's basically a slightly less overt statement of the same thing.
Islam, same same.
Dauric wrote:So, wild thoughts:
ISIS is trying to establish a state, a caliphate. And this attack in Paris has been called by some politicians (in France and elsewhere) an act of war.
What's the implications of 'the west' saying "Okay ,fine, you're a state. You're also at full-blown war with Europe, U.S., and Russia. Have fun!"
I'm not saying this is likely, or even desirable, the thought experiment intrigues me however.
Would it actually change the nature of the conflict on the ground? Would the U.S. fully commit to large-scale combat operations after being involved in combat operations and "support roles" in the region for a decade and a half (the answer to this is probably dependent on which party gets the White House)? How would the borders get drawn in a post-ISIS-conflict scenario? Would where the borders are drawn actually matter?
I'm picturing a mushroom cloud over an ISIS stronghold, and imagining the effect this would have on the world.
I'm not entirely sure that borders are the critical thing for fighting ISIS, but messages matter.