Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby morriswalters » Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:08 pm UTC

This kind of talk makes me want to get a gun and fort up. Deep. There is no safe use scenario. What Tyndmyr effectively just said would make anyone and everyone who doesn't have nukes now want them, so they don't end up being the only ones left standing when the music stops. This is exactly why proliferation has been so worrying.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:20 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:This kind of talk makes me want to get a gun and fort up. Deep. There is no safe use scenario. What Tyndmyr effectively just said would make anyone and everyone who doesn't have nukes now want them, so they don't end up being the only ones left standing when the music stops. This is exactly why proliferation has been so worrying.


Lots already do.

The same can be said about conventional weapons. Do you think other countries would love the ability to pull the trigger on drone strikes basically wherever? My guess is yeah. But a crazy military is expensive.

But, nukes, no nukes, whatever...what *should* France do in response to such a situation? Playing pure defense is difficult. Especially with attacks like this that are kind of hard to stop. Crowds are just a normal part of life. I can't think of a way to abolish crowds that wouldn't also be horrifically detrimental to society.

Refugees...plain and simple, the vast majority of them are just folk, running away from that sort of thing in the first place. But...if you do open the floodgates, it is entirely possible that a bad actor will use that to slip in.

It's messy, and certainly a hard problem. I think a certain degree of offense is needed, even if for symbolism or whatever. This isn't necessarily putting boots on ground, or nuking all the things, but...something. If you take the fight to them, it's at least military folks on the line. Armed and what not, rather than defenseless civilians. Now, you've still got the protection issue, but retaliation totally does exist in conventional conflict as well as in MAD.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby cphite » Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:31 pm UTC

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!"


Establishing a state (or even a caliphate) isn't what they're trying to do. It's merely a step in what they're trying to do. These are fanatics who believe that they're on a holy mission to bring about the end of the world. They need to become a caliphate to make that happen; but establishing the caliphate is only a step, and keeping the caliphate is completely irrelevant from their perspective.

But here is the problem... Most of the world, and certainly our leaders, are looking at this from the perspective of ISIS building some sort of permanent empire. From that perspective, what you're saying makes perfect sense; ISIS must be fucking crazy to be provoking Europe, the US, and Russia, because at some point one (or all) of those powers are going to feel compelled to stomp their ass. It would make far more sense, in terms of conventional wisdom, to focus on stability and eventually try to work with Europe, the US, and Russia. That's the only way a caliphate could ever survive long term.

But they aren't looking to establish a long term caliphate. They're looking to end the world. They believe that at some point the caliphate will sack Istanbul; which will begin the apocalypse. Part of that process involves they, themselves, being mostly destroyed. Full-blown war with Europe, the US, Russia - and everyone else - is the point.

These people aren't interested in peace. They aren't interested in compromise - not even with other Muslims. They believe that it's their sacred duty to kill everyone else, and to be killed themselves. This isn't mainstream Islam we're talking about. The vast majority of Muslims think these people are fucking nuts; and for good reason.

Our leaders believe (or at least claim to believe) that this whole thing can be solved diplomatically, or by helping them economically. The reality is that these folks aren't looking for help, and wouldn't accept it if it were offered except in such a manner that would further their underlying goal; which is to oppress and kill until they're powerful enough to kick-start Armageddon.

People keep trying to rationalize this shit by saying that this isn't real Islam we're dealing with... and that's true. This isn't real, or at least ordinary, Islam. This is a fucked up death cult within Islam. This is the Jonestown version of Islam; only instead of simply killing themselves, they're determined to take everyone else with them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby sardia » Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:06 pm UTC

Pffft, Isis is less scary than the Christian Jewish united death cult. Story goes that they incited conflict in the mid East combined with unconditional support of Israel lead to Jesus coming back. And remember, Jesus comes back to kill most of us and torture the survivors.

Kill= heaven. Torture= living in the apocalypse.

dg61
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby dg61 » Tue Nov 17, 2015 1:01 am UTC

cphite wrote:
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!"


Establishing a state (or even a caliphate) isn't what they're trying to do. It's merely a step in what they're trying to do. These are fanatics who believe that they're on a holy mission to bring about the end of the world. They need to become a caliphate to make that happen; but establishing the caliphate is only a step, and keeping the caliphate is completely irrelevant from their perspective.

But here is the problem... Most of the world, and certainly our leaders, are looking at this from the perspective of ISIS building some sort of permanent empire. From that perspective, what you're saying makes perfect sense; ISIS must be fucking crazy to be provoking Europe, the US, and Russia, because at some point one (or all) of those powers are going to feel compelled to stomp their ass. It would make far more sense, in terms of conventional wisdom, to focus on stability and eventually try to work with Europe, the US, and Russia. That's the only way a caliphate could ever survive long term.


ISIS _is_ a state; it may not be a legitimate or rational one; or even one anyone thinks well of, but according to the most commonly used definitions of a state it is in fact one.

WilliamLehnsherr
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:58 am UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby WilliamLehnsherr » Tue Nov 17, 2015 6:02 am UTC

dg61 wrote:ISIS _is_ a state; it may not be a legitimate or rational one; or even one anyone thinks well of, but according to the most commonly used definitions of a state it is in fact one.


Except for the "recognised as a State by other States" definition (i.e. the one that matters).

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Mambrino » Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:51 am UTC

France invokes EU's article 42.7
The Guardian wrote:France has taken the European Union into uncharted territory by obliging the other 27 member states to come to its defence following the terrorist atrocities in Paris.

Invoking article 42.7, a never used clause of the EU treaty triggering mutual defence among the 28 member states, Paris admitted it was struggling to cope with its foreign military commitments while beefing up security at home in the wake of the attacks, and asked the rest of Europe to come to its assistance.
Paris attacks: Germany on alert after 'concrete' threat to attack Hanover stadium – as it happened
Follow our live coverage of the fallout from the Paris attacks, as France steps up airstrikes in Syria and some US states refuse to take Syrian refugees
Read more

The request was supported unanimously in what Jean-Yves Le Drian, the French defence minister, described as an emotional and highly charged meeting of EU defence ministers in Brussels.


Our politicians can barely hide their excitement that there's now suddenly precedent of member states taking the EU mutual defence clause seriously.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Thesh » Wed Nov 18, 2015 5:45 am UTC

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34853657

Heavy shooting has been heard in the northern Paris suburb of Saint Denis and reports say a police operation linked to last Friday's attacks is under way there.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Mambrino » Wed Nov 18, 2015 8:48 am UTC

Thesh wrote:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34853657

Heavy shooting has been heard in the northern Paris suburb of Saint Denis and reports say a police operation linked to last Friday's attacks is under way there.


BBC wrote:A woman blew herself up with a suicide belt, a prosecutor says. Some reports suggested two suspects died. Several explosions and gunfire were heard. The operation is said to be ongoing.

Five people have also been arrested.


Arrests! I suppose that's good news.

User avatar
Koa
Posts: 538
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:20 am UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Koa » Wed Nov 18, 2015 5:25 pm UTC

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).

Great point with the Westboro Baptist Church. If people criticize or disparage that group, the greater public doesn't take any issue with it. I would like the lines to be drawn in a similar way with Islam so that it can be isolated and criticized without inciting apologist arguments involving things like the greater Muslim population. I said in the beginning that it's not about all Muslims, they're people. It's fundamentalist Islam. Violent jihadists aren't necessarily a group, they're invisible people within the larger religion. They're generated from the faith from all corners of the Earth. It's a pipedream of asking for there to be a split in Islam such that the toxic ideology and propagators of these attacks would be made clearer and separate from peaceful Muslims.

It's generally the conflation between ISIS and people living their lives wanting to be left alone that bothers me. There are 1.5ish billion Muslims in the world. If they all wanted us dead, we'd probably be dead. It's frustrating that all so many Muslims have to go around being like 'We don't endorse this' when we take that for granted when Christians bomb abortion clinics because the Christians that bomb abortion clinics are apparently not terrorists.

Well thankfully I didn't conflate that. I'm asking for a method to avoid that conflation (perceived or not). I think it's equally frustrating that anyone criticizing Islam has to make concessions in combating a bigot strawman. If the peaceful Muslims want to be guiltless under these attacks they could adopt a new reformed identity. Maybe a denomination without hallal beheadings of infidels for starters. The greater Muslim population may have already lost that power though.

I'll also take an abortion clinic bombing over these brutal attacks any day. On top of that, at least they can be openly defamed for it without an army of apologists ala this synopsis.
Last edited by Koa on Wed Nov 18, 2015 5:40 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Chen » Wed Nov 18, 2015 5:39 pm UTC

Koa wrote:Great point with the Westboro Baptist Church. If people criticize or disparage that group, the greater public doesn't take any issue with it. I would like the lines to be drawn in a similar way with Islam so that it can be isolated and criticized without inciting apologist arguments involving things like the greater Muslim population. I said in the beginning that it's not about all Muslims, they're people. It's fundamentalist Islam. Violent jihadists aren't necessarily a group, they're invisible people within the larger religion. It's a pipedream of asking for there to be a split in Islam such that the toxic ideology and propagators of these attacks would be made clearer and separate from peaceful Muslims.


Uh isn't that basically what we do when we condemn groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda? There are already very convenient groups setup we can blame for terrorist actions. The terrorist groups. I mean I don't see people getting up in arms asking all local Catholics to immediately denouce the Westboro Baptist Church for their latest shenanigans. Why do we ask that every Muslim need immediately condemn ISIS attacks?

User avatar
Koa
Posts: 538
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:20 am UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Koa » Wed Nov 18, 2015 5:53 pm UTC

No condemnation of that sort is necessary, just reform to create a type of Islam that doesn't generate violent radicals. A new Quran with more of a focus on the shared humanist values of the modern peaceful Muslims. Deconvolute the ideology and the battlefield so that people can talk about it without alluding to the billions of the faith with every act or critique.

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Chen » Wed Nov 18, 2015 5:59 pm UTC

Koa wrote:No condemnation of that sort is necessary, just reform to create a type of Islam that doesn't generate violent radicals. A new Quran with more of a focus on the shared humanist values of the modern peaceful Muslims. Deconvolute the ideology and the battlefield so that people can talk about it without alluding to the billions of the faith with every act or critique.


That's like telling Christianity to make up a new Bible because the Westboro Baptist Church uses things from theirs to profess their hate. It seems more reasonable to simply condemn or blame or whatever word you want to use, those who are committing the various bad acts rather than trying to blame a larger group.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby leady » Wed Nov 18, 2015 6:14 pm UTC

30 nutters holding up offensive signs do not equate to 99% of global murderous terrorism originating from a single source. For Christ's sakes there are arguments on the "Not all" side, but this crappy equivocation is insane. But if you insist on this path, I await your follow up topic on why toddlers that bite a sibling should be hanged like murderers.

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Chen » Wed Nov 18, 2015 6:27 pm UTC

leady wrote:30 nutters holding up offensive signs do not equate to 99% of global murderous terrorism originating from a single source. For Christ's sakes there are arguments on the "Not all" side, but this crappy equivocation is insane. But if you insist on this path, I await your follow up topic on why toddlers that bite a sibling should be hanged like murderers.


These are analogies. They are not meant to be exactly equal. And the magnitude of the events is certainly not even correlated here. The point was don't blame a larger group for the acts of a few people in it. We don't in some cases, but we seem to love to in others.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4896
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby HES » Wed Nov 18, 2015 6:29 pm UTC

leady wrote:99% of global murderous terrorism originating from a single source.

You only arrive at this statistic because 99% of non-Muslim terrorists are instead branded as "mentally ill individuals"
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5944
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Angua » Wed Nov 18, 2015 6:34 pm UTC

Breivik was Christian and not Westboro, and had that as the basis for his attacks (wasn't a fan of the growing number of Muslims in Norway). There wasn't much of an outcry about that from the Christian point of view. You've got a lot of the Northern Ireland stuff (sure, some of that is political, but then again, so is a lot of the stuff with the Middle East and Western interference).

Sure, it's easy to sit back and blame Islam. However, a lot of it is probably tied up in the fact that a lot of the disputed areas and 'wars' (or, military actions or whatever you want to call them) are in areas with a high Muslim population, where it is the dominant basis of their culture, so of course they'll rally behind Islam for justification of what they're doing. In the West we have vocal politicians rally people behind 'God and country' and 'God, Apple pie and the American way' and say things like 'God is on our side'. Should we blame Christianity for every death carried out by a Christian soldier?

When something is dominant in your society, it's easy to point out the bizarre sects or the people taking it a bit too far.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 18, 2015 6:42 pm UTC

I thought Muslims made up half of terrorists, not 99%?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 18, 2015 6:56 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Koa wrote:Great point with the Westboro Baptist Church. If people criticize or disparage that group, the greater public doesn't take any issue with it. I would like the lines to be drawn in a similar way with Islam so that it can be isolated and criticized without inciting apologist arguments involving things like the greater Muslim population. I said in the beginning that it's not about all Muslims, they're people. It's fundamentalist Islam. Violent jihadists aren't necessarily a group, they're invisible people within the larger religion. It's a pipedream of asking for there to be a split in Islam such that the toxic ideology and propagators of these attacks would be made clearer and separate from peaceful Muslims.


Uh isn't that basically what we do when we condemn groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda? There are already very convenient groups setup we can blame for terrorist actions. The terrorist groups. I mean I don't see people getting up in arms asking all local Catholics to immediately denouce the Westboro Baptist Church for their latest shenanigans. Why do we ask that every Muslim need immediately condemn ISIS attacks?


I have totally called out Christianity for supporting, in a less extreme way, the same things that the Westboro folks take to excess. Gay hating, for instance. Yer average Christian may not have a "god hates fags" sign, but there is a pretty hard to ignore clustering of religious folks aimin' for gays to have less rights.

Same, same. Yes, there are no doubt exceptions, but as a whole, Christianity still has a lotta issues with LBGTs in general, and I'm pretty suspicious of any group that won't denounce violence against those folks, yes. Most will at least throw the westboro folks under the bus, even if they do feel a lesser version of that sentiment. Anyone who won't probably is someone to worry about.

Chen wrote:These are analogies. They are not meant to be exactly equal. And the magnitude of the events is certainly not even correlated here. The point was don't blame a larger group for the acts of a few people in it. We don't in some cases, but we seem to love to in others.


Blaming the religion is not quite the same as blaming the individuals.

I'm fully aware that not every christian hates gays. But Christianity, at large, statistically has an issue with them. It is utterly fair to call the religion out on that.

Likewise, it is entirely fair to call out Islam for being pretty shitty with violence, women's rights, and so on.

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Chen » Wed Nov 18, 2015 7:32 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Blaming the religion is not quite the same as blaming the individuals.

I'm fully aware that not every christian hates gays. But Christianity, at large, statistically has an issue with them. It is utterly fair to call the religion out on that.

Likewise, it is entirely fair to call out Islam for being pretty shitty with violence, women's rights, and so on.


The problem is the distinction between the religion itself and everyone who practices it is generally lost on people. I mean you see it when individual Muslims are accosted and told they are terrorists or that they should go back home and the like. The view you are espousing here is much more nuanced and one I could probably get behind. But the vast majority of people who are blaming Islam for something they are then going about blaming each individual Muslim for it as well.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 18, 2015 7:38 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Blaming the religion is not quite the same as blaming the individuals.

I'm fully aware that not every christian hates gays. But Christianity, at large, statistically has an issue with them. It is utterly fair to call the religion out on that.

Likewise, it is entirely fair to call out Islam for being pretty shitty with violence, women's rights, and so on.


The problem is the distinction between the religion itself and everyone who practices it is generally lost on people. I mean you see it when individual Muslims are accosted and told they are terrorists or that they should go back home and the like. The view you are espousing here is much more nuanced and one I could probably get behind. But the vast majority of people who are blaming Islam for something they are then going about blaming each individual Muslim for it as well.


See, I see it as the other way around. A whole ton of people blaming the religion, and fairly few confronting individuals. The confronters are a problem, to be sure, but most things describing Islam as a "religion of violence" or whatever do not explicitly label each individual follower as a terrorist or something. That's a leap made by those who argue against it.

Newt
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 2:33 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Newt » Wed Nov 18, 2015 8:00 pm UTC

HES wrote:
leady wrote:99% of global murderous terrorism originating from a single source.

You only arrive at this statistic because 99% of non-Muslim terrorists are instead branded as "mentally ill individuals"

Do you really view people like Seung-Hui Cho/James Holmes as equivalent to people generally called terrorists, who can tap into a broad, frequently global network of support and convince a number of other people to participate in their carnage? Timothy McVeigh and groups like the IRA or the weather underground were generally referred to as terrorists, not mentally ill.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 18, 2015 8:07 pm UTC

I see Islam as a "religion of conquering and administering conquered territory in such a way as to prevent revolts, then added to over the years to adjust to changing needs of the population, to the point where in practice it's almost unrecognizable from its original form, except for Salafis and Salafi Jihadis because fuck those backwards fuckers". Unlike Christianity, "religion for poor people to feel better about their lot in life, then radically altered as they helped conquer an empire, added to over the years to adapt to changing population needs, to the point where it's almost unrecognizable from its original form, except for no one not even the fundies".

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 18, 2015 8:07 pm UTC

Newt, you do realize that the resettlled Vietnamese have an active and violent movement in order to one day liberate communist Vietnam? It's outdated but the fringe elements haven't accepted the world as is and still plots violence to this day.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 18, 2015 8:47 pm UTC

Newt wrote:
HES wrote:
leady wrote:99% of global murderous terrorism originating from a single source.

You only arrive at this statistic because 99% of non-Muslim terrorists are instead branded as "mentally ill individuals"

Do you really view people like Seung-Hui Cho/James Holmes as equivalent to people generally called terrorists, who can tap into a broad, frequently global network of support and convince a number of other people to participate in their carnage? Timothy McVeigh and groups like the IRA or the weather underground were generally referred to as terrorists, not mentally ill.


Well since we're talking about American Terrorists instead of France, I'll continue the trend.

Right-Wing militant extremism is at least as dangerous as radical Muslims.

https://publicintelligence.net/fbi-mili ... g-muslims/

Militia extremists in Mississippi discussed kidnapping and beheading a Muslim and posting video of the attack to the Internet.


Yes, the FBI has a duty to protect US Muslims, and the FBI is citing explicitly that Right-Wing extremists are currently planning attacks on US Mosques and so forth. Remember what the last major "Terrorist" attack was in the US:

Image

Left-Wing extremists exist, but the FBI seems to think that right-wing extremism is the bigger threat right now. Yes, in all cases, the extremist branches of US terrorists tap into a global network of support and funding. Muslims are not the only threat, and fortunately the FBI is publicly noting that they're keeping tabs on all the threats.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/ ... -security/

---------------

Now I don't really know what the threat is like in Europe (or more specifically: France, which this topic is purportedly about). I'm seeing some news articles discuss the Syrian immigration issue / crisis.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 18, 2015 8:50 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Well since we're talking about American Terrorists instead of France, I'll continue the trend.

Right-Wing militant extremism is at least as dangerous as radical Muslims.


Bullshit. They don't manage to pull off major, coordinated attacks of this magnitude.

They are dangerous, sure. They are not AS dangerous.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 18, 2015 8:54 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Well since we're talking about American Terrorists instead of France, I'll continue the trend.

Right-Wing militant extremism is at least as dangerous as radical Muslims.


Bullshit. They don't manage to pull off major, coordinated attacks of this magnitude.

They are dangerous, sure. They are not AS dangerous.


In the US, the number of deaths by Right-Wing extremists has eclipse those of Muslim Extremists.

Image

France isn't the US, so maybe things aren't quite the same. There is a land-route that exists between France and Syria, which quite possibly contributed to the number of attackers. The investigation is still ongoing however. I know that we stand together on France in the wake of this tragedy, but its also important to remember that the Atlantic Ocean separates our two countries, and the threats faced in France don't necessarily correlate to the threats to our homeland.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Nov 18, 2015 8:56 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 18, 2015 8:56 pm UTC

The elephant in the room, of course, is leaving out 9-11.

I'm sure that France, you could also get somewhat similar attacks if you leave out this one...

But the really, really big body count attacks do matter. They do comprise a valid danger. If you include them, non-jihadist terrorists are a minor factor.

Also note that you are not comparing christians vs muslims. You are comparing EVERYONE else vs jihadists. When you compare against the population, goddamn, does that mean that Islam is outrepresented in terrorist deaths within the population. Even ignoring 9-11.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Dauric » Wed Nov 18, 2015 9:09 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Well since we're talking about American Terrorists instead of France, I'll continue the trend.

Right-Wing militant extremism is at least as dangerous as radical Muslims.


Bullshit. They don't manage to pull off major, coordinated attacks of this magnitude.

They are dangerous, sure. They are not AS dangerous.


ISIS is also maintaining combat in relatively open warfare on at least two fronts in Syria and Iraq, in addition to large coordinated acts of terrorism outside of their primary theater. It does put a difference of orders of magnitude from U.S. terrorists, and orders of magnitude of orders of magnitude from Westboro who aren't even terrorists, they're just noisy asshats.

The problem with ISIS is that despite being a minority motivated to some degree or another by one interpretation or another of Islam, they have an impact that outstrips the majority who would just like to live their lives. U.S. terrorists, of either wing, don't have an impact that overshadows the majority of either end of the political spectrum. WBC doesn't even rate a blip on the news media these days.

I think the closest you could get by way of "Western" analogy would be the Irish Republican Army at it's height.
Last edited by Dauric on Wed Nov 18, 2015 9:12 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby leady » Wed Nov 18, 2015 9:12 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Also note that you are not comparing christians vs muslims. You are comparing EVERYONE else vs jihadists. When you compare against the population, goddamn, does that mean that Islam is outrepresented in terrorist deaths within the population. Even ignoring 9-11.


Yes even removing 911 the 1% of the US population that is muslim has committed 50% of murders that even the most err "positive" sources can try to allocate due to extremism.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 18, 2015 9:14 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:I think the closest you could get by way of "Western" analogy would be the Irish Republican Army at it's height.


That's probably a decent analogy. As close as can be made, yeah.

And at the time, there were indeed pretty widespread tensions in the area as a result. Ya, everyone knows that *most* people aren't going to kill you. But...it only takes one.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Lazar » Wed Nov 18, 2015 9:37 pm UTC

Exit the vampires' castle.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 18, 2015 9:45 pm UTC

Perhaps solidifying the discussion on "deaths" is putting things closer to ISIS's hands, because they are extremists who explicitly seek to kill and maim as many people as possible.

By rough estimates, only approximately 3% of Right-wing extremists actually wish to cause "mass casualties". True, right-wing militant extremists are more about "lesser" crimes, like property damage, intimidation and the like. And furthermore, when right-wing extremists aim to kill, its usually only against a single target. But there are far more right-wing extremist attacks in the US than there are Muslim extremist attacks.

The overwhelming majority of Muslim attacks do seem to "go for mass casualties", unlike Right-Wing extremists. So I'll give you that much. Nonetheless, there are far more right-wing extremists than Muslim extremists in America. And overall, the casualties since 9/11 still lean towards right-wing extremist groups.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 18, 2015 9:53 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:The overwhelming majority of Muslim attacks do seem to "go for mass casualties", unlike Right-Wing extremists. So I'll give you that much. Nonetheless, there are far more right-wing extremists than Muslim extremists in America. And overall, the casualties since 9/11 still lean towards right-wing extremist groups.


You're missing the issue here.

First off, categorizing all non-jihadists as "right wing extremists" is...wildly strange, and bordering on intellectually dishonest.

Secondly, the fact that the Muslim extremists, despite their small numbers, rack up huge body counts due to disproportionate embrace of causing mass casualties is....exactly the point. That's your problem right there.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 18, 2015 10:03 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:The overwhelming majority of Muslim attacks do seem to "go for mass casualties", unlike Right-Wing extremists. So I'll give you that much. Nonetheless, there are far more right-wing extremists than Muslim extremists in America. And overall, the casualties since 9/11 still lean towards right-wing extremist groups.


You're missing the issue here.

First off, categorizing all non-jihadists as "right wing extremists" is...wildly strange, and bordering on intellectually dishonest.


Aside from the "Mother Jones" article, all the statistics I've been posting are right-wing extremists numbers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opini ... hreat.html

In a survey we conducted with the Police Executive Research Forum last year of 382 law enforcement agencies, 74 percent reported anti-government extremism as one of the top three terrorist threats in their jurisdiction; 39 percent listed extremism connected with Al Qaeda or like-minded terrorist organizations. And only 3 percent identified the threat from Muslim extremists as severe, compared with 7 percent for anti-government and other forms of extremism.


I do realize this is a 2014 poll and maybe ISIS wasn't quite as popular last year as it is this year. Nonetheless, the number of cop killings and other violent outbursts by neo-nazis and anti-government extremists is on the rise in America.

----

Secondly, the fact that the Muslim extremists, despite their small numbers, rack up huge body counts due to disproportionate embrace of causing mass casualties is....exactly the point. That's your problem right there.


Perhaps. But from another perspective, which is number of attacks... Right Wing extremists have been shown to have some 300+ attacks in the past 10 years. Muslim Extremists have far fewer attacks (though large casualties in each one). And when added up all together, right wing extremists have killed more people nonetheless.

Despite public anxiety about extremists inspired by Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, the number of violent plots by such individuals has remained very low. Since 9/11, an average of nine American Muslims per year have been involved in an average of six terrorism-related plots against targets in the United States. Most were disrupted, but the 20 plots that were carried out accounted for 50 fatalities over the past 13 and a half years.

In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities, according to a study by Arie Perliger, a professor at the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center. The toll has increased since the study was released in 2012.


And note, these numbers in this article are explicitly counting only right-wing extremist attacks.

The numbers match my claims. Right-wing extremists do more attacks and have killed more people. Due to the nature of Right-Wing attackers however, fewer people get killed per attack. But add them all up, and they are still numerically a bigger threat to Americans.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby Dauric » Wed Nov 18, 2015 10:22 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Secondly, the fact that the Muslim extremists, despite their small numbers, rack up huge body counts due to disproportionate embrace of causing mass casualties is....exactly the point. That's your problem right there.


This goes to what I was saying about disproportionate impact. U.S. terrorists that go for property damage rather than body count do it because they know they get less support from people inclined to support them if they rack up a body count. Add to that majority support will go to government officials looking to stop a group that is killing (near) indiscriminately, and big body-count tactics work against U.S. terrorist aims. U.S. terrorists typically don't engage in operations outside U.S. borders, frequently any one group won't operate outside a fairly limited subregion of the U.S.

The jihadists are not only going for body count in attacks that include other Muslims, but they're supporting a force large enough to take and hold territory on multiple fronts despite significant casualties, and this is all inside the same territory they're based in. U.S. terrorists don't have the U.S. armed forces in retreat across large swaths of territory. Jihadists also don't restrict their operations to their own region, but engage in operations well outside their base of origin.

To put it another way: How many U.S. terrorists have bombed Spain lately? Comparing incidents of terrorism within the U.S., body-count or otherwise, between U.S. terrorists and Jihadists doesn't really paint a useful picture. Comparing U.S. incidents of U.S. terrorist actions against incidents of terrorism in the Middle East caused by Jihadists has more fundamental similarities like distance required to travel and move supplies, borders crossed, etc.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby leady » Wed Nov 18, 2015 10:37 pm UTC

I've seen some shite biased social science in my time, but that study you are getting your stats from is pretty impressive.

Any how, anyone who equates "far right" terrorist incidents with an average of what appears to be about 0.1 casualties per event (hardly surprising when over a third of these "terrorist incidents" are vandalism) with actual mass murderous reality of islamic terrorism is losing their grip on reality.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 18, 2015 11:25 pm UTC

To put it another way: How many U.S. terrorists have bombed Spain lately? Comparing incidents of terrorism within the U.S., body-count or otherwise, between U.S. terrorists and Jihadists doesn't really paint a useful picture. Comparing U.S. incidents of U.S. terrorist actions against incidents of terrorism in the Middle East caused by Jihadists has more fundamental similarities like distance required to travel and move supplies, borders crossed, etc.


But in all cases of US terrorists, they were homegrown. IE: The Boston Marathon Bombers were American lone wolves, for all practical purposes. In this specific Paris attack however... it is safe to say that Abdelhamid Abaaoud was involved in organizing the attack. (He is rumored to have died in that Police Raid earlier with the female suicide bomber). This is a clear ISIS connection, so ISIS has demonstrated an ability to reach out of their country and actually attack France. I'll grant you guys that fact.

It should also be noted that a lot of the ISIS / Iraq side of things are Baathists who are simply aligned with ISIS.

------

But as far as the threat to America goes, the unique factor of European Countries is the direct land route between Europe and... ISIS. Many of these fighters are European citizens who had gone to Syria to fight, and have returned home. And of course, the path to extremism is far stronger when you go to ISIS's territory itself.

Image

It is important to remember that countries like France and Belgium are going to have a stronger connection to ISIS, because these countries (for some reason) have the highest number of fighters flying to Syria.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Nov 19, 2015 3:40 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
To put it another way: How many U.S. terrorists have bombed Spain lately? Comparing incidents of terrorism within the U.S., body-count or otherwise, between U.S. terrorists and Jihadists doesn't really paint a useful picture. Comparing U.S. incidents of U.S. terrorist actions against incidents of terrorism in the Middle East caused by Jihadists has more fundamental similarities like distance required to travel and move supplies, borders crossed, etc.


But in all cases of US terrorists, they were homegrown. IE: The Boston Marathon Bombers were American lone wolves, for all practical purposes.


And the BM bombers did it in the name of what ideology again?

The main difference between people like Breivik (or however its spelled) and the Boston Marathon bombers is that you don't have major organizations/countries with any credible possibility of "victory" supporting Breivik. He and all the skinheads of the world currently make up a rat fart in the grand scheme of things. Islamic terrorists? Combined, they could win. ISIS makes up just a tiny percent of all the Jihadis of the world, and in spite of nearly everyone claiming to oppose them, they've managed to conquer their very own country and hold it for a year. Not a particularly big country, mind you (I don't include worthless desert, otherwise I am God-Emperor of Antarctica), but a country nonetheless. Now imagine if the Sunni and Shia terrorists put aside their differences, imagine if all the various competing terrorists stopped the petty bickering, imagine if they stopped bothering about the "near enemy" (Egyptian and Saudi Governments) and imagine if they ALL unified together to take on just ONE Western country. Not the governments, not the countries, just the Jihadis (operating from the protection of the countries of course). Short of turning to isolationism, that country would be fucked, wouldn't it? And if that country then turns isolationist, if that country backs down from any fight against the Jihadis, the Jihadis could then bully the next country, and the next, until there are none left.

And ISIS is just the result of a tiny fraction of Jihadis unifying.

That's what makes the Jihadis so scary. If they stopped the infighting, they could win.

I don't give a flying dong about #NotAllMuslims. #YesAllWesterners. Want to assuage my fears? It's not going to come from the moderate Muslims; it's going to come from the Muslim countries themselves. I'm not addressing this to the muslims in general, but the countries. Stop letting the Jihadis have free reign in your country; terrorism is a problem best dealt with by police, actually nab the guys rather than forcing the US to use drone strikes, which only fuck things up more and probably create more terrorists than they kill. I'm looking at YOU, Pakistan; do the fucking job you promised you would do with the $Billions we gave you. Catch the terrorists, and rather than give empty condolences every time a bombing occurs, actually show that you are on "our side" of sorts by demonstrating that your countries will never give any support to murderers. I know I know, free speech, but stop funding the anti-Western rallies and organizing flag-burning days. Stop encouraging people to chant "death to [insert country here]". If we could see that the terrorists were just a few nutters with no significant backing from anyone important, we could rest easy. But until then, you aren't doing Muslims any favors.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Over 100 dead in shooting, bombing in Paris

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Nov 19, 2015 6:19 am UTC

Now imagine if the Sunni and Shia terrorists put aside their differences


At this point, you've entered complete fantasy and you know it.

and in spite of nearly everyone claiming to oppose them, they've managed to conquer their very own country and hold it for a year.


I'm fairly certain that if the US dedicated an assload of troops again, that we would reconquer Iraq city-by-city and wipe out ISIS (at least in Iraq. Syria has the whole proxy-war issue vs Russia, so we probably won't touch Syria). But no one in the US seems to want to put forward the money or resources to rebuild Iraq into a self-sustainable place. Unless we spend another few trillion dollars there so that a long-lasting government can sit there and provide security for the region, a new group will rise up from the ashes and ruin everything. Besides, all that attacking Iraq did before was piss them off and seem to blame the US for even more troubles. I doubt another major military campaign would improve our relationship with the Iraqis.

The main problem is that Iraq's government is weak, and that it toppled over on its own weight. The Baathists in northern Iraq joined up with ISIS the first chance they got, and then a small force of 1,500 ISIS caused a force of ~30,000 Iraqi Security Forces to retreat from Mosul. What do you want us to do? Recapture Mosul for the Iraqis again, bleeding US troops again only to have the Iraqis lose it (AND the equipment we gave them) to some future punks again when they outnumber them at 20-to-1 odds?

Ramadi was reportedly even worse. ISIS's "Army" consisted of less than 1000 men in most reports... I've seen some reports go as low as 150... against a garrison of 6,000 Iraqi Security Force. 40-to-1 odds and they ran away. ISIS allegedly had the support of the people, and ISF did not want to challenge that in either the battle of Ramadi nor the battle of Mosul. So the problem is why the fuck were the people of Ramadi and Mosul supportive of ISIS? This is a political issue. It doesn't matter if we win militarily, if the local population doesn't want our help, there's no damn point in the US wasting more blood on the effort. The other issue is how absolutely awful the Iraqi army was... and still is. And obviously, the alleged numbers of ISF forces are all suspect as all hell due to corruption in the Iraqi government.

So what? Are we supposed to just conquer the land of ISIS and put it under US control? Go full tilt imperialism here? I don't think that's considered ethical anymore. And the alternative choices are: conquer and give the land to Iraq (lol), or conquer and give the land to Assad / Syria (lol as well). ISIS is simply taking advantage of two failed states. No one wants to own the land aside from ISIS, so they can rule it by default. Until we can find a reliable partner who actually wants that land, I think our hands are tied.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 20 guests