# Paris shooting/explosion



## Luke Scicluna

Paris attacks: France declares state of emergency after dozens killed

My thoughts and solidarity are with all the French people on the forums, especially the Parisians.


----------



## RustInPeace




----------



## lemeker

Terrible terrible thing. Thoughts and prayers go out to the French.


----------



## Zado

Europe is getting the worst sh!t seen in a long while. So sorry for France and its citizens...I fear it's far from being the end


----------



## Luke Scicluna

Someone has set the refugee camp in Calais on fire... as if those poor refugees have anything to do with organised terrorism


----------



## Zado

About 130 dead people


----------



## skeels

This is just heartbreaking.


----------



## The Reverend

I came home from work and saw that Facebook was swamped in thoughts and prayers for the people in Paris. I have family in Paris, as well as a few friends, and I haven't been able to get in touch with them. I hope they're okay.


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Luke Scicluna said:


> Someone has set the refugee camp in Calais on fire... as if those poor refugees have anything to do with organised terrorism



This is really going to make me worry about the refugees. From what I've read, this an ISIS attack, but everyone is still going to pin this on the refugees.

...., I already see people doing that.


----------



## Luke Scicluna

HeHasTheJazzHands said:


> This is really going to make me worry about the refugees. From what I've read, this an ISIS attack, but everyone is still going to pin this on the refugees.
> 
> ...., I already see people doing that.



The two theories doing the rounds on Twitter is that a.) this is retaliation for the attacks on ISIS positions in Syria (this leaked from the French Govt) and b.) this is a way for ISIS to get Europe to close its borders to refugees who are escaping them

It's probably a bit of both


----------



## Luke Scicluna

https://twitter.com/syndicalisms/status/665326649806880769

Goddamn it


----------



## SpaceDock

So sick of terrorism


----------



## jonajon91

Here's the best Live feed I can find to keep up to date with everything.

https://www.reddit.com/live/vwwnkuplwr9y

Absolutely awful what is happening today.


----------



## Church2224

Last I saw was over 140 dead in Paris. 

Stay strong, our French comrades, you have our support and are in our thoughts and prayers.


----------



## jonajon91

Think reddit is actually down now. Last I heard there were over 100 dead in the club following the raid including three Terrorists. This is on top of the 60 elsewhere. 1500 French soldiers released to help in the streets of Paris.

---edit---

First thread closed. This one is more active
https://www.reddit.com/live/vwwmdb26t78v


----------



## Low Baller

My deepest thoughts and prayers go out to the French people and innocent refugees just trying to find safety and live life. Absolutely heart breaking, try and stay strong France. To all of our French community members if there's anyway we can help in any form please let us know.


----------



## Nag

[EDIT : sorry for posting this. Not gonna edit it cause someone else quoted the original message anyway]

I'm not exactly in a good mental state right now but as someone who lives in France, I want to say something.

CAN WE JUST BOMB THEM ALL DEAD ALREADY ? We're not safe in our own country anymore. It's about time we stop being victims and we just erase them and their ideology from the surface of the planet. How about we show them what it's like to get killed by the dozens just like that, what it's like when you're not even safe in your homeland anymore ? What it's like when someone doesn't consider you deserve the right to live ?

Jeez I'm a patient and pacific guy but I honestly wish we just bomb their entire Islamic State to dust until nothing's left. I'm sick of them.


----------



## MFB

Nagash said:


> I'm not exactly in a good mental state right now but as someone who lives in France, I want to say something.
> 
> CAN WE JUST BOMB THEM ALL DEAD ALREADY ? We're not safe in our own country anymore. It's about time we stop being victims and we just erase them and their ideology from the surface of the planet. How about we show them what it's like to get killed by the dozens just like that, what it's like when you're not even safe in your homeland anymore ? What it's like when someone doesn't consider you deserve the right to live ?
> 
> Jeez I'm a patient and pacific guy but I honestly wish we just bomb their entire Islamic State to dust until nothing's left. I'm sick of them.



I get that you're angry and all that stuff, but this is the wrong kind of thinking for right now and all you're going to do is get yourself banned


----------



## Bearitone

Religion ....s EVERYTHING. All this because of some fvcking religion. 

Young people executed one by one in the venue (thats what the news says)
Disgusting


----------



## Nag

MFB said:


> I get that you're angry and all that stuff, but this is the wrong kind of thinking for right now and all you're going to do is get yourself banned




You're right. I hope I won't get banned. I'm angry and I'm scared.

But seriously. These people are religious extremists with no respect for life. One of them has been caught saying "this is the fault of your President, he has no business in Syria". Well, they didn't kill our President (nor should they), they killed over a hundred innocent people. I don't want to be scared of them. I don't want someone I love to be the next victim of their fanatic crusades against us.

All I'm seeing is attacks like this happening over and over again, slowly reaching the death count of 9/11. Same horror, different name. That's why I posted such an awful message above. I'm just so tired of this.


----------



## jonajon91

If you think about the amount of immigrants that are traveling through Europe then think about the amount of people it takes to pull something like this off and the the amount of those people that go through with it. The percentage is just so mind bendingly minuscule. Bombing kills everyone, people like you and me that just want to live life out. Think about all the school shootings in America, it's almost always a white teen with social/mental problems, but we can't just bomb suburbia America.
Surely the correct way to respond to hate is not with more hate.


----------



## Nag

jonajon91 said:


> If you think about the amount of immigrants that are traveling through Europe then think about the amount of people it takes to pull something like this off and the the amount of those people that go through with it. The percentage is just so mind bendingly minuscule. Bombing kills everyone, people like you and me that just want to live life out. Think about all the school shootings in America, it's almost always a white teen with social/mental problems, but we can't just bomb suburbia America.
> Surely the correct way to respond to hate is not with more hate.




A school shooting is one kid who gets out of control. It's tragic enough but this isn't the same. This is a whole organization of people who do this on purpose, not because they just snapped or something.


----------



## Church2224

If any military action occurs, which most likely will at this point, it will be more strategic and surgical instead of all out total war where entire nations are leveled to the ground. Special Operators, drone and air strikes, ect. Something needs to be done to end a threat such as this, but not at such a cost. 

I highly doubt that there will be anything like a massive military invasion with divisions of troops, armor, aircraft and fleets of ships in a war of attrition where half of the Middle East is leveled in carpet bombings and divisions of tanks and armor are all over. No one wants that. That will only happen if we see something even more tragic happens. 

And do not say "Screw Religion" and "Religion is evil." I am a Christian man and know people who are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Hindu and are not on the same level of evil these people. These are some fanatics who are spreading their radical ideology through war and fear. Do not group good people in with them.


----------



## celticelk

You can't bomb an ideology into nonexistence. All you accomplish is to make martyrs and radicalize sympathizers. It's been three-quarters of a century since WWII, and we *still* have neo-Nazis. I don't have any good suggestions for how to deal with weaponized fundamentalism, but I'm positive that retributive violence is not going to do it.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

My heart breaks and my thoughts are with all of you ( SSO members and everyone else) whom have been affected by this sickening act.


----------



## Preciousyetvicious

My heart breaks and I'm worried about my brother. His honeymoon was supposed to be in Paris and I don't know if he's still there or back in Germany where he lives. I left him a couple of messages for him to let me know he's okay, and it's 2 am over there right now, so I want to think he probably is alright...nevertheless, it's very very saddening and easily can make one hate the world.


----------



## Dusty Chalk

Anger against the terrorists...solidarity with the French...horrible business.


----------



## mbardu

F*ck everything about this. 

I'm French and I know bataclan very well. 
It's a very nice concert venue. 
Been there numerous times including for Metallica's night in Paris around 2002.

A tiny place with little in the way of emergency exits. 

Must have been absolutely horror   
The bastards. How can you do that to a bunch of innocent folks just there to have a good time. 

At least their plan at the Stade de France failed. 
F*ck everything about this. Heartless stupid f*cking cowards.


----------



## Alex Kenivel




----------



## Explorer

Remembering working on the aftermath of a different attack, my stupid first gratitude was that no plane was used.

Regarding dangerous religious and political ideologies, this is why I get nervous when it's considered acceptable for presidential candidates to go visit with potential domestic terrorists and terrorist sympathizers who want US citizens killed for violating the terror allies' religious beliefs.

Paris, and everyone else, I'm sorry this kind of terrorist exists, both there and in my home country.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

It's times like this that I think it's particularly unfortunate that the US has used up any and all international goodwill/patience with our recent past war efforts. I'm not saying we need a huge war or large-scale invasion or whatever, but military action of some sort wouldn't be misplaced at this point. Certainly more needs to be done about ISIS in Iraq and Syria, at least.

Unfortunately, we've thrown our weight around so much over the last two presidential administration that we have to p_u_ssyfoot around every situation or risk further international condemnation. So now, at a time when we're facing another tragedy, all we can do is post pithy pictures of the Eiffel tower on our facebook feeds and cluck our tongues about how much of a horror it all is, but we won't actually do anything. It'll be just like Hebdo: in a few months, everyone outside of France will have forgotten about it, and will go on with our lives as normal until the next tragedy, so we can all get on facebook again and post pictures to make us feel better about ourselves.

Ugh. People suck. I think I need to read my SSO siggie a few times today, just for good measure.


----------



## flint757

I have no doubt if ISIS is involved that the intent of this is to convince Europe to stop helping refugees fleeing ISIS from their homeland. The sad part is it will likely work based on the general attitudes I'm reading online. 

If that happens we've implicitly let the terrorists win (control through fear).


----------



## WolleK

Absolutely horror and solidarity with france and the frensh people.


----------



## Blytheryn

Thoughts and prayers to those in Paris. I've got relatives and friends there right now, who luckily are safe, but my heart aches for those who were killed/injured. My first reaction was of shock and then of anger... Just so sad.


----------



## OmegaSlayer

I honesty always thought that chocoloate and mayonnaise don't mix well.
Some like it, but generally it makes people puke, especially if you force it down their throat.
I also think that it's a big mistake to try to solve other's Countries destinies.
United States, France and many other Countries had their "Civil Wars", there were no interferences and they come out as better places.
These dudes have to solve their problems by themselves.
Integration, like Communism, is a failure, we must start to accept it.
There's nothing wrong about a concept being wrong except being stubborn and try to apply it to the point of self destruction.

My heart is with the relatives of the victims.


----------



## flint757

^^^

There was plenty of outside 'interference' in both of those nations civil wars/revolutions.


----------



## OmegaSlayer

flint757 said:


> ^^^
> 
> There was plenty of outside 'interference' in both of those nations civil wars/revolutions.



Still minimal compared to today, when you take heavy aircarriers and go to bomb the enemy of the faction you pick up to side with.


----------



## Bearitone

Church2224 said:


> And do not say "Screw Religion" and "Religion is evil." I am a Christian man and know people who are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and Hindu and are not on the same level of evil these people. These are some fanatics who are spreading their radical ideology through war and fear. Do not group good people in with them.



Screw religion. Religion is, along with money, the root of all evil. Which by the way churches get a$$loads of guilt-trip money from church goers tax free every year. I'm not grouping anyone, with anyone. I'm saying Religion itself is horrible. 

And don't try to tell anyone what they can or can't say. You just come off as psycho on power trip

"While I do respect your right to believe what you choose, I am under no obligation to respect what you believe" -Glenn Fricker


----------



## Ebart

Race/religion/etc aside - Any person or group that thinks that killing other innocent people is OK deserves to die. Period.


----------



## Sumsar

Grand Moff Tim said:


> It's times like this that I think it's particularly unfortunate that the US has used up any and all international goodwill/patience with our recent past war efforts. I'm not saying we need a huge war or large-scale invasion or whatever, but military action of some sort wouldn't be misplaced at this point. Certainly more needs to be done about ISIS in Iraq and Syria, at least.



So what kind of military action do you suggest? We (western countries) have spend the last 10 - 15 years killing several hundreds of thousands of people in irak, syria and afghanistan, and really notting good have come from that: We created the foundation of ISIS and made several million people flee the region (of which a small part is comming to europe). So yeah, lets not do that again.


----------



## chopeth




----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Sumsar said:


> So what kind of military action do you suggest? We (western countries) have spend the last 10 - 15 years killing several hundreds of thousands of people in irak, syria and afghanistan, and really notting good have come from that: We created the foundation of ISIS and made several million people flee the region (of which a small part is comming to europe). So yeah, lets not do that again.



Yeah, let's ignore it instead. Maybe the problem will go away on its own.

Leading up to World War 2, should we just have looked back at World War 1 and said "We spent years killing millions of people all across Europe. We created the foundation of the National Socialists. Let's not do that again." and dismissed the possibility of military intervention?

Let me flip that around on you: What _non_-military solution to you suggest? How do you propose the world deals with ISIS? Ignore them and wait it out? Try to use diplomacy and reason with them? Or do you think nothing really needs to be done?

ISIS are sh!theads with a capital S. I really don't think they can be reasoned with. They obviously have no concern for the desires or needs of anyone but themselves. What could anyone say to convince them to stop being horrible human beings? What could we threaten them with in order to change their behavior if not military internvention? It's not like we can just enact sanctions on them and wait for them to come crawling with their tails between their legs. They don't come across their materials lawfully in the first place.

I understand the Middle East is a sh!tshow, and the West had a huge hand in that. However, I don't really see why that should stop us from doing what's necessary to stop these people as best we can. Until someone suggests something else, I still think military action is the best we can do.

And no, I'm not an expert military analyst or tactician, so I can't suggest a plan for military action for you. If I could do that, I wouldn't be on a guitar forum blabbering impotently about problems far above my abilities to solve. I'd be working for the people whose job it is to actually do something about these tragedies.


----------



## Nag

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Yeah, let's ignore it instead. Maybe the problem will go away on its own.



It worked so well with Charlie Hebdo after all.


----------



## Sumsar

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Let me flip that around on you: What _non_-military solution to you suggest? How do you propose the world deals with ISIS? Ignore them and wait it out? Try to use diplomacy and reason with them? Or do you think nothing really needs to be done?



"Try to use diplomacy and reason with them?" Well as far as I know we haven't tried that option, so might be a good place to start. Yes it is probably not gonna succeed that way, but there is nothing to loose.

All I am saying is that we should try to deal with them without f$cking up. 4 or 5 years ago we were giving weapons to the people that are now ISIS, so that they could fight Assad in Syria, yesterday they attacked lots of innocent people in Paris. It is kinda the Al-Qaeda story all over again.

And we spent the last 15 years doing military interventions againts them, and sure we have killed alot of them and killed osama bin laden, yet they still exist, so in the end we haven't really achieved much have we?


----------



## OmegaSlayer

What we call "WAR" today is a joke.
War is extermination, no mercy and inducting fear for centuries.
If we don't have the guts to do real war, better to stay at home and wait to die because we are weak.
We want to speak, but we are the weaks and the strong have no need to talk with the weaks, because they can use brute force to get their results and not give a damn.


----------



## narad

You can't do "real war" with an ideology. It's not a matter of courage/strength, it's just an inherently flawed concept.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Sumsar said:


> "Try to use diplomacy and reason with them?" Well as far as I know we haven't tried that option, so might be a good place to start. Yes it is probably not gonna succeed that way, but there is nothing to loose.



I really, _really_ don't think diplomacy will ever work here. I won't say it's impossible or that we shouldn't try it, but I couldn't be any more skeptical.

I almost have to assume if world governments thought we could just sit down and talk things out with them, we'd have done it already. I just don't really think they same people who sell captured women into sex slavery and cut off people's heads for having different beliefs are going to be the type of people to listen to reason and diplomacy. I'll be thrilled if I'm wrong, but I'd bet money I'm not.

At any rate, there's no reason to assume that being pro military action in this situation precludes someone from being pro diplomacy, too. Have at it, politicians and diplomats. If and when that fails, though, you'll know where to turn.



Sumsar said:


> All I am saying is that we should try to deal with them without f$cking up. 4 or 5 years ago we were giving weapons to the people that are now ISIS, so that they could fight Assad in Syria, yesterday they attacked lots of innocent people in Paris. It is kinda the Al-Qaeda story all over again.
> 
> And we spent the last 15 years doing military interventions againts them, and sure we have killed alot of them and killed osama bin laden, yet they still exist, so in the end we haven't really achieved much have we?




What's your point? We fought the Korean war, and Korea's still divided. In the end we didn't accomplish much, did we? Guess we shouldn't have bothered. 

Just because efforts didn't end with the desired outcome doesn't mean nothing should've been attempted. Better to have tried and failed, etc etc.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

narad said:


> You can't do "real war" with an ideology. It's not a matter of courage/strength, it's just an inherently flawed concept.



No, but you can 'do "real war"' with people who are capturing cities, murdering innocents, and training terrorists. That's what the Kurds and the Iraqi military have already been doing.

WW2 didn't eliminate national socialist ideology from the face of the earth, but there sure are a lot fewer panzer divisions and stormtroopers going around killing innocent people.

EDIT:

And for what it's worth, you can't reason with an ideology, either.


----------



## Nag

Today, my dad said "europeans have treated arabs like crap for over a century, can't blame them for trying to retaliate for over a century"

...

I can agree with that, however I hoped that mankind was better than that and that even the worst people could say at some point that spilling even more blood won't make anything better for anyone.


----------



## Audacis

Nagash said:


> Today, my dad said "europeans have treated arabs like crap for over a century, can't blame them for trying to retaliate for over a century"
> 
> ...
> 
> I can agree with that, however I hoped that mankind was better than that and that even the worst people could say at some point that spilling even more blood won't make anything better for anyone.




The situation in the middle-east is mostly down to government corruption and religious extremist power-trips. The vast majority of those who come from Syria etc. just want to live a normal, happy, healthy life with their families, just like anyone else.

The spilling of blood over such issues is inevitable as long as there's at least one asshole who wants more power for his or her self. The best we can do is defend those who only want peace, and to stand up to those who want us to feel fear. Terrorism is called terrorism for a reason, and if we don't give in to terror, they can never truly win.

Sure, France may step up their retaliation as a result of all of this, but I'm not sure if they have many options on how to deal with this right now. We'll see how this plays out, I guess.

I've been feeling pretty sick about this since I heard the news yesterday. Wasn't sure what to do with myself, but now that I've slept, I'm going to just remember those who lost their lives and just hope that those responsible are brought to justice. Preferably not with lethal force, as some arrests should hopefully lead to some answers. My thoughts are with the families of those who lost their loved ones last night, and with those still recovering.


----------



## narad

Grand Moff Tim said:


> No, but you can 'do "real war"' with people who are capturing cities, murdering innocents, and training terrorists. That's what the Kurds and the Iraqi military have already been doing.
> 
> WW2 didn't eliminate national socialist ideology from the face of the earth, but there sure are a lot fewer panzer divisions and stormtroopers going around killing innocent people.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> And for what it's worth, you can't reason with an ideology, either.



That's not what I mean. When these groups are all operating in a very decentralized manner, not tied to a single nation, and intermingled with the general population of the areas they occupy, then they're not easy to target in a "real war" sense. When eight people can show up essentially out of nowhere and cause this much damage, your traditional "real war" strategies aren't going to cut it. You can't just "bomb the .... out of them".


----------



## Nag

There MUST be a way to make these groups unable to harm. They infiltrated us somehow, so there has to be a way to trace the information backwards and to find all the people who work in these organizations. It's all a matter of not giving up.


----------



## OmegaSlayer

Nagash said:


> Today, my dad said "europeans have treated arabs like crap for over a century, can't blame them for trying to retaliate for over a century"



Who sowns winds reaps storms.
I don't deny our Western cultured politicians did crap in dealing with the rest of the world.
Still this madness is way too much, and most of all, totally vile.
Every illegal in our Countries, every one that doesn't want to accept our life style, has to leave our Countries and go back where they kill and rape their wives and their children.
I think accepting what we offer is anyway a good trade-off.


----------



## A-Branger

Like many others my heart is with those close to the families in France. Its an awful and coward thing to do. No-one deserves to die due to someone's else ideologies and believes.


I know religion and fanatics are two way different things (even when one came from the other). But I cant stop thinking on the irony that it is ppl saying and sharing "PRAY for Paris"



we all know this would become some kind of fad on facebook for the next few days/weeks, and sudenly everyone would start posting profile pictures of the peace logo thing, plus everyone sharing their "france/eifel tower" holidays pics like "I was there!!!!....(3 years ago)...... And sadly we all know this would die and we would move on to the next fad. I know its "sad", but I really hope this is the case. We dont need more violence and "war" in this world. Lets hope this doesnt open the door for more acts of violence and lets hope the "leaders" of this world dont use this as an excuse to keep planting the seed of fear on ppls minds and support the "war on terrorism" bull.... excuses. We dont need more wars, hey dont solve anything. For the sake of everyone who is alive, lets hope this stays like that


----------



## Nag

We need to find a way to get rid of the extremist hatred. Political extremism died for most of us in 1945, it's time for religious extremism to die.

People will blame syrian refugees. People will blame muslims. We always try to blame people because people are easier to blame than the ideas they carry.


----------



## Zado

The situation won't get solved anytime soon, too many political interests there. It's not a religious thing, religion is an excuse used to branwash people involved.


----------



## Nag

Zado said:


> The situation won't get solved anytime soon, too many political interests there. It's not a religious thing, religion is an excuse used to branwash people involved.




Yeah in the end it's just gonna be some money/power crap.


----------



## chris9

kindsage said:


> Religion ....s EVERYTHING. All this because of some fvcking religion.
> 
> Young people executed one by one in the venue (thats what the news says)
> Disgusting


I agree 
the world with out religion would be far more peaceful 
i just don,t get how people are ruled by story books 
also where does it say in any of these books kill innocent people.
They a cancer that needs eradicating off the face of the earth


----------



## SD83

What seems most disturbing to me is that it will pretty much end up in a massive victory for terrorism. I'd love to be proven wrong, but governments and a vast amount of people will probably end up not solving some of the problems that led to this but intensify them and cause new ones.
Almost every terrorist attack so far, at least where I life, wouldn't have had much impact on the every day life of people, if it wasn't for the government to come up with stricter laws and more surveillance. Did data preservation, security cameras etc. make this impossible? Obviously not. Would we have had this much earlier and more often if it wasn't for that? Impossible to tell, but I'd go with No, not at all. 
One disturbing thing about this attack is that, again, my personal opinion, it was rather clear this was coming. And that, if it were to happen in a middle/western European country, it would happen in France. And if in France, most likely in Paris. 
[I cut most of what I just wrote, it just escalated into an entirely unstructured rant with half of it being probably pointless, so nevermind the gaps...]


----------



## Zado

From the Quran

_[...]For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. _


Way different from what we're seeing


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

narad said:


> That's not what I mean. When these groups are all operating in a very decentralized manner, not tied to a single nation, and intermingled with the general population of the areas they occupy, then they're not easy to target in a "real war" sense. When eight people can show up essentially out of nowhere and cause this much damage, your traditional "real war" strategies aren't going to cut it. You can't just "bomb the .... out of them".



But there _are_ very centralized groups involved. It's just cells dispersed throughout Europe, sure, but in Iraq and Syria they're running cities. They have hierarchies and training camps.

You constantly hear on the news about cities being reclaimed by Iraqi or Kurdish forces, or being overrun by ISIS combatants. They stay centralized enough that when one ISIS idiot was foolish enough to post a selfie in front of a building, intelligence agencies were able to identify the exact building and bomb it.

I'm not saying military action would bring a complete stop to terrorism, or terrorists committing atrocities like they did in Paris, but ISIS isn't just some nebulous entity. They have territory. They have troops. The fight can be taken to them. 

I would seriously like to hear alternative solutions that aren't just "Oh well, we're powerless to change it, so let's just let these things continue to happen."


----------



## A-Branger

yup, I spoke too soon on now this becoming a fad on facebook. Look!, now facebook is offering you to turn your profile pic with the colors of the France flag!, just like you did months ago with the rainbow to "support" gay marriage. So lets all of us change of profile pics to "support"......... and shame on those who dont do it

*facepalm*


----------



## Nag

Zado said:


> From the Quran
> 
> _[...]For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. _
> 
> 
> Way different from what we're seeing




Rule number one of being rational : never quote a religious text.

EVERY single religious scripture ever is FULL of contradictions. everything you quote is taken out of context. 5 pages further, in another context, you'll be able to find the exact opposite.

Commandment number one ? don't kill. how many killed in the bible in the name of god ? as far as I know, a good few.


----------



## skeels

^let us speak truly and define our terms well.

Tis not religion but the perversion of the common truth by which humans kill their siblings. 

Let us not choose our allegiances based on what is false but by that which is in our hearts. There is indeed a sickness upon the land and the cure of it is not hate, not revenge, but the healing of all nations.


----------



## 77zark77

thanks for the kind comments 

I don't want to debate but the most important is to not compare muslims with barbarians

those assassins are died as barbarians not as martyrs
There's no courage here, just cowardice
shame to their families because education is the first element in the building of a personnality !

Iran had officially condemned the attack 

And I'm not a muslim


----------



## redstone

OmegaSlayer said:


> Still minimal compared to today, when you take heavy aircarriers and go to bomb the enemy of the faction you pick up to side with.



Though I agree that countries have to do their own revolutions by themselves, I want to shime in and say that the french revolution was nothing like what we learn in school and most encyclopedias. The death of Louis XVI was actually ordered by William Pitt. London and some european countries corrupted the commité du salut public to foil the terror and the revolution then put the blame on their ennemies, Robespierre etc. Those who speak french can learn more here.


----------



## narad

redstone said:


> Those who speak french can learn more here.



^^ Whose interpretations are not widely accepted.


----------



## setsuna7

I'm Muslim. Like a few others here. We do not condone or support this attacks. .... this ...., maybe it's time we all get together and take this ISIS/ISIL out once and for all!! They are a disgrace to our religion. Come to where I live, you can see a Mosque a Buddhist Temple and a Hindu Temple on the same street. If we can do it why not them?
My thoughts and prayers are with the families affected by this tragedy.


----------



## wankerness

setsuna7 said:


> I'm Muslim. Like a few others here. We do not condone or support this attacks. .... this ...., maybe it's time we all get together and take this ISIS/ISIL out once and for all!! They are a disgrace to our religion. Come to where I live, you can see a Mosque a Buddhist Temple and a Hindu Temple on the same street. If we can do it why not them?
> My thoughts and prayers are with the families affected by this tragedy.



Yeah, ISIS is a bunch of terrorist nuts that just use Islam as a recruiting mechanism. The thing that bugs me the most about this (besides reactions like Newt Gingrich's) are the people that say "GET RID OF ALL THE IMMIGRANTS, LOCK THE BORDERS!!!!" Don't they realize these are the very people all the immigrants are trying to get away from?!


----------



## setsuna7

wankerness said:


> Yeah, ISIS is a bunch of terrorist nuts that just use Islam as a recruiting mechanism. The thing that bugs me the most about this (besides reactions like Newt Gingrich's) are the people that say "GET RID OF ALL THE IMMIGRANTS, LOCK THE BORDERS!!!!" Don't they realize these are the very people all the immigrants are trying to get away from?!



Sadly... Yes. ISIS are the very reason these refugees running away from. Not the other around...


----------



## redstone

narad said:


> ^^ Whose interpretations are not widely accepted.



Well, if you know any historian who denies the works of Mr Blanc, feel free to name and quote that person.


----------



## flint757

wankerness said:


> Yeah, ISIS is a bunch of terrorist nuts that just use Islam as a recruiting mechanism. The thing that bugs me the most about this (besides reactions like Newt Gingrich's) are the people that say "GET RID OF ALL THE IMMIGRANTS, LOCK THE BORDERS!!!!" Don't they realize these are the very people all the immigrants are trying to get away from?!



I honestly think they do, they just don't really care. There's enough separation from the issue that they simply don't feel guilty about the outcome.


----------



## ramses

narad said:


> You can't do "real war" with an ideology. It's not a matter of courage/strength, it's just an inherently flawed concept.



You are correct, of course.


----------



## tacotiklah

A-Branger said:


> yup, I spoke too soon on now this becoming a fad on facebook. Look!, now facebook is offering you to turn your profile pic with the colors of the France flag!, just like you did months ago with the rainbow to "support" gay marriage. So lets all of us change of profile pics to "support"......... and shame on those who dont do it
> 
> *facepalm*




So showing the people of Paris that we support them, even if it's through a simple filter of the French flag on a profile pic, is somehow wrong now? You are aware that hating on stuff just to hate on stuff doesn't make you one of the cool kids now, right? It doesn't affect you in any negative way, so if you don't want it on your profile pic, then simply don't have it. Let people that do want to show support in that way do so. I made the change and had a number of French people on my friend's list thank me. These people had a very serious thing happen to them, and any words or gestures of comfort are by and large welcome insofar as I can tell. I'm broke as hell, so I can't donate to the red cross or anything. I'm left with basically no other option than to publicly condemn the attack and offer words and gestures of support.

I swear, people try so damn hard to police the actions of others simply to appear edgy and I still can't figure out why.


----------



## Nag

setsuna7 said:


> I'm Muslim. Like a few others here. We do not condone or support this attacks. .... this ...., maybe it's time we all get together and take this ISIS/ISIL out once and for all!! They are a disgrace to our religion. Come to where I live, you can see a Mosque a Buddhist Temple and a Hindu Temple on the same street. If we can do it why not them?
> My thoughts and prayers are with the families affected by this tragedy.




Oh, people will blame arabs, muslims, syrian refugees...it's dumb, but they'll do it.


----------



## wankerness

tacotiklah said:


> So showing the people of Paris that we support them, even if it's through a simple filter of the French flag on a profile pic, is somehow wrong now? You are aware that hating on stuff just to hate on stuff doesn't make you one of the cool kids now, right? It doesn't affect you in any negative way, so if you don't want it on your profile pic, then simply don't have it. Let people that do want to show support in that way do so. I made the change and had a number of French people on my friend's list thank me. These people had a very serious thing happen to them, and any words or gestures of comfort are by and large welcome insofar as I can tell. I'm broke as hell, so I can't donate to the red cross or anything. I'm left with basically no other option than to publicly condemn the attack and offer words and gestures of support.
> 
> I swear, people try so damn hard to police the actions of others simply to appear edgy and I still can't figure out why.



There's a point of view that gestures like that are entirely empty and often are primarily intended to remind everyone else how sympathetic and caring of a guy you are. Anthony Jeselnik had a bit about that on one of his last specials. I am pretty neutral on the whole thing since I don't use social media, but I can understand their POV.

Posted as censored text since I think you get your post erased here if you have any naughty words in it:



> This is who I'm making fun of when I make a joke on Twitter the day of a tragedy. The people who see something horrible happen in the world and they run to the internet. And they run to their social media, Facebook, Twitter, whatever they got. And they all write down the exact same thing:
> 
> "My thoughts and prayers...." "My thoughts and prayers are with the people in Aurora." "My thoughts and prayers with the families in Boston."
> 
> Do you know what that's worth? F***ing nothing. F***ing less than nothing. Less than nothing. You are not giving any of your time, your money, or even your compassion. All you are doing is saying "Don't forget about me today." "Don't forget about me." "Lots of crazy distractions in the news, but don't forget how sad I am." These people are worthless and they deserve to be made fun of.
> 
> They're like a wedding photographer who only takes selfies.



Like, if you said he's being a super-angry dick, you'd be right, but I think there's definitely a strong element of truth to it with a very substantial percentage of the number of people who do that kind of thing. The last line is a good metaphor.

But yeah, that's neither here nor there, and the guy you were responding to seemed to not be thinking anything through that much. I just am saying it's possible to have justification for getting annoyed by this sort of thing.


----------



## asher

I understand the frustration, but IMO it's a really stupid thing to get upset about. There's not a whole lot any of us can do - at least with incidents like this (I disagree about US domestic gun violence incidents, because you have legislatures to pressure). I'll accept genuine, if token, gestures of compassion when the alternative is only silence.

Because god knows we see enough supportive reactions to horrible tragedies, too.


----------



## A-Branger

wankerness said:


> There's a point of view that gestures like that are entirely empty and often are primarily intended to remind everyone else how sympathetic and caring of a guy you are. Anthony Jeselnik had a bit about that on one of his last specials. I am pretty neutral on the whole thing since I don't use social media, but I can understand their POV.
> 
> Posted as censored text since I think you get your post erased here if you have any naughty words in it:
> 
> 
> 
> Like, if you said he's being a super-angry dick, you'd be right, but I think there's definitely a strong element of truth to it with a very substantial percentage of the number of people who do that kind of thing. The last line is a good metaphor.
> 
> But yeah, that's neither here nor there, and the guy you were responding to seemed to not be thinking anything through that much. I just am saying it's possible to have justification for getting annoyed by this sort of thing.




pretty much that ^^

yeah I know I might have over-reacted. And yes, I think its cool people are sharing their thoughs and hearts with those affected in Paris, and there is nothing wrong with that. But I do at the same time get my facebook flogged with empty ppl sharing anything "new" just for the sake of it, only to show like ^^he said. A "look at me", "Im sad too, I have emotions and Im a good human being" 

Posting the selffie you did at the eiffel tower 3 years ago just trying to "blend" in with whats is current jsut to show everyone else on facebook that you "care about the world", it might mean something and help to showei thr support, if that helps for something. But sometimes I do feel that doesnt really says much


Not long ago we had a pretty bad situation back in my country (Venezuela), something similar to what was happening on Ukraine. We had a lot of love not jsut only on social media, but real media, real ppl holding real physical flags, even high end A list actors and singers showing "support" on interviews and during concerts and award shows, and iconic building with the Venezuelan colors just like they are doing now with France. Bottom line, nothing really happen. Much aware on the world, but nothing helped to change any outcome. It was like seeing a girl getting robed and punched and everyone on the town scream and call the police, but no-one came. And still there are ppl out there who dont really know the story of what happened and have no idea of the reality. To see those kinds of "quick" fixes to "support" a cause like that on facebook doesnt really mean much to me. Because I know for a vast group of people its just a "quick fix", but thats just my point of view. Not trying to be a dick about it, 

Im sorry if I came across in a much negative way, Im not trying to say that everyone is doing wrong. But I do know a vast mayority on my FB feed that they just following a "fad"


----------



## asher

If people are engaging in (marginally) compassionate acts that can prime them for further acts of compassion, does it matter whether it's "genuine" or not?


----------



## Andromalia

First of all, thaks everyone for your support. A friend of mine was in the Bataclan but was only lightly injured.

The most important thing is not to let hatred win. Theirs, and ours. I'm pretty disgusted by people whose first interest is using the tragedy for their own agendas: the racists who want to fan the flames, the extreme atheists who want to use it as a weapon against all religions and believers.

We must'nt let ourselves become hateful and vengeful because then, we will become them. We will not, because we are better, and if we want to uphold the universal values of respecting life and claim moral superiority, we have to be better.

I'm old enough to have known the Paris bombings in the 80es, in the 90es, the bombing of the rue de Rennes, the St Michel station massacre, and we are still here. Yesterday was another blow, but we are still here.

Late in the night I received a mail from my boss, telling the company employee that we could skip the work today. But I still went, because not going is letting the terrorists win.

It doesn't mean we must do nothing. Getting rid of Assad seems like a good idea, because he's using ISIS to present a target worse than him to the europeans. But this is not going to be solved by going after the arabs, the muslims, the whatever-scapegoat-you feel-like-using.


----------



## 77zark77

thanx once more :


----------



## 77zark77

those are from all over the world - and that's the more important over any consideration !

Now just do the same when it happens in another part of the world


----------



## Nag

Andromalia said:


> It doesn't mean we must do nothing. Getting rid of Assad seems like a good idea, because he's using ISIS to present a target worse than him to the europeans. But this is not going to be solved by going after the arabs, the muslims, the whatever-scapegoat-you feel-like-using.





Maybe what we need to do is hit them back with surgical precision attacks like the ones they perpetrated in France twice now. It works very well as we can see. We need a clear target though. Not civilians, not refugees, not arabs or muslims... just these ISIS people.


----------



## A-Branger

asher said:


> If people are engaging in (marginally) compassionate acts that can prime them for further acts of compassion, does it matter whether it's "genuine" or not?



guess you are right. Think I forgot to see the other side of the coin.


----------



## Andromalia

I didn't plan to, but since it happened at a concert hall in part, I'll go see Motorhead tomorrow. Because we are not afraid.


----------



## 77zark77

Life goes on, Nightwish and Arch Enemy ftw 

Lemmy drinking water is my real terrorism


----------



## celticelk

Nagash said:


> Maybe what we need to do is hit them back with surgical precision attacks like the ones they perpetrated in France twice now. It works very well as we can see. We need a clear target though. Not civilians, not refugees, not arabs or muslims... just these ISIS people.



Precision attacks against what? There's no military infrastructure that you can destroy to impede the ability of ISIS - or any militarized group of radical Islamists, because let's face it, ISIS is just an immediate manifestation of a larger phenomenon - to carry out these attacks. Their infrastructure is the hearts and minds of the people willing to die for that ideology. That's not amenable to a military solution.

Don't misunderstand me - ISIS is doing unconscionable things in the Middle East, and they need to be stopped from doing those things. That action is worth taking on its own merits. But don't kid yourselves that military action against ISIS prevents another Paris, or another Madrid, or another 9/11. It doesn't.


----------



## OmegaSlayer

Nagash said:


> Oh, people will blame arabs, muslims, syrian refugees...it's dumb, but they'll do it.


Look, if I know that one of my relatives is a serial killer and I don't do anything about it...I'm an accomplice.
Refugees are running away instead of fighting their wars to protect their relatives, friends, Countrymen.
I would never leave my Country and loved ones because I'm coward or can't hold a weapon.
I would never run in front of an oppressor/dictator/whatever.
I would never accept for someone else to solve my business, just figure asking.
So yeah, I accept the refugees, but hold them in the lowest esteem possible.


----------



## asher

OmegaSlayer said:


> Look, if I know that one of my relatives is a serial killer and I don't do anything about it...I'm an accomplice.
> Refugees are running away instead of fighting their wars to protect their relatives, friends, Countrymen.
> I would never leave my Country and loved ones because I'm coward or can't hold a weapon.
> I would never run in front of an oppressor/dictator/whatever.
> I would never accept for someone else to solve my business, just figure asking.
> So yeah, I accept the refugees, but hold them in the lowest esteem possible.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

The social media wars have begun. People are preoccupied with waging war on each other on social media, when we ought to be uniting to wage war on the Islamic State that claimed responsibility for this attack amongst all the other attacks that they have perpetually carried out over the years. Social media can be a source of good by uniting people for a cause, which has been proven in the past; or it can be a source of bad by pitting people against each other, lost within the chaos, as it has proven now. Either you have a concurring opinion and everyone comes together, or you have a differing opinion and everyone pushes each other apart. It's like two polar opposites on social media and there is no "middle ground".

90% of the people on my friends list on Facebook don't give a sh*t about the events in Paris. They all are just changing their profile pictures because:

1.) Facebook told them to.

2.) They have this "hive" mentality (fueled by Facebook) and they mindlessly follow along like sheep who are unable to think for themselves.

3.) It is a now trending thing and they don't want to feel left out or excluded by their friends for not doing it.

It makes me sick how companies cash in on tragedy and how social media (although it is the best news platform) condenses tragedy (and sometimes triumph) and turns it into a mere trending topic in the form of a hashtag, a filter, or something utterly pointless. It essentially makes us humans satirize ourselves.


----------



## asher

Who is actually "cashing in"? Where's the money from people changing their profile pictures?

How is this different from lighting up the White House or One World Trade or the Sydney Opera House in red white and blue? Most people don't have large symbolic buildings, they just have facebook.


----------



## wankerness

asher said:


> Who is actually "cashing in"? Where's the money from people changing their profile pictures?
> 
> How is this different from lighting up the White House or One World Trade or the Sydney Opera House in red white and blue? Most people don't have large symbolic buildings, they just have facebook.



He said only companies are cashing in, not the people doing it. It's very true that companies will make a big public show of their support for France in this kind of thing, which is a form of cashing in in that it's primarily a marketing decision to enforce their brand name in the minds of potential customers as being a compassionate company. If they didn't do anything, it would be negative publicity, like "oh, that company doesn't care about France!!!!" It's really so impossible to differentiate between those that are doing it cynically and those that genuinely care that getting annoyed by it isn't worth it. 

With terror attacks, companies and especially governments making shows for the afflicted country often really does have an important symbolic purpose, since those who do these things were trying to send their own symbolic messages. However, ISIS is clever enough that their goal seems to have been more to further radicalize the western world against the middle east as opposed to trying to show the world that France is weak. Thus, the symbolic support for France isn't really countering them. It isn't like the Charlie Hebdo thing where the terrorists primarily succeeded in making more people want to speak out against radical Islam and thus the public reaction actually was helpful and fighting the terrorists.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

asher said:


> Who is actually "cashing in"? Where's the money from people changing their profile pictures?


Not literally. Figure of speech.



asher said:


> How is this different from lighting up the White House or One World Trade or the Sydney Opera House in red white and blue? Most people don't have large symbolic buildings, they just have facebook.


The White House, the World Trade Center, and the Opera House are symbols that are globally recognizable and are not individual people. Being a symbol, some sort of representation of support is expected to be shown. It shows that the country that the symbolic building came from cares. With individuals, it is different since individuals are not symbols and do not represent a whole country. (Ex: The religious extremists who perpetuate these attacks do not represent the whole Islamic religion, nor do they represent the whole country that they originate from. You have already heard this before.) A national symbol and an individual behind a screen cannot be compared.

It's all about the perceived aesthetic. People want to be perceived as "being a good person" and showing support in the same way that they want to be perceived as "being a good person" by (for example) going to church - when in reality, they don't give a sh*t. If you know someone personally and you see them change their picture on Facebook today, sit and analyze them. Let's see how many fake people there are on Facebook today... Or (as I put it) how many people are mindlessly following the trend to make themselves look like a good person and not be excluded...


----------



## asher

Emperor Guillotine said:


> The White House, the World Trade Center, and the Opera House are symbols that are globally recognizable and are not individual people. Being a symbol, some sort of representation of support is expected to be shown. It shows that the country that the symbolic building came from cares. With individuals, it is different since individuals are not symbols and do not represent a whole country. (Ex: The religious extremists who perpetuate this attacks do not represent the whole Islamic religion, nor do they represent the whole country that they originate from.) A national symbol and an individual behind a screen cannot be compared.



The individuals behind a screen don't have a national monument to light up. What are they supposed to do instead? Are they just... not allowed to show support? Are you trying to imply only nations and governments have impact, and that groups of people are irrelevant (I certainly don't think you believe that)?


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

asher said:


> The individuals behind a screen don't have a national monument to light up. What are they supposed to do instead? Are they just... not allowed to show support? Are you trying to imply only nations and governments have impact, and that groups of people are irrelevant (I certainly don't think you believe that)?


You are purposefully attempting to read way too deeply into my comments in order to twist them there, Asher. (Perhaps this is another example where it would be more beneficial to explain this instance in-person as opposed to strictly online text-based dialogue.)

People behind a screen can unite. However, let's use our knowledge of humans as a social animal compared with trending behaviors on social media in the past. While some people are changing their profile pictures to show support (or unite), others are just doing it to follow the trend. As cynical as it sounds, I'd say that it is almost 1 out of every 2 at this point.


----------



## flint757

asher said:


> Who is actually "cashing in"? Where's the money from people changing their profile pictures?
> 
> How is this different from lighting up the White House or One World Trade or the Sydney Opera House in red white and blue? Most people don't have large symbolic buildings, they just have facebook.



I agree it's kind of a hollow gesture, but I don't really see the harm either. Ultimately it can only bring about good will. I think people just get upset that this is the extent to which people do anything and the events are soon forgotten by everyone who isn't immediately affected. 

The whole world was up in arms about what was happening in Ukraine and not long after everyone simply stopped concerning themselves about it, despite the fact that even to this day the conflict is still happening.

I don't think people are necessarily upset about the initial gesture, but that it's usually the first step in everyone forgetting it ever happened at all. People move on.


----------



## OmegaSlayer

asher said:


>


Sorry but I strongly keep my points.
First comes my friends and family...for which I would literally go to hell itself to protect them and keep them happy.
Then my City.
My Country.
Then everyone else.

I honestly think it's stupid to try to solve some other Country's problems when our Countries itself are a big mess with problems that are not solved yet.
Poor people, not employed people, homeless people.

For those who believes in concepts traded from religion...
"You shall love your neighbor as yourself"...is hypocrite to care about someone in a distant part of the world when there's the hobo down in your street that is not able to eat everyday and that our perfect society drove to that situation.
Those perfect societies that want to change other Countries when they don't have (or refuse to find) a solution for themselves.


----------



## asher

flint757 said:


> I agree it's kind of a hollow gesture, but I don't really see the harm either. Ultimately it can only bring about good will. I think people just get upset that this is the extent to which people do anything and the events are soon forgotten by everyone who isn't immediately affected.
> 
> The whole world was up in arms about what was happening in Ukraine and not long after everyone simply stopped concerning themselves about it, despite the fact that even to this day the conflict is still happening.
> 
> I don't think people are necessarily upset about the initial gesture, but that it's usually the first step in everyone forgetting it ever happened at all. People move on.



None of that makes any of the temporary gestures of support fake or in-genuine, but that's entirely what I'm seeing posited... as if we can say with certainty what is going through every person's head on our Facebook feed. And then letting ourselves be mad about that. And even if it is people following a trend, so fvcking what? Is it negative? Does it cause harm? Hell no. The only suffering that happens as a result is self inflicted sufferings over the supposed motivation of others.


Omega: Expand the sense of compassion you feel for your friends and family to include these refugees, and _think about why they're actually fleeing_. Follow the logic train. I don't think I'm going to be able to craft a reply that's thorough but soft enough right now.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

asher said:


> None of that makes any of the temporary gestures of support fake or in-genuine, but that's entirely what I'm seeing posted... as if we can say with certainty what is going through every person's head on our Facebook feed.


I went to college to study people for a living. I now study people for a living. So I can actually make a large enough assumption based on my quantitative analysis of people's behavior on social media in the past and of now.



asher said:


> And then letting ourselves be mad about that. And even if it is people following a trend, so fvcking what? Is it negative? Does it cause harm? Hell no. The only suffering that happens as a result is self inflicted sufferings over the supposed motivation of others.


Bro...you appear to be the only one getting mad over this based on the comments that you previously made (and are now making) in this thread.

I'm not mad. Not at all. Just pointing something out. Pretty sure that wankerness and flint757 aren't mad. OmegaSlayer might be, but that is a whole different subtopic of discussion in this thread.


----------



## asher

I'm not sure how to read your first reply without concluding that, whether angry or not, it's certainly bothering you. Especially in the context of seeing you post a whole number of other mad thread posts relating to crap going down on Facebook and social media (which I am only bringing up in that it seems to be a specific point of concern for you, generally neither good nor bad).


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

asher said:


> I'm not sure how to read your first reply without concluding that, whether angry or not, it's certainly bothering you. Especially in the context of seeing you post a whole number of other mad thread posts relating to crap going down on Facebook and social media (which I am only bringing up in that it seems to be a specific point of concern for you, generally neither good nor bad).


This is my fifth comment entry in this thread. I have yet to post anything that can be remotely perceived as "mad". You must be one of those people who absolutely requires nonverbal gestures and tonal cues in order to adequately interpret someone's communication because you are perceiving me to be mad, when in actuality, I'm not.

Sure, something is bothering me. The emptiness. The vanity. How companies cash in on tragedy, and how people take the focus of a tragedy which ought to be about the victims (France) and they turn the focus to be about themselves ("look at me being a cool kid and fitting in with everyone and following the trend"). Am I gonna do this ->  about it? Nope. Not there yet.


----------



## asher

I was pretty clearly _not_ talking about just this thread, and that's from the guy who's implying I have reading comprehension problems.

The attack itself has me more worked up than I would have anticipated, yes, but don't tell me how I interpreted your post isn't a reasonable reading, even if it's not what you intended. But I'm putting myself on time out from this thread anyhow (and also is why I didn't actually reply to Omega) so I don't actually insult anybody in generalized frustration.


----------



## flint757

So, from what I'm hearing only one of them was Syrian (can anyone else confirm this, it was mostly hearsay on my end; not able to look it up atm.) yet people are still busy blaming the refugees (even here in the US). It's to the point where it will apparently reshape the Democrat debate and is leading to us no longer accepting refugees, not that we were taking very many in to begin with. 

Seems like the terrorists plan to breed fear/hate has worked. I find it sad that people letting their emotions get the better of them are literally giving the terrorists exactly what they want. They want the Middle East to remain destabilized and they want Europe and US to stay out of it.


----------



## s2k9k

Thanks for the pics. This is truly heartbreaking.




77zark77 said:


> thanx once more :


----------



## Alex Kenivel

Emperor Guillotine said:


> (all that hate)



You know, I too thought of all the Fakebook sympathy, but at the same time, who are we as musicians and artists to hate on anyone's form of self expression, be it a song or poem, or even a painting or a single, "insignificant" Facebook post?

If peace is "cool" right now and the sheep are peaceful, what is there to really complain about?


----------



## Fierce_Swe

Religion divides but music unites!!! <3


----------



## Nag

celticelk said:


> Precision attacks against what? There's no military infrastructure that you can destroy to impede the ability of ISIS - or any militarized group of radical Islamists, because let's face it, ISIS is just an immediate manifestation of a larger phenomenon - to carry out these attacks. Their infrastructure is the hearts and minds of the people willing to die for that ideology. That's not amenable to a military solution.
> 
> Don't misunderstand me - ISIS is doing unconscionable things in the Middle East, and they need to be stopped from doing those things. That action is worth taking on its own merits. But don't kid yourselves that military action against ISIS prevents another Paris, or another Madrid, or another 9/11. It doesn't.



Precision attacks as in tracking down big names of their organizations and capturing them if possible. Tom Clancy plot style. Targeting individuals, not buildings or something. the more individuals we can capture, the more information about them we can get. sounds like a good business IMO


----------



## celticelk

Nagash said:


> Precision attacks as in tracking down big names of their organizations and capturing them if possible. Tom Clancy plot style. Targeting individuals, not buildings or something. the more individuals we can capture, the more information about them we can get. sounds like a good business IMO



Because that's worked so well to date. How long has it been since we got bin Laden, or al-Zarqawi, or...? I keep saying this hoping it will sink in: your enemy here is an ideology, not a state, organization, or individual. Moreover, your enemy is an ideology that sits on the radical fringe of one of the largest religions on the planet, which provides an essentially endless supply of potential recruits. Military approaches are not going to bring victory against such an enemy. The more force you use, the more you repress, the more you do your enemy's recruiting work. Another approach is needed.


----------



## JohnIce

I can't help but feel that no matter how successful IS get at destroying the world, us europeans will always, deep, deep down, keep telling ourselves that we're just a little smarter, a little more advanced than them and never fully admit to ourselves that a bunch of terrorists in a sandy cave can _really_ be smarter than us. That _arabs_ can actually outsmart us europeans. And we have a wave of nationalism and right-wing extremism on the rise in europe, fueling that notion. It makes us gullible and vulnerable, cause IS has proven themselves to be cunning and incredibly efficient. They _want_ us to underestimate them, cause it makes them more powerful.

In short, european nationalism and racism is playing right into the hands of IS. It's a vicious circle that, the way I see it, is only made worse by closing borders and confusing refugees with terrorists just cause they come from the same (large) area of the world. And believing refugees have themselves to blame somehow, that they should sort out their own mess and keep us europeans out of it. No, learning to truly love our arab brothers and sisters, and thereby also realizing just how intelligent and dangerous IS is, is to me the only way forward.


----------



## flint757

celticelk said:


> Because that's worked so well to date. How long has it been since we got bin Laden, or al-Zarqawi, or...? I keep saying this hoping it will sink in: your enemy here is an ideology, not a state, organization, or individual. Moreover, your enemy is an ideology that sits on the radical fringe of one of the largest religions on the planet, which provides an essentially endless supply of potential recruits. Military approaches are not going to bring victory against such an enemy. The more force you use, the more you repress, the more you do your enemy's recruiting work. Another approach is needed.



I honestly don't think victory in the sense you mean is even possible. Diplomacy with ISIS isn't going to happen (can't reason with people who have an all or nothing mentality, especially when they have the afterlife/paradise loophole) and we can't do nothing as they line people up to cut off their heads and mow down entire villages. I don't think another war is a good idea by any means, but we do need to stop them when/where we can. I think we just need to adjust to the fact that at the end of the day all options here are losing options on the larger scale.


----------



## Alex Kenivel

I reckon, if we are to "win" we would need to play a game we know they would lose.. Just like they do us. 

They know they can just walk into someplace and start killing innocent people to piss us off, but we're not going to do that to them, because we think it's wrong and they know it.


----------



## Watty

setsuna7 said:


> I'm Muslim. Like a few others here. We do not condone or support this attacks. .... this ...., *maybe it's time we all get together and take this ISIS/ISIL out once and for all*!! They are a disgrace to our religion. Come to where I live, you can see a Mosque a Buddhist Temple and a Hindu Temple on the same street. If we can do it why not them?
> My thoughts and prayers are with the families affected by this tragedy.



After reading through the first five pages of this thread, it surprised me to really one see one good example of this mentality. The West can't really do much other than targeted/small scale military action in order to combat this threat without damaging their reputation even further (let alone continuing the vicious circle of violence and hate towards the West). With that said, the change has to come from within. Every Muslim that sits by and lets these extremists use Islam as a justification for their actions is somewhat implicit in the atrocities, however remote the relationship happens to be. Obviously a specific case, but if you don't pull the trigger, but knew the killer was going to and kept silent beforehand, are you culpable? Ultimately, moderates give cover to the extremists by defending the mechanism by which the latter can grow more powerful. 

I think someone else mentioned they'd do something if they knew their relative was a killer, and in the same way, I think most Muslims would denounce and turn in IS sympathizers if there was a means of doing so that would actually make positive progress. It's been pointed out on numerous occasions that the militaries of all the Arabic countries far outweigh even the most generous estimates of IS troops, and while you can't fight an idea, those sympathizers who aren't part of the main "body" of IS would probably be less likely to indulge in the mentality if they knew they didn't have that supportive "hive" to look to for validation and support. If the military powers of the middle eastern nations banded together to take on the "head" (read: main population) of the proverbial beast and the general populace reported IS sympathizers for criminal charges, I'd imagine the problem would be resolved in a capacity that would, at the very least, eliminate the frequency and scope of these sorts of incidents.

The problem is we haven't seen the real stakeholders take that action. The heads of state denounce these sorts of attacks and yet do nothing that might actually make a difference in treating the environment that fosters the mentality. The average Muslim might say he hates what these attackers are doing, but in deflecting the issue to a commentary on the fact that Islam is not the problem, he only serves to remove the possibility of any external action for fear that it might be seen as Islamophobic et al (read: Ben Affleck-ism).

Let's hope that enough people in the Muslim community see this as a turning point and turn a critical eye within instead of without. The blame game about initial conditions for the how the conflict in the region helps no one. It's time to look past that and make real strides towards changing the situation for the better.

#twocents

-B


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

celticelk said:


> Because that's worked so well to date. How long has it been since we got bin Laden, or al-Zarqawi, or...? I keep saying this hoping it will sink in: your enemy here is an ideology, not a state, organization, or individual. Moreover, your enemy is an ideology that sits on the radical fringe of one of the largest religions on the planet, which provides an essentially endless supply of potential recruits. Military approaches are not going to bring victory against such an enemy. The more force you use, the more you repress, the more you do your enemy's recruiting work. Another approach is needed.



I keep saying _this_ hoping it will sink in: Nobody is proposing that fighting ISIS is going to end religious extremism.

ISIS isn't just a group of terrorist cells hiding from view over in Iraq and Syria. They've taken over cities. They invade territory, capture people, murder innocents, and destroy cultural heritage landmarks. They aren't doing that with little groups of five or six people hiding in an apartment above the grocery store down the street, they're doing it rolling into town in trucks in force and setting up command posts. _That's_ the sh!t we need to put an end to. They aren't just hiding in caves out there, they're doing all this out in the open, and posting recordings of it on the internet for the world to see.

So if another approach is needed, what other approach do you suggest? How do we deal with a group of extremists large enough to capture cities, has no regard for human life,and is driven by an ideology about which they are unwilling to compromise?

Seriously, I've asked that in here a couple times now. I get that some people are opposed to military action, but wtf else are we supposed to do about these a_ss_holes?


----------



## JeffFromMtl

The lives lost in Paris yesterday and Beirut the day before are only the latest of almost 6,700 lives lost to terrorist attacks in 2015. It's a shame that for anyone in the west to take notice, it has to happen in a city just like their own. I think that the reason people get upset about the whole Facebook thing is because there was never any solicitation for support for Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt, etc. after any of the numerous terrorist attacks they've had to deal with recently, not even when Boko Haram (who have also adopted the ISIL flag) razed an entire town killing up to 2,000 people. Or at least I hope that's the issue people have with the whole Facebook thing. Either way, it's important not to forget that this is a *global* issue.

However, as for the Paris attacks specifically, my heart is with them, as well as the many French expats living in Montreal and their families back home.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I keep saying _this_ hoping it will sink in: Nobody is proposing that fighting ISIS is going to end religious extremism.
> 
> ISIS isn't just a group of terrorist cells hiding from view over in Iraq and Syria. They've taken over cities. They invade territory, capture people, murder innocents, and destroy cultural heritage landmarks. They aren't doing that with little groups of five or six people hiding in an apartment above the grocery store down the street, they're doing it rolling into town in trucks in force and setting up command posts. _That's_ the sh!t we need to put an end to. They aren't just hiding in caves out there, they're doing all this out in the open, and posting recordings of it on the internet for the world to see.
> 
> *So if another approach is needed, what other approach do you suggest? How do we deal with a group of extremists large enough to capture cities, has no regard for human life,and is driven by an ideology about which they are unwilling to compromise?
> 
> Seriously, I've asked that in here a couple times now. I get that some people are opposed to military action, but wtf else are we supposed to do about these assholes?*



Not to mention, an organization whose propaganda machine would be fuelled by anyone "martyred" in any retaliatory action.


----------



## tacotiklah

Andromalia said:


> First of all, thaks everyone for your support. A friend of mine was in the Bataclan but was only lightly injured.
> 
> The most important thing is not to let hatred win. Theirs, and ours. I'm pretty disgusted by people whose first interest is using the tragedy for their own agendas: the racists who want to fan the flames, the extreme atheists who want to use it as a weapon against all religions and believers.
> 
> We must'nt let ourselves become hateful and vengeful because then, we will become them. We will not, because we are better, and if we want to uphold the universal values of respecting life and claim moral superiority, we have to be better.
> 
> I'm old enough to have known the Paris bombings in the 80es, in the 90es, the bombing of the rue de Rennes, the St Michel station massacre, and we are still here. Yesterday was another blow, but we are still here.
> 
> Late in the night I received a mail from my boss, telling the company employee that we could skip the work today. But I still went, because not going is letting the terrorists win.
> 
> It doesn't mean we must do nothing. Getting rid of Assad seems like a good idea, because he's using ISIS to present a target worse than him to the europeans. But this is not going to be solved by going after the arabs, the muslims, the whatever-scapegoat-you feel-like-using.




The other scapegoat seems to be people making a big deal about the filters on facebook. Right after I made my comments here, a group of people went on a warpath on facebook and starting crying up a storm about it. I'll state here regarding the matter what I said on facebook...
If you don't like it, fine. Don't have it on your profile pic. But attacking people that do and being a dick in general over it isn't going to help out and only serves to distract from discussing the main topic at hand. 
The people of France need love and support right now because they were just attacked by extremists with an axe to grind. Don't compound their problems and stress with trivial social media wannabe edgy bullsh_i_t.


----------



## setsuna7

Watty,my country are doing it's best in terms of capturing/arresting ISIS cells in our country, we are working closely with Singapore's Secret Service. It was our Special Forces(Equivalent to the Navy Seals) that captured Mas Selamat(Ben Laden's right hand here in Asia) after he escaped Singapore's maximum security prison in 2008. We as an Islamic country have/will always do our part.Google it. Even now authorities here are searching for ISIS remnants trying to recruits our young men and women.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Look like the JV team now Obama? (as if he lurks here)


----------



## wankerness

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Seriously, I've asked that in here a couple times now. I get that some people are opposed to military action, but wtf else are we supposed to do about these a_ss_holes?



Wait a couple years for a combination of Saudi Arabia's oil drying up and climate change helping to make water supplies dry up to make the middle east uninhabitable? It will take out all the civilians too, but hey. I think the middle east is completely screwed in terms of livability in the very near future.


----------



## asher

wankerness said:


> Wait a couple years for a combination of Saudi Arabia's oil drying up and climate change helping to make water supplies dry up to make the middle east uninhabitable? It will take out all the civilians too, but hey. I think the middle east is completely screwed in terms of livability in the very near future.



It's going to take the region to stop being in upheaval, for there to be economic security for the average person, for their to be the cultural acceptance of plurality the rest of the world has begrudgingly come to. It's more than just military support, or even large checks; it acts more like infrastructure.

We'll probably see societies collapse from climate change before the region has enough time to work it all out. That's not being racist, it has nothing to do with it being the Middle East - how long did it take Europe?


----------



## OmegaSlayer

Glad to be mad.
I'm mad but I want to protect and not kill others.


----------



## Fathand

What I get from all of this is that while on a larger scale we seem to be uniting for a while (with the facebook/landmark colors, condolences etc.) the reality is that this thing will divide us (mainly talking about Europe here) even further. 

We've been drifting apart from a while now, from a situation where things can be discussed rationally and consensus can be reached with relative ease to a situation where everyone builds up barricades around their views and hurls insults/accusations instead of opinions & ideas which could be discussed. 

Whether it be the the European refugee issue, nationalism, opinion on religions, the war on terror etc. - every side will take what it wants from this and run amok with it into different directions. 

Besides the obvious such as the senseless loss of life which is uncomprehensible, this situation is ....ed up in so many levels I can't really wrap my head around it.


----------



## narad

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Seriously, I've asked that in here a couple times now. I get that some people are opposed to military action, but wtf else are we supposed to do about these a_ss_holes?



I think the point is that we *are* currently pursuing military action. And because Western military action in the region, and the resulting instability, is a large part of why these extremist groups gained momentum in the first place...maybe we start tackling this problem through multiple avenues instead of simply focusing on brute force tactics. 

I'm not opposed to military action, at all, but there comes a time when you have to look at your success rate with a particular tactic and say...hmm...how good are we doing here?


----------



## OmegaSlayer

setsuna7 said:


> Watty,my country are doing it's best in terms of capturing/arresting ISIS cells in our country, we are working closely with Singapore's Secret Service. It was our Special Forces(Equivalent to the Navy Seals) that captured Mas Selamat(Ben Laden's right hand here in Asia) after he escaped Singapore's maximum security prison in 2008. We as an Islamic country have/will always do our part.Google it. Even now authorities here are searching for ISIS remnants trying to recruits our young men and women.


You shouldn't even mention that you're an Islamic Country.
You're A Country.
A civilized one that deserves respect.
One where women are not killed, infibulated, etc...


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

narad said:


> I think the point is that we *are* currently pursuing military action.



Are we? The only military action being pursued by anyone aside from Kurdish and Iraqi forces is airstrikes.



narad said:


> And because Western military action in the region, and the resulting instability, is a large part of why these extremist groups gained momentum in the first place...maybe we start tackling this problem through multiple avenues instead of simply focusing on brute force tactics.



The only way to get _less_ brute force than modern air support is to send in small special forces teams. I'm not opposed to that, but is that what you're suggesting, or am I missing another strategic avenue? Or is that your way of saying the military isn't the way to go to combat ISIS?

Also, regardless of the fact that ISIS is a product of instability in the region caused by Western military action, they still exist. In the absence of an effective non-military method of dealing with them, I don't think we can say "well, military started this mess, so we can't/shouldn't use military to try to fix it." If that's what you're suggesting, that is.



narad said:


> I'm not opposed to military action, at all, but there comes a time when you have to look at your success rate with a particular tactic and say...hmm...how good are we doing here?



Meaning?

I agree, coalition airstrikes don't seem to be a very effective tactic. However, anything I'd suggest instead would probably qualify as more "brute force," so I'm curious as to what you'd suggest we try instead.


----------



## SpaceDock

Remember the Southpark where they made biker=fag and the gay rights people that made santorum=ass froth? 

How about a campaign to make terrorist=poop eater and terrorism=poop eating.....


----------



## narad

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Meaning?
> 
> I agree, coalition airstrikes don't seem to be a very effective tactic. However, anything I'd suggest instead would probably qualify as more "brute force," so I'm curious as to what you'd suggest we try instead.



I'm really the last guy to play airchair policy-maker. I'm a computer scientist on a guitar forum, and I think there's very little to suggest that I'm even aware of what the options ought to be, let alone to choose among them. Still, there are things I'd like to see:

1. Border crackdown: I've seen a lot of discussion about how you can't blame the refugees for this. There's a few different layers to this though -- while the refugees are fleeing from precisely the group of people responsible for these attacks (and therefore shouldn't be cast aside from the standard anti-immigration sentiment that exists in Europe right now), it's practically impossible to let them in without allowing easy infiltration for groups that seek to harm their citizens. 

So first off I'd like to see the refugee crisis handled through some combination of military reinforcements and a dedicated populous outside of high-valued ISIS targets -- especially France and the UK. I was really in favor of all those outlandish island-buying schemes those billionaires had. Then I'd like to see a lot more constraints in place for suspicious people maneuvering around Europe. We're just getting info now on one of the shooters, and it looks pretty clear there were some travel red flags there. I think it's quite clear that these groups have way too much mobility within the EU to the point where we can't even think about destroying their digital communication channels yet -- it'd do no good.

2. Islamic Condemnation: I don't want to speak too out of place here but I feel that while most muslims are the first to speak up and say "These terrorists do not represent us - these are not our values", it still feels like there's a bit of a turn-the-other cheek to these factions within their communities. For a population of like 1.5 billion or whatever, it still feels to me that, especially from within Britain, that radicalization is tolerated and not as openly condemned as it should be. 

3. Unified EU front: I suppose I didn't partition my thoughts up properly, but this is generally the most important thing IMO. The EU (as an organization) has handled both this and the refugee situation terribly. I would like to see a collaborative intelligence gathering program (supporting the border lockdown) and troops on the ground from a joint EU anti-ISIS program. This would include harsh sanctions against any nation found financially supporting ISIS.

4. No US involvement: Seriously, opposite sides of the world. There should not be military involvement from parties that have mixed motives. A lot of instability is a result of the US completely dropping the ball in establishing a stable government in a culture it doesn't understand, and now the EU is the one that has to cope with it. Not that the EU has that great of an understanding, but I feel your more motivated to come up with good long-term solutions when the ....storm is at your doorstep. I'd really like to see the US sit this one out, or maybe reduce their role to simply tech support / supply / sat.

5. Sensible domestic policy: In the UK we have people who are known collaborators but we basically let them do whatever / go wherever. We even had newspapers condemning the killing of Jihadi John in a drone strike because as a UK citizen he should be somehow deserving of a fair trial. There's some ethical considerations, sure, but there's generally also some common sense "stop being a ....." factor that needs to be pumped up here if we're going to have a secure country. And I say that with the honest belief that a terrible attack will happen here sometime in the next 3 years. We can't prevent that if we're going to put human rights first in the face of overwhelming evidence that someone is involved with these groups.

6. Hype: A little controversial, even within my own thoughts, but I'll just say I stumbled upon an ISIS death video a couple weeks ago on reddit, and it was not at all like what you see images of on the news. It was in HD with more cinematography than most for-profit guitar demos. I thought I was watching a clip from a 300 sequel until the comments clarified it for me. These videos circulate in these groups and pump everyone up. This is sort of a half-formed thought, but I sort of wonder if there should be some sort of similar retaliation. Obviously I'm not talking about doing the exact same, but psychological warfare is a part of any engagement, and we don't seem to be doing anything counter. There's a difference when Jihadi John dies and it's a line of text, and some Western hostage is decapitated in full HD with multiple angles and flags and poetry.

So I'm sure some of these are being conducted behind the scenes, which is why I think it's silly to speculate.

* I should also mention I don't have a fantastic understanding of ISIS's true political goals, but I imagine that goes for 99% of people commenting as well. Have some tabs open but won't be able to read the articles today.


----------



## Andromalia

A few thoughts.

a) Mothorhead gig was canceled. I have officially more balls than Lemmy, which is kind of cool.

b) The only way out of this crisis is not war. It is stopping the funding of ISIS and other various groups, and this can be done.

Western states must stop being pals with Saudi Arabia, Quwait, Qatar and other purveyors of funds to terrorist movements. Trying to replace the governments of those countries is bound to failure, if Irak was a lesson, but pressuring them into compliance through threats to their financial assets can be done. Warn Saudis at next incident all their assets will be frozen and I think that it would work, because it also makes these groups their problem instead of being their tools.


----------



## flint757

The world should treat 'conflict' oil like conflict diamonds and refuse to purchase it. Simply stop doing business with the middle east all together. It's also a good incentive for us to become less dependent on oil imports in general.


----------



## flint757

And more people should be doing what Charlie hebdo was doing. It gives their values less credence and there's safety in numbers. If thousands of people are doing it they would have a hard time getting even for it and getting even wouldn't prevent it either since it'd be much more commonplace.


----------



## AxeHappy

Zado said:


> From the Quran
> 
> _[...]For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. _
> 
> 
> Way different from what we're seeing



*Cough*

Chapter 5: Verse 32 Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors. Chapter 5: Verse 33 Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment



Doesn't seem that different to me. 


Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of the followers of Islam cherry pick the .... out of their Holy Texts just as much as the sane followers of every other religion.


----------



## Andromalia

Charlie Hebdo was another matter and it is more "touchy". As much as no one deserves death, Charlie Hebdo is a newspaper run by anarchists who have chosen to repeatedly insult believers and faiths so they were looking for trouble. A typical Charlie Hebdo cover was highly offensive on purpose and their "jokes" about religion were almost always scatological, based on sex or showing priest abusing children and the like.
I'm not a believer, but I do respect people with moral principles and beliefs.


----------



## cip 123

narad said:


> I don't want to speak too out of place here but I feel that while most muslims are the first to speak up and say "These terrorists do not represent us - these are not our values", it still feels like there's a bit of a turn-the-other cheek to these factions within their communities. For a population of like 1.5 billion or whatever, it still feels to me that, especially from within Britain, that radicalization is tolerated and not as openly condemned as it should be.



I felt I should chime in on this (Though I have no authority as I'm not a muslim) as whenever something like this happens I think of these things in the Quran no matter how radical they are.

There are passages in the Quran that permit Muslims to lie to non-believers to further the cause of islam. If someone believes the cause is to kill non-believers then they can lie till they are in a position to do so.

These passages also include radical statements along the lines that the islam can be enforced on non-believers.

Now if you believe that people cherry pick from the religion things to believe thats fine. However if they believe in these laws then they can say they don't even though they don't. They can appear peaceful when they're not.

There was a video I saw recently adding up statistics of people who believed in sharia law and its justification and it turned out that a majority of the worlds muslims believed in it, making the peaceful muslims the Minority.

I harbour no ill feelings or intent towards muslims I wish everyone to live in peace, I am saddened by what went on not only in Paris but in Africa a few months ago and the rest of the world on friday.

However these laws in the Quran make it very difficult to know for security purposes who poses a threat.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Andromalia said:


> Charlie Hebdo was another matter and it is more "touchy". As much as no one deserves death, Charlie Hebdo is a newspaper run by anarchists who have chosen to repeatedly insult believers and faiths so they were looking for trouble. A typical Charlie Hebdo cover was highly offensive on purpose and their "jokes" about religion were almost always scatological, based on sex or showing priest abusing children and the like.
> I'm not a believer, but I do respect people with moral principles and beliefs.


One of the first things I wondered when everyone brought up the Charlie attacks last week again was - wonder if they have the balls to satirise what happened now?


----------



## flint757

I'm not saying people have to be vulgar about it, like Charlie Hebdo was apparently, but when ISIS or any other terrorist group retaliates against satire about their faith, or even the groups in question, people have a tendency to quit, reinforcing the intent of the attacks. These people fall into the minority as well making them easy targets for terrorists. If we take the power from them socially and financially then they will have less of an impact on the world. Maybe we should even stop broadcasting some of the things they're doing, as it's just free publicity. 

This was more of an attempt at offering up an alternative to a strictly military option. It's either flush them out, attack them, or do nothing. Anyone who actually thinks diplomacy is going to work with a group like ISIS is dreaming.


----------



## narad

cip 123 said:


> There was a video I saw recently adding up statistics of people who believed in sharia law and its justification and it turned out that a majority of the worlds muslims believed in it, making the peaceful muslims the Minority.



I'm not sure about that, but I do believe that there is a tendency amongst any organization that has its own set of tenets to prefer to settle any injustices and misbehaviors "in house." This is true of the catholic church and the US military, and I feel it's also at play in a lot of UK Muslim communities. It's a tradition that obviously runs counter to the kind of intelligence gathering that can hinder/prevent attacks like the one we just witnessed.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

I mourn for our social media fueled hypocrisy.

America: Your Solidarity with Paris is Embarrassingly Misguided AnonHQ


----------



## flint757

Considering the attack that happened a few months ago in Kenya, taking over a hundred children lives, I can definitely understand peoples frustration that it's just accepted that violence can/will take place there making it less worthy of consideration/discussion (and many other places where violence is just accepted as the norm). Had a friend of mine not linked me to the incident when it happened I wouldn't have even known that it happened at all. You shouldn't have to dig online to get important news, but alas nowadays you have no choice.


----------



## cip 123

narad said:


> I'm not sure about that, but I do believe that there is a tendency amongst any organization that has its own set of tenets to prefer to settle any injustices and misbehaviors "in house." This is true of the catholic church and the US military, and I feel it's also at play in a lot of UK Muslim communities. It's a tradition that obviously runs counter to the kind of intelligence gathering that can hinder/prevent attacks like the one we just witnessed.



Heres the video I found it again - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg

Again it's just statistics. (Also I for some reason get the feeling the guy's a bit of a dick)

The law is also called Taqiya which allows them to lie and commit acts for the cause of Islam (As I believe again I'm not muslim)

Definitely the UK muslim community in London(You'll know better than me) I believe has a large shira law following, and the UK government is too afraid to offend anyone to stop anything.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

narad said:


> *a bunch o' stuff*




Cool man, thanks for taking the time to type all that. I can't say I strongly disagree with any of it enough to formulate counterpoints, especially since none of it really precludes military action. Heck, I'm a-o-kay with the US sitting this one out, so long as EU coalition forces are in there doing something about it instead. We can just sit and wait until our help is asked for.

...or until something like this happens in the US, which I suspect will happen sooner rather than later.

I'm seeing some parallels here.

There's a large conflict in a region, leaving disenfranchised people and a power vacuum in regions with borders drawn up by politicians.

A group of sh!theads rises up to take the disenfranchised under their wing and fill the vacuum, then spreads across the region, sowing discord wherever they go.

Some people in the US advocate isolationism, claiming it's a problem for people in the region in question, not for Americans.

All we need now is a Pearl Harbor and the cycle will be complete.


----------



## Zado

Andromalia said:


> b) The only way out of this crisis is not war. It is stopping the funding of ISIS and other various groups, and this can be done.



Rumors, which can be trusted or not, say that founds also come from certain EU and US sources... and I don't doubt it heavily, cause like I said I don't believe this is mere religious stuff. There's politics under the whole thing, some have interests of some sort.


----------



## flint757

I have no doubt about that, especially since our politicians seem to be in perpetual fear of Russia. Our politicians have made IMO consistently dumb decisions to keep Russia from doing whatever they think they're up to at the time. That and arming radicals who happen to have coinciding goals for the time being without actually considering the long term consequences of arming people we will eventually not be 'friends' with down the road. I'm leaning towards someone knowing something we don't because otherwise people who are supposed to be intelligent are in fact monstrously stupid in our military/government.


----------



## Alex Kenivel

Spread the love


----------



## sevenstringj

Zado said:


> Rumors, which can be trusted or not, say that founds also come from certain EU and US sources... and I don't doubt it heavily, cause like I said I don't believe this is mere religious stuff. There's politics under the whole thing, some have interests of some sort.



At least stealing hundreds of millions from Mosul banks, and taking in millions more in ransom is not rumor: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/14/world/middleeast/isis-expansion.html?_r=1

The Islamic State would take great offense to your "mere religious stuff" characterization. Watch their film "Until there came to them clear evidence."


----------



## narad

sevenstringj said:


> The Islamic State would take great offense to your "mere religious stuff" characterization. Watch their film "Until there came to them clear evidence."



Don't think anyone cares what the Islamic State takes offense to.


----------



## hairychris

Hope all the folks on here are OK. I know one guy who got shot in the leg (was still in hospital as of yesterday) and have a couple of friends who knew the merch guy who was killed... Pretty ....ed up.

Not getting in to the politics of it too deeply, but will not be surprised if the vast majority of the arseholes who did this are home-grown (the London bombers were, for example). Bombing the living .... out of Syria may not really achieve a great deal if the underlying philosophy isn't addressed. The elephant in the room is that Saudi Arabia has been exporting Salafi/Wahhabi teaching for decades and ISIS takes most of it's cues from that...


----------



## Ibanezsam4

hairychris said:


> Not getting in to the politics of it too deeply, but will not be surprised if the vast majority of the arseholes who did this are home-grown (the London bombers were, for example). Bombing the living .... out of Syria may not really achieve a great deal if the underlying philosophy isn't addressed. The elephant in the room is that Saudi Arabia has been exporting Salafi/Wahhabi teaching for decades and ISIS takes most of it's cues from that...



i agree, some witnesses described the shooters as looking "very European" although i think at least one passport found was legitimate?? i could be wrong (one passport was forged i think). 

anywho, if any military action is taken in the middle east the efforts would have to made against symbolic target rather than just training camps. 

What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic

this article really breaks down their belief system and how most of their movements seem to be made to usher in the Islamic end of days. so rather than just depleting troop numbers, i would say militarily eliminate end times prophecy with extreme prejudice. 

pick targets most closely tied with the ISIS believe systems and level them with little to no regard for whats on the ground. this plants seeds of doubt because so far the best recruiting for these dipsh--ts has been the lack of major defeats and the holding of these key sites. take that away and you break the spirit of the movement. 

the defeat of ISIS needs to be symbolic and specifically needs to be the narrative of secularism destroying militant interpretations of Islam. 

they lose all credibility after that.


----------



## A-Branger

cool vid

Waleed Aly on Paris Attacks, ISIS, Islamophobia | The Project

spread the love. Dont divide people, thats what they want


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

This is a bit lengthy, but it's definitely worth a read:

What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic


It breaks down ISIS' ideology pretty thoroughly, and gave me some interesting insight into what they believe and how they operate. It actually also outlines better than anyone I've seen so far why military intervention might not be the way to go. Yes, I realize that's what some of you have been saying, but trust me, read the article. It's really got me rethinking some things.

I'm still leaning towards at least some military action being needed, but I have even less of an idea of to what extent or of what sort.

EDIT:

Derp, someone else linked this very same article as I was typing up the post. 

So I suppose I'm seconding the recommendation now.


----------



## A-Branger

Zado said:


> Rumors, which can be trusted or not, say that founds also come from certain EU and US sources... and I don't doubt it heavily, cause like I said I don't believe this is mere religious stuff. There's politics under the whole thing, some have interests of some sort.



there is nothing more profitable than a war. And somewhere out there a very few selected are getting rich by it. And those ppl they live in a way different mentality/area. They see war as a way of good business. And waht happens when business is low?... create mediums for more, find a way to create more demand so they have no choice to buy your product again.

is one big agenda, and one big long term plan. So "big" and long, that it doesnt makes sense to anyone, not even when explained. You would think people out there cant be like that, but they are.



think about it. How do they get guns? amo? bombs? ect?.... is not that they are building the bullets themselves, they dont have the way to do so. So who is selling?

You wanna stop them?.... go to the very source. Stop them to getting guns and amo. Let them terrorise the world with a knife instead to see if they are going to do it



sadly, this would never happen. Too much $$$ involved


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

I take no credit. Just stumbled upon it.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

On another note: with France immediately counterattacking, does anyone see a bit of a double standard? They just killed all these innocent people while trying to bomb out ISIS. I hear people saying that France now is using the same behavior as the terrorists that they seek to destroy. While that sounds very "21st century mindset" and far-fetched, there really wasn't any other way for France to respond with military force was there?

Look at what the USA did to Japan. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and in retaliation, the USA nuked the sh*t out of them, which caused the country to have to go through a long period of rebuilding. The Islamic State has done a hundred-fold worse and perpetually launched terrorist attack after terrorist attack, and the USA has done nothing. I'm not saying that nuking the Middle East is the best idea (because I am in no way a military strategist), but something that wankerness said on one of the previous pages made me think: the desert is nearly uninhabitable, and the countries in the Middle East have kind of screwed themselves. If the USA were to nuke them and then claim responsibility in helping them rebuild (like with Japan after WWII), would it be worth it?

If ISIS had any allied countries or forces, then this whole series of attacks would almost ignite a conflict similar to the beginning of WWII. But since ISIS is on their own, here's to hoping that Russia's mobilized troops along with any action taken by European countries could wipe ISIS out. I wish the USA would get off our butts and make a more determined effort to help other than the occasional air strike. But it seems like the USA has too many investments tied up in the Middle East.


----------



## hairychris

Ibanezsam4 said:


> the defeat of ISIS needs to be symbolic and specifically needs to be the narrative of secularism destroying militant interpretations of Islam.



Actually I don't think that this will work as it will be framed as an attack on Islam, especially if western powers are involved.

The Enlightenment dragged European Christianity kicking and screaming into modernity. The same needs to happen in Islam, as part of the problem is that most strains are very literal when it comes to interpretation of their text.

There's no simple solution. Twatting ISIS won't fix the problem as there is nothing to stop a similar outbreak elsewhere - as per Al Quaeda pre Syria.


----------



## ghostred7

Really pisses me off that the US anti-2A folks are using this to grandstand their cause. We should be weeping for our brothers and sisters there, not using their situation as a podium to go after US citizens' firearms.


----------



## hairychris

ghostred7 said:


> Really pisses me off that the US anti-2A folks are using this to grandstand their cause. We should be weeping for our brothers and sisters there, not using their situation as a podium to go after US citizens' firearms.



Well, tbh, the anti-gun control people seem to be frothing about this... or is that what you mean?


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

Boom! Asked for Anonymous to step up, and they did.

Paris attacks: Anonymous launches it's 'biggest operation ever' against Isis


----------



## narad

Emperor Guillotine said:


> Boom! Asked for Anonymous to step up, and they did.
> 
> Paris attacks: Anonymous launches it's 'biggest operation ever' against Isis



They're going to be like..so embarrassed to have their instagrams compromised.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

narad said:


> They're going to be like..so embarrassed to have their instagrams compromised.


The amount of ignorance in this comment...


----------



## narad

Emperor Guillotine said:


> The amount of ignorance in this comment...



Anonymous hacking high school football players' social media accounts: perfect.

Anonymous attempting global information espionage? amateur hour.

They're video on this topic is really laughably bad.


----------



## CircuitalPlacidity

For all interested. With the French (and eventually other members of NATO) airstrikes, and Russia and the US involved this is going to get nasty very quickly. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W3ZLYUvAZvs


----------



## narad

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Cool man, thanks for taking the time to type all that.



Crazy how poor my conception of ISIS was prior to spending a couple hours today reading the collection of articles that had built up in my browser tabs. While I still think the general suggestions for a united EU front for border control, information, and military action is warranted, the situation is far different than what I imagined. Especially with regards to their need to hold on to territory to maintain the legitimacy of the Caliphate -- it's really not the distributed network I thought, so I have to backpedal there. 

I guess we know now not to march a Western army through Dabiq though!


----------



## ghostred7

hairychris said:


> Well, tbh, the anti-gun control people seem to be frothing about this... or is that what you mean?



That's EXACTLY what I mean. I don't even want to enter the debate (too soon IMO)...but Paris/France doesn't have constitutional laws to say "yes you can have one" and already have a very strict method/laws in place for them to legally obtain....but the anti-gun people don't want to acknowledge that. I'm not going to derail this thread (further lol) into a gun/no-gun debate, feel free to msg me or start a separate thread. 

I'm hurting/pissed for the French people and suspect this was more or less a diversionary tactic to take attention away from a bigger target. I suspect (hopefully wrong) that the US and other countries are going to see a ramp up in activity like this. Tactically, their targeting a Metal concert is small and really doesn't send much of a statement. Droves of US families out in Black Friday masses, etc seem moreso likely. I hope I'm wrong, but nothing is doubted any more, from the logical to the insane....I believe it all can happen and after seeing babies in mass gravesites while deployed to Bosnia.... I never want that on any country, no matter my opinion of the people.

Anonymous is only good for info wars...period. If NATO Article 5 is enacted, several NATO partners are obligated to help in some way. I really hope that we don't piss in Russia's cornflakes in Syria w/ ground troops....b/c if we do, this could kick off WWIII.


----------



## n4t

ghostred7 said:


> Really pisses me off that the US anti-2A folks are using this to grandstand their cause. We should be weeping for our brothers and sisters there, not using their situation as a podium to go after US citizens' firearms.



Anti-2a folks are non-thinking idiots. If their cause relied on facts and reality it would already be lost. Go figure they also have no class. 

Reminds me of the eco-terrorist PETA and their injecting fish in the face with bee-venom to try and prove fishing was evil.


----------



## celticelk

ghostred7 said:


> I'm hurting/pissed for the French people and suspect this was more or less a diversionary tactic to take attention away from a bigger target.



Did you miss the bit about the suicide bombers trying to get into the Stade de France, where the French president was attending a football match? That's a slightly bigger target than a 1500-person rock concert.


----------



## Alex Kenivel

Emperor Guillotine said:


> .. it's 'biggest operation ever' against Isis





article said:


> The group has been particularly active on Twitter, where it has worked to identify Isis social media accounts  often used to distribute propaganda and share news releases  and then report them to the company so that they can be taken down


----------



## ghostred7

celticelk said:


> Did you miss the bit about the suicide bombers trying to get into the Stade de France, where the French president was attending a football match? That's a slightly bigger target than a 1500-person rock concert.



Nope, but if they were really targeting the president, why detonate outside? A high-value target, sure...but I don't think that's the real reason they did it there, else they would have gone completely inside to the spectator area and detonate, killing/injuring hundreds instead of like, 5. If they actually KNEW the President were there, they're dumber than we are giving them credit for.

EDIT: not minimizing those that lost their lives....but just stating, IF they were making a play for the President, they would have carried it out differently....they had the means to do so.


----------



## kamello

I came here to SSO to check out the opinions of the people here, as most of the time it tends to be a lot more informed or thought out in relation to the stuff that I read in most newspapers (local, US, and UK) 


but to find this...




Emperor Guillotine said:


> Look at what the USA did to Japan. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and in retaliation, the USA nuked the sh*t out of them! which caused the country to have to go through a long period of rebuilding. The Islamic State has done a hundred-fold worse and perpetually launched terrorist attack after terrorist attack, and the USA has done nothing. I'm not saying that nuking the Middle East is the best idea (because I am in no way a military strategist), but something that wankerness said on one of the previous pages made me think: the desert is nearly uninhabitable, and the countries in the Middle East have kind of screwed themselves. If the USA were to nuke them and then claim responsibility in helping them rebuild (like with Japan after WWII), would it be worth it?




to even try to naturalize that action, and make that statement is by far one of the saddest things I've read on here


----------



## flint757

I don't agree with clean sweeping the region so don't lump me in with that POV.


----------



## asher

flint757 said:


> I don't agree with clean sweeping the region so don't lump me in with that POV.



I don't see anything he said doing so?


----------



## UnderTheSign

narad said:


> Anonymous hacking high school football players' social media accounts: perfect.
> 
> Anonymous attempting global information espionage? amateur hour.
> 
> They're video on this topic is really laughably bad.


To Anons credit, they also took part in taking down a lot of child porn related stuff on the darknet. While undoubtedly a lot of them are loudmouth basement dwellers, there are certainly capable hacker among them.


----------



## flint757

asher said:


> I don't see anything he said doing so?



No, he didn't, but for one individuals statement to dishearten him when largely the majority of us likely disagree comes across that way to a degree. We are in fact having an intelligent, diversified, informed conversation I think. So it just seemed to paint a really negative impression of the thread when the notion of wiping the region off the map seems to be a minority opinion on here.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

kamello said:


> to even try to naturalize that action, and make that statement is by far one of the saddest things I've read on here


Way to blatantly misinterpret my post to try to make me look like a bad person. Read my response to flint757 below.



flint757 said:


> I don't agree with clean sweeping the region so don't lump me in with that POV.


I don't agree with it either. I was just questioning would it ever possibly happen and would it be worth it. I in NO WAY WHATSOEVER advocated the notion nor did I say that I was for it.

Believe me. I know how scenarios like that play out. It's never good. Yet it remains an option. Pretty sure that the USA learned both after Japan in WWII.



asher said:


> I don't see anything he said doing so?


Thanks, Asher.



flint757 said:


> No, he didn't, but for one individuals statement to dishearten him when largely the majority of us likely disagree comes across that way to a degree. We are in fact having an intelligent, diversified, informed conversation I think. So it just seemed to paint a really negative impression of the thread when the notion of wiping the region off the map seems to be a minority opinion on here.


And it is a minority opinion for a reason. I didn't mean to dishearten someone by merely questioning.


----------



## flint757

Even if that option on the table were viable it wouldn't actually stop them in any reasonable capacity given how many territories they occupy, not including individuals all over the globe as well. It would temporarily stall them, kill thousands of innocent people, and likely end up creating new radical factions in its place.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

Footage Obtained: ISIS Executions Shot in Studio


----------



## molsoncanadian

Alex Kenivel said:


>



Yeah, taking down recruitment material and compromising the spread of this nefarious information is useless.


----------



## narad

UnderTheSign said:


> To Anons credit, they also took part in taking down a lot of child porn related stuff on the darknet. While undoubtedly a lot of them are loudmouth basement dwellers, there are certainly capable hacker among them.



Child porn's another good example -- Anon's niche is when you need some vigilantism to gather information to expose bad guys. But that isn't at all the situation with ISIS. It would be naive to assume that many governments aren't already pursing rather large scale information gathering on ISIS, and government hackers are much better at this than Anon's. If anything, Anon might even botch up more subtle long-term information gathering strategies with its brash tactics. 



molsoncanadian said:


> Yeah, taking down recruitment material and compromising the spread of this nefarious information is useless.



Yes. Do you think information that is taken off the web stays off the web? This is not a realistic goal.

Finally, this is like the fourth time Anon has declared some kind of war on ISIS. There's zero reasons to be excited about yet another Anon/ISIS declaration of war-like intent.


----------



## molsoncanadian

narad said:


> Child porn's another good example -- Anon's niche is when you need some vigilantism to gather information to expose bad guys. But that isn't at all the situation with ISIS. It would be naive to assume that many governments aren't already pursing rather large scale information gathering on ISIS, and government hackers are much better at this than Anon's. If anything, Anon might even botch up more subtle long-term information gathering strategies with its brash tactics.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Do you think information that is taken off the web stays off the web? This is not a realistic goal.
> 
> Finally, this is like the fourth time Anon has declared some kind of war on ISIS. There's zero reasons to be excited about yet another Anon/ISIS declaration of war-like intent.



Im not excited about anything, I think any steps taken towards compromising their recruitment structure (which I have been lead to believe is accomplished largely through social media) is a good thing. Would you have it stay up so you can adore that half empty glass?

God forbid the removal of some twitter accounts could spell the end of these large scale information gathering strategies.


----------



## narad

It's a double-edged sword. If you're going to characterize Anon's ISIS war as small scale as "the removal of some twitter accounts" to say they're not going to interfere with government espionage, I'd say...what is the removal of some twitter accounts going to help in an actual war? Accomplishes nothing. I'm all for plans that actually accomplish something but Anon declaring war on ISIS is about as effective as adding a blue, white, and red filter to your profile photo.


----------



## molsoncanadian

It's a well known fact that social media is used to recruit new people for ISIS. I've seen it first hand in Canada, and I am simply saying that by removing said accounts, SOME good has been done. I know it's a tough pill to swallow. Sure those accounts come back ect ect, but it's nice to see people proactively working towards change. I didn't think I would have to spell this out for you, but surprisingly I don't believe Anon will end this war. I guess I'm just enchanted with the idea of people actively pursuing some sense of assistance. Im sure you can understand why it's difficult for me to sympathize with those who would rather sit back and condemn while adding no real contribution themselves.


----------



## KristapsCoCoo

ghostred7 said:


> Nope, but if they were really targeting the president, why detonate outside? A high-value target, sure...but I don't think that's the real reason they did it there, else they would have gone completely inside to the spectator area and detonate, killing/injuring hundreds instead of like, 5. If they actually KNEW the President were there, they're dumber than we are giving them credit for.
> 
> EDIT: not minimizing those that lost their lives....but just stating, IF they were making a play for the President, they would have carried it out differently....they had the means to do so.



I read that the guard stooped the person at the doors of the stadium, so the terrorist had to detonate the bomb at the doors, so there's that... (not 100% sure this is true, bet it seems to be)

If you're thinking Anons are useless watch this
https://youtu.be/1roCo91PTuE
But yes, they won't be able to do anything more than some 'info war' on the ISIS.
Although they arguably are doing a lot of things the governments and intelligence agencies are not doing! One of the terrorists in Paris was in the ISIS and no governments did anything about it.
And IMHO gaining their intelligence should be the priority right now.


----------



## ghostred7

KristapsCoCoo said:


> I read that the guard stooped the person at the doors of the stadium, so the terrorist had to detonate the bomb at the doors, so there's that... (not 100% sure this is true, bet it seems to be)
> 
> If you're thinking Anons are useless watch this
> https://youtu.be/1roCo91PTuE
> But yes, they won't be able to do anything more than some 'info war' on the ISIS.
> Although they arguably are doing a lot of things the governments and intelligence agencies are not doing! One of the terrorists in Paris was in the ISIS and no governments did anything about it.
> And IMHO gaining their intelligence should be the priority right now.



Maybe @ the guard, but no mention the 2d explosion caused by someone attempting to gain access and be stopped, also the McD's across the street....dafuq? Or was it really a ploy to cause a mass-hysteria influenced exit of all the patrons? I still don't think they were intentionally targeting the president.

Nothing in that video shows anything that Anon is doing is really all that special. At best they've stopped a small portion of funds going to IS. Not that isn't a good thing, but nothing I'd stand up and applaud them for. IDGAF about social media or internet based drama. Unless Anon is sending people to put bullets into the skulls of these ....bags, I still see them as mostly useless. IS can completely unplug and still do what they do. No doubt intelligence gathering is important...but unless the intel is going to the RIGHT people (not Seal Team 'x'), it's basically not worth the effort. Also, Twitter accounts aren't tactical priority. Physical cells are way more important than Twitter accounts.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

Intelligence is the key to victory. Anonymous is gaining their intelligence like KristapsCoCoo said.

If Anonymous can shut down the sites of entities like the CIA, FBI, etc. then they should be able to shut down the online means of communication and recruitment that ISIS use. Furthermore, if they use social media, Anonymous can trace back the location of each person from where they logged on from. They have done this in the past to release the info and addresses of individuals who were their targets.

Granted, there is a lot more than needs to be done. But this is one small step.


----------



## KristapsCoCoo

ghostred7 said:


> Nothing in that video shows anything that Anon is doing is really all that special. At best they've stopped a small portion of funds going to IS. Not that isn't a good thing, but nothing I'd stand up and applaud them for. IDGAF about social media or internet based drama. Unless Anon is sending people to put bullets into the skulls of these ....bags, I still see them as mostly useless. IS can completely unplug and still do what they do. No doubt intelligence gathering is important...but unless the intel is going to the RIGHT people (not Seal Team 'x'), it's basically not worth the effort. Also, Twitter accounts aren't tactical priority. Physical cells are way more important than Twitter accounts.



Hate breeds hate. The thing is that we need to gather more intel and do the 
''put bullets into the skulls of these ....bags'' smart, not just bomb the shvt out of middle east, cause there are a lot of people that are innocent and they will suffer just like or even more than Parisians or people from Beirut or any other terror struck place! 

And I believe in Anons more than any gov agencies and military, cause at the end they've probably done more bad than good. IMHO the tactical thing to do would be to try to destroy the structure of IS. US have bombed middle east for YEARS and nothings gotten better, maybe just more people who hate west and would be willing to join groups like IS...



Emperor Guillotine said:


> Intelligence is the key to victory. Anonymous is gaining their intelligence like KristapsCoCoo said.
> 
> If Anonymous can shut down the sites of entities like the CIA, FBI, etc. then they should be able to shut down the online means of communication and recruitment that ISIS use. Furthermore, if they use social media, Anonymous can trace back the location of each person from where they logged on from. They have done this in the past to release the info and addresses of individuals who were their targets.
> 
> Granted, there is a lot more than needs to be done. But this is one small step.



The problem is that these entities don't like Anons and they will put down anything they do, because it would discredit them, cause they've tried to discredit Anons in the past... They've tried to make Anons look like the bad guys, they will not start to work with them.

I just don't have any trust in those agencies cause with all of their resources they are doing damn poor job and I think it's partly deliberately!


----------



## Alex Kenivel

Hey, I'm all for the demise of ISIS. If Anon can find a way to hurt them other than playing hall monitor, then I'll shut up and praise them. But for now it seems like they're bringing a laptop to a gunfight


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

KristapsCoCoo said:


> The problem is that these entities don't like Anons and they will put down anything they do, because it would discredit them, cause they've tried to discredit Anons in the past... They've tried to make Anons look like the bad guys, they will not start to work with them.
> 
> I just don't have any trust in those agencies cause with all of their resources they are doing damn poor job and I think it's partly deliberately!


I think you misread what I typed. I said that Anonymous has SHUT DOWN those organizations' online sites in the past. I did NOT say that Anonymous was working with them. That would be impossible.


----------



## crg123

Nvm


----------



## narad

Emperor Guillotine said:


> I think you misread what I typed. I said that Anonymous has SHUT DOWN those organizations' online sites in the past. I did NOT say that Anonymous was working with them. That would be impossible.



Shut down via DoS. Not interesting. I guess if you know how Anonymous operates, i.e. the methods they use, then it's easier to see that this is a round peg for a square hole.


----------



## RustInPeace

Our PM in Canada said earlier that he would accept 25,000 refugees from Syria. Now that this has gone down, I see a lot of people stating this is a very bad idea, with some being overly racist about it as well.

My question is.. would it be right to accept only women and children who are fleeing as refugees, and tell the men to go back and fight for their country?


----------



## canuck brian

RustInPeace said:


> My question is.. would it be right to accept only women and children who are fleeing as refugees, and tell the men to go back and fight for their country?



No. They've already lost their country because of a war that they didn't start and perpetrated by countries they're attempting to flee to. We'd be sending the untrained non-military males back into a war zone. Women are also fully capable of holding a firearm and pulling the trigger.

If we didn't want refugees from war torn countries, maybe we shouldn't have bombed the same countries into the stone age.


----------



## flint757

Yeah, sadly my governor decided to be a dick about it. Texas leadership makes all of us look like redneck buffoons. It's really depressing.

They never wanted the refugees even before these incidences. Now it just gives their choice some validation.


----------



## molsoncanadian

RustInPeace said:


> Our PM in Canada said earlier that he would accept 25,000 refugees from Syria. Now that this has gone down, I see a lot of people stating this is a very bad idea, with some being overly racist about it as well.
> 
> My question is.. would it be right to accept only women and children who are fleeing as refugees, and tell the men to go back and fight for their country?



I think what most people are upset about is the lack of screening process, and the vulnerability it creates. Brad wall (sask Prem had this to say)

"I understand that the overwhelming majority of refugees are fleeing violence and bloodshed and pose no threat to anyone," wrote Wall. "However, if even a small number of individuals who wish to do harm to our country are able to enter Canada as a result of a rushed refugee resettlement process, the results could be devastating."

Fair point, but I certainly see the overly racist tones in regards to this in general.

Looks like you and I are expected to see ~3000 refugees in Alberta alone


----------



## KristapsCoCoo

Emperor Guillotine said:


> I think you misread what I typed. I said that Anonymous has SHUT DOWN those organizations' online sites in the past. I did NOT say that Anonymous was working with them. That would be impossible.



I understood what you said dude, maybe I explained it awkwardly.


----------



## neurosis

flint757 said:


> Yeah, sadly my governor decided to be a dick about it. Texas leadership makes all of us look like redneck buffoons. It's really depressing.
> 
> They never wanted the refugees even before these incidences. Now it just gives their choice some validation.



Forgive my ignorance on the matter. maybe I have been paying attention to the wrong media outlets here, but since the whole _immigration crisis_ started I have only heard Germany send a message of welcome and I think this was mostly a make up maneuver after the way the _Greece crisis_ was handled. 

I think most EU countries have tried to pull out of any compromise since the beginning and my impression was that the US (as far as I could infer from CNN reports and such) were acting more as a patient spectator waiting to see what happens in Europe first before they made any statements.

Has there been any developments in this respect? I am really interested in that.

As far as the validation... that´s the main problem here. As long as the focus is on the dangers of a _cultural invasion_ as opposed to _these are people coming from a land on fire and there are laws and treaties in place that have recorded a compromise to help them_ there is really little to do. 

I think it´s really irresponsible how journalism and politics are addressing all of these events. 

What really pisses me off is that we have elections in Spain and France soon and this will most likely tilt the scale back to the right once again, when so much terrain was being gained in the past year.


----------



## flint757

As I understand it, we've already taken in some refugee's and we're set to take in quite a bit more over the course of the coming year. My governor wrote a letter, for whatever that's actually worth, basically stating that Texas would not be taking any refugees in. 

Until the Paris incident happened I actually thought we were just waiting it out as well, but apparently we were not. Either way southern states hate anything and everything about the middle east and Muslims so they've been against it long before they had any good reason to be against it. The attack simply allowed their nationalistic and xenophobic tendencies to become validated so who knows what's going to happen next.

On top of my concern for the safety of refugees, and a potential war, I really hope this doesn't put war as top priority for the upcoming election. If so it'll just be a George W Bush all over again winning the race. For whatever nonsensical reason people believe Republicans are the only ones suited for war despite their complete lack of tact on the subject. You should hear what some of them, like McCain, have to say on the subject. He wants to rinse and repeat the same scenarios that created the Taliban and ISIS in the first place. They don't seem to like looking at the history books, even recent history, to make any of their decisions apparently.

[EDIT]

paris-attacks-syrian-refugees-backlash


----------



## UnderTheSign

RustInPeace said:


> Our PM in Canada said earlier that he would accept 25,000 refugees from Syria. Now that this has gone down, I see a lot of people stating this is a very bad idea, with some being overly racist about it as well.
> 
> My question is.. would it be right to accept only women and children who are fleeing as refugees, and tell the men to go back and fight for their country?


This isn't a fantasy novel nor medieval times. You can't give a bunch of peasants a sharpened pitchfork or modified flail and have them fend off the enemy anymore 

Seriously though, what would they be able to do back home? Maybe the USA would like to supply them with some guns, so that 10 years from now they can start rebelling against the west because they realise they've been dicked over like just like the Taliban?

There's rumours that a large majority of the refugees coming to Europe have been men. (And lo and behold, some of them have phones, even smartphones! We rich westerners seem amazed that people in Syria were able to have job, buy stuff and go to university and such!) which makes people suspicious because obviously, all men from the middle east are perverts wanting to kidnap your daughters. "Why don't they defend their country like real men?" is a question often heard over here. The answer is often surprisingly simple though - the men are the leaders of the family. They have the money, they're the physically most capable. If they make the trip on a sh!tty raft, in the back of a cattle truck, etc, they can reach safety and report back home. Once they've settled and maybe gathered some more money, they can afford to bring over their wives and children _safely_. Because who wants their kid to ride a pig for thousands of miles?


----------



## neurosis

flint757 said:


> The attack simply allowed their nationalistic and xenophobic tendencies to become validated so who knows what's going to happen next.
> 
> [...]
> 
> On top of my concern for the safety of refugees, and a potential war, I really hope this doesn't put war as top priority for the upcoming election. If so it'll just be a George W Bush all over again winning the race.
> 
> [...]
> 
> You should hear what some of them, like McCain, have to say on the subject. He wants to rinse and repeat the same scenarios that created the Taliban and ISIS in the first place.



I think most folk around the Western world (or else the media and a scared minority are cab able of some serious noise) have been suspicious of the sudden influx of refugees for a while. In Germany the _Finanzminister_ has already gotten feedback for his comparison of the whole refugee movement with an avalanche. In Spain it has been sometimes referred to as a Tsunami. 

In my opinion if the EU had acted in unison and with transparency from the beginning the climate surrounding the immigration of refugees would be less heated. I think the pity and consequent mix of emotions that were stirred up since the Hungary events have definitely been conducive to this vibe that they are here to invade us. 

Regarding the elections, if the democratic debate the other night is an indicator there is a hint that the different politicians will try to capitalize on this disaster. I know they are doing it in Spain already. So it wouldn't surprise me to see suffering used as a political excuse here as well. That said please not another Bush. I think the world has had enough of that family. 

As far as McCain isn't he involved with business in the conflict areas? I understand at least 14 of our bank's in Spain are involved with business and support to controverted weapon development. Not sure if in the area though. It wouldn't surprise me that higher ranked people of influence have stakes in this conflict that have to do exclusively with money. 

I haven't heard any military spokesperson from the US yet but on the side of Spain a few generals and coronells have already commented that this quick rush of Hollande to suggest a forceful backlash, if that meant military action, was a bit misguided and perhaps too soon. They also have echoed what a lot of the common people think, which is why do Western countries still do business with the oppressors. 

You know. I don't know McCain all too well but when you switch on a Spanish politics show and there are journalists saying literally that Syria needs to be wiped off the face of the earth once and for all it doesn't take much imagination to believe a ....-ton of other people think so too. 

It looks like when you are established and have power you care very little for other people's life's. No matter who they are. That's sad. 

Today I heard something really noteworthy on the radio: We shouldn't be arguing who the enemy is. That's clear. Terrorists are enemies no doubt. That's common sense one would think. But not everyone is a terrorist. Justice is not a business, war however is. 

Another thing that I find really interesting is that noone questioned the good spirit of Christians after Breivik went on his shooting spree. And yet every time there is an attack associated with the muslim community the general vibe is that Islam is bad. 

I have to explore and research a lot more on these issues myself but at least at first instance it looks like there is a double standard. 

We'll see how all of this continues. It's just sad that we can't seem to get .... right after all these years. 

In the meantime, something people like to forget is the pretty large list of terrorism (not just with muslim backgrounds) incidents we have had in the EU in the past decades. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_European_Union#List_of_incidents


----------



## neurosis

UnderTheSign said:


> Once they've settled and maybe gathered some more money, they can afford to bring over their wives and children _safely_. Because who wants their kid to ride a pig for thousands of miles?



You have just roughly summarized the life story of most subsaharian immigrants, which they obviously share with a ....ton of other people who have to leave their countries DAILY. 

I think what happens is that people don't see how talking is free here whereas talking elsewhere, let's not even think of getting physical, comes at a deadly price. This is also the premise for so many people getting riled up and bitching about the lack of balls of those who flee as if it didn't take courage and resilience to leave your homeland and survive an ordeal into uncertainty (whoever has seen an interview with those who arrive knows how naive and misguided they are in their expectations and understanding of their rights). 

I mean come on... I left Spain and moved here and it hasn't been a joyride all the time. And my problems don't even start to compare to theirs. I think those who show zero empathy are in fact revealing a thin backbone and a lot of insecurities and fear of their own. 

And well... how do you stand up to a caliphate that is building an economy with the permission of all surrounding governments and the support of international business? Come on... even fleeing has cost these people stupid amounts of money. The logic as far as it's been explained in interviews on German television at the camps is "we have to pay those who might shoot us to let us flee." 

And what about the embarrassment of the business going around in the stations? In Hungary there were interviewees narrating how they were paying triple the price for a chocolate bar in order to feed their children. People ripping each other off over breadcrumbs. 

The human condition is really showing its face again. I the West we are just really prone to forget about it.


----------



## ghostred7

KristapsCoCoo said:


> Hate breeds hate. The thing is that we need to gather more intel and do the
> ''put bullets into the skulls of these ....bags'' smart, not just bomb the shvt out of middle east, cause there are a lot of people that are innocent and they will suffer just like or even more than Parisians or people from Beirut or any other terror struck place!



I never said, or even suggested, that we blindly "bomb the shvt out of" anything.


----------



## narad

"[Anonymous's] OpParisOfficial has announced their latest action will be to spam verified Islamic State hashtags with "rickrolls", referring to the practice of fooling people into watching videos of singer Rick Astley performing Never Gonna Give You Up."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-18/anonymous-being-opparis-against-islamic-state/6952826


----------



## canuck brian

narad said:


> "[Anonymous's] OpParisOfficial has announced their latest action will be to spam verified Islamic State hashtags with "rickrolls", referring to the practice of fooling people into watching videos of singer Rick Astley performing Never Gonna Give You Up."
> Anonymous 'hacktivist' group claim 5,500 Islamic State-affiliated Twitter accounts down in #OpParis - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)



Disrupting their communications, regardless of the method, is a good idea. They've also shut down over 5,000 ISIS social media accounts. We can laugh at these guys or shake our heads, but they're already doing leagues more than 99% of the populace.


----------



## narad

canuck brian said:


> Disrupting their communications, regardless of the method, is a good idea. They've also shut down over 5,000 ISIS social media accounts. We can laugh at these guys or shake our heads, but they're already doing leagues more than 99% of the populace.



That all depends on if having the twitter accounts deleted actually hurts them. If twitter is such a significant part of it, then twitter (i.e., the company) would be the place to turn to disrupt their communications. Not roundabout "hackery" that's only going to work on accounts with super insecure passwords. The US government already makes a huge percent of the twitter user requests...if they're using twitter info as a way to trace ISIS communications then all Anon is doing is strengthening ISIS's security and botching a huge information source for professional organizations. Seriously, it's worth considering.


----------



## sevenstringj

narad said:


> That all depends on if having the twitter accounts deleted actually hurts them. If twitter is such a significant part of it, then twitter (i.e., the company) would be the place to turn to disrupt their communications. Not roundabout "hackery" that's only going to work on accounts with super insecure passwords. The US government already makes a huge percent of the twitter user requests...if they're using twitter info as a way to trace ISIS communications then all Anon is doing is strengthening ISIS's security and botching a huge information source for professional organizations. Seriously, it's worth considering.



Lotta "ifs" there. Maybe you should spend more time gathering facts than arguing for the sake of arguing. You admittedly made an ass out of yourself at least once already:



narad said:


> Crazy how poor my conception of ISIS was prior to spending a couple hours today reading the collection of articles that had built up in my browser tabs.



It's not crazy. It's quite reasonable to spout speculative _s_hit when you don't know what you're talking about.

It's not like anon or the Islamic State are monitoring this thread for your invaluable insight, so relax.


----------



## molsoncanadian

Narad, What I don't understand is your butt hurt for Anon. Speaking purely from an moral point of view, you are contributing 0, and complaining about those trying to do some good in the world. I hope you can understand the issue with that.

I think the point you are completely missing here, is that ISIS is RECRUITING people from all over the world to join their cause through the use of social media. This is a FACT. Therefore, by removing their means of communications you are actively intervening, doing SOME good.

On top of that, no one came in here and said "GUYS DONT WORRY ANON IS ON IT, OUR PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED!!!" the only one who seems to be playing into that level of hype is yourself.


----------



## narad

sevenstringj said:


> Lotta "ifs" there. Maybe you should spend more time gathering facts than arguing for the sake of arguing.



There's no way to gather facts on how governments gather intelligence on ISIS. Do governments gather intelligence on ISIS? Yes. Are we privy to that information? No. 



sevenstringj said:


> You admittedly made an ass out of yourself at least once already:



Getting a bit off topic but yes, I did learn a lot by reading some of the articles that came up in this thread _after_ making comments in the thread. It doesn't mean I made an ass out of myself. GrandMoffTim was totally right about their need to maintain territory and I felt it was worth admitting that (also because other people were making the same argument I was). It's the ability to step back from positions you hold in light of new evidence that makes a discourse civil. If you're going to call those people asses, then frankly you're the ass.



molsoncanadian said:


> Narad, What I don't understand is your butt hurt for Anon. Speaking purely from an moral point of view, you are contributing 0, and complaining about those trying to do some good in the world. I hope you can understand the issue with that.



Again, I don't know why you think that putting effort into this yields only positive things. Why it's somehow impossible to believe that there might be something larger in place by the people WHOSE ACTUAL JOBS ARE TO TRACK ISIS, and whose efforts are being compromised by Anon - who are a disorganized bunch of largely unskilled people with computers. Or am I supposed to believe that you've never once in your life before met someone who genuinely just wanted to help you out but ended up mucking everything up just the same?

To quote an article:
"The hacktivist group Anonymous declared war on IS, and notified Twitter and Facebook of hundreds of accounts that were linked to the group. Many of them were suspended after Anonymous revealed their IS connections, but nothing keeps IS supporters from opening new accounts.* Sometimes, it might be best to leave the accounts active, since U.S. agencies are able to monitor their conversations before they're moved to an encrypted network or private apps like Kik or WhatsApp. (IS supporters usually include their Kik usernames in their profiles just in case a recruit wants information).*"

But you're right, let's not consider the potential negatives. That's not worth discussion. Ganbatte, Anonymous! Yay! Meanwhile I would rather contribute 0, as you put it, then contribute -500 by pushing ISIS to develop more secure protocols and ultimately not making a damn difference.

(Any personal butthurt with me and Anon is just from them calling themselves hackers/hacktivists, not related to what they do here. I'm very happy at some of the previous things Anon did before they started declaring war on everything.)


----------



## Axayacatl

The US definitely monitors ISIS social media and Twitter posts for valuable information. It is where non-state actors post confirming their role in attacks and also where they spread their ideology. Subtle changes in language, ideas, and timing are all carefully examined by experts world wide.

Every time that a group issues a communiqué they inevitably release a bit of valuable information. Of course the trade-off is heavily skewed in their favor since their social media gains usually outpace what we can learn from them at any given point in time from a single message. 

It is the job of security services to come up with a clever way to sort through all these messages. Whether the US can productively analyze so much data is an issue. I know think tanks and other organizations do monitor groups via social media, so I'm sure the US does as well. So no ''ifs'' there. 

Regarding Anon's efforts, the truth is that anything that creates a new problem for ISIS to have to deal with and divert resources to can be useful. If they have to devote relatively more resources in Syria (and globally) to spreading their message then that is relatively less time and effort devoted to planning attacks. Just like locking your laundry room or garage door: the lock is relatively flimsy and not the main point of entry or barrier for an intruder but helpful if it buys you time. (I don't get it, the hypothetical intruder uses Twitter?  ). 

Edit: On the other hand, the efforts would completely backfire if ISIS concluded that because of Anon's success in closing down social media that the only way they could spread their message was through the propaganda of actual attacks!!

Anon's efforts may have yet another positive effect on efforts to combat ISIS and that is through the minds of young men and women who are most vulnerable to being radicalized. As you can probably tell, the most publicly observed counter terrorism efforts are all carried out by a state actor (''The US drones so-and-so, France bombs ISIS, etc, Assad gases 100 would-be-terrorist children, etc.") It may actually be very productive for these young people who are potential ISIS recruits to see coordinated anti-ISIS opposition coming from a group of 'similar' un-coordinated young people who are also motivated to stand against excessive state power and established authority. 

I believe you guys are being harsh with Narad. If I understand his argument correctly, he is just pointing out that Anon's efforts may backfire if it forces ISIS to opt for a different communication strategy that is more difficult to glean valuable information from. It is an unintended consequence that at least in theory is relevant. Whether it is relevant in practice involves a horse race between the ills of ISIS social media on the one hand (the recruits, the spread of ISIS hateful propaganda) and what we are able to learn from it on the other. I don't think anybody here or anywhere is prepared to call a horse in that race. 

Lastly, about encryption and security. There was a cell phone found outside the Bataclan with unencrypted information about the attack. But there are readily available encryption methods used by all sorts of people, from Iranian dissidents to the Mom of a friend of a friend's cousin who had a friend who bought drugs online in the US.  Top-level ISIS operational communications must definitely be encrypted and I don't think Anon or the US or anybody can decrypt one of those messages in reasonable human time even if the DOHS dedicated all of their supercomputers to the task. Ironically, probably the only organization with the patience to wait it out would be those millenarian ISIS guys. 

Oh, yah, FCK U ISIS.


----------



## molsoncanadian

narad said:


> There's no way to gather facts on how governments gather intelligence on ISIS. Do governments gather intelligence on ISIS? Yes. Are we privy to that information? No.
> 
> 
> 
> Getting a bit off topic but yes, I did learn a lot by reading some of the articles that came up in this thread _after_ making comments in the thread. It doesn't mean I made an ass out of myself. GrandMoffTim was totally right about their need to maintain territory and I felt it was worth admitting that (also because other people were making the same argument I was). It's the ability to step back from positions you hold in light of new evidence that makes a discourse civil. If you're going to call those people asses, then frankly you're the ass.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't know why you think that putting effort into this yields only positive things. Why it's somehow impossible to believe that there might be something larger in place by the people WHOSE ACTUAL JOBS ARE TO TRACK ISIS, and whose efforts are being compromised by Anon - who are a disorganized bunch of largely unskilled people with computers. Or am I supposed to believe that you've never once in your life before met someone who genuinely just wanted to help you out but ended up mucking everything up just the same?
> 
> To quote an article:
> "The hacktivist group Anonymous declared war on IS, and notified Twitter and Facebook of hundreds of accounts that were linked to the group. Many of them were suspended after Anonymous revealed their IS connections, but nothing keeps IS supporters from opening new accounts.* Sometimes, it might be best to leave the accounts active, since U.S. agencies are able to monitor their conversations before they're moved to an encrypted network or private apps like Kik or WhatsApp. (IS supporters usually include their Kik usernames in their profiles just in case a recruit wants information).*"
> 
> But you're right, let's not consider the potential negatives. That's not worth discussion. Ganbatte, Anonymous! Yay! Meanwhile I would rather contribute 0, as you put it, then contribute -500 by pushing ISIS to develop more secure protocols and ultimately not making a damn difference.
> 
> (Any personal butthurt with me and Anon is just from them calling themselves hackers/hacktivists, not related to what they do here. I'm very happy at some of the previous things Anon did before they started declaring war on everything.)



Hmmmm, developing more secure protocols is ok with me. Sounds like it would make that information more difficult to access for the general public. Less hate spreading. Less global exposure to their ideals and moral deficiencies. Containing these ideology's to their birthplace. Sounds like a good place to start? 

Short of nuking the whole place there is no stopping these people. They simply faze back into populace and hide among civilians, as they historically have. 

I think the biggest point I'm trying to make here, is short term, sure leave the accounts up, track them. Catch a couple bad guys. hoo-rah. It won't make a dent. The same .... is going to happen, thats been happening for decades and decades already, but remove their ability to communicate their idea's and recruit new members on a global scale and you would be hard pressed to tell me that isn't a step in the right direction.

And while from a logistic standpoint I can see the issue of maintaining that level of activity on social media, I maintain, Anon's sentiment is a positive one. Furthermore, for someone who follows Anon's actions (*somewhat religiously it seems?*) they have already alluded to the fact that they are open to working with these agencies, again a little research goes a long ways.


----------



## narad

Axayacatl said:


> ...



 Well said.



Axayacatl said:


> It may actually be very productive for these young people who are potential ISIS recruits to see coordinated anti-ISIS opposition coming from a group of 'similar' un-coordinated young people who are also motivated to stand against excessive state power and established authority.



It's really a shame that in terms of the online presence ISIS is not as concentrated as they are physically. Otherwise DoS attacks might be relevant and you could practically post a call-to-arms to anyone wanting to contribute their cpu cycles to the cause. Imagine everyone who is expressing sympathy online now having an outlet where they could actually do some collective damage - would have been cool!



molsoncanadian said:


> It won't make a dent. The same .... is going to happen, thats been happening for decades and decades already



But it's such a different situation from the terrorist groups of the past couple decades. They don't do the thing where they "faze back into the populace" - to do so would nullify the whole movement. Have you read this?

What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic


----------



## molsoncanadian

narad said:


> Crazy how poor my conception of ISIS was prior to spending a couple hours today reading the collection of articles that had built up in my browser tabs.





narad said:


> But it's such a different situation from the terrorist groups of the past couple decades. They don't do the thing where they "faze back into the populace" - to do so would nullify the whole movement. Have you read this?
> 
> What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic



What? That article you finished reading a couple days ago? Surely more relevant than the actual historical actions of previous years.


----------



## asher

But like, he's right. ISIL is a physical entity holding territory. They're not the same as every other branch of violent religious extremism in the area. And they're the group we've specifically been talking about... no .... that doesn't work for the larger issue, but nobody was claiming it will.


----------



## sevenstringj

narad said:


> There's no way to gather facts on how governments gather intelligence on ISIS. Do governments gather intelligence on ISIS? Yes. Are we privy to that information? No.
> 
> Getting a bit off topic but yes, I did learn a lot by reading some of the articles that came up in this thread _after_ making comments in the thread. It doesn't mean I made an ass out of myself. GrandMoffTim was totally right about their need to maintain territory and I felt it was worth admitting that (also because other people were making the same argument I was). It's the ability to step back from positions you hold in light of new evidence that makes a discourse civil. If you're going to call those people asses, then frankly you're the ass.
> 
> Again, I don't know why you think that putting effort into this yields only positive things. Why it's somehow impossible to believe that there might be something larger in place by the people WHOSE ACTUAL JOBS ARE TO TRACK ISIS, and whose efforts are being compromised by Anon - who are a disorganized bunch of largely unskilled people with computers. Or am I supposed to believe that you've never once in your life before met someone who genuinely just wanted to help you out but ended up mucking everything up just the same?
> 
> To quote an article:
> "The hacktivist group Anonymous declared war on IS, and notified Twitter and Facebook of hundreds of accounts that were linked to the group. Many of them were suspended after Anonymous revealed their IS connections, but nothing keeps IS supporters from opening new accounts.* Sometimes, it might be best to leave the accounts active, since U.S. agencies are able to monitor their conversations before they're moved to an encrypted network or private apps like Kik or WhatsApp. (IS supporters usually include their Kik usernames in their profiles just in case a recruit wants information).*"
> 
> But you're right, let's not consider the potential negatives. That's not worth discussion. Ganbatte, Anonymous! Yay! Meanwhile I would rather contribute 0, as you put it, then contribute -500 by pushing ISIS to develop more secure protocols and ultimately not making a damn difference.
> 
> (Any personal butthurt with me and Anon is just from them calling themselves hackers/hacktivists, not related to what they do here. I'm very happy at some of the previous things Anon did before they started declaring war on everything.)



So you admit (again) that you're just speculating, and to back up your argument for the sake of argument you quote someone else speculating.  And the quote doesn't even say anon took those accounts down.


narad said:


> But it's such a different situation from the terrorist groups of the past couple decades. They don't do the thing where they "faze back into the populace" - to do so would nullify the whole movement. Have you read this?
> 
> What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic


The attacks emanated from Islamic State operatives who "fazed into the populace." That's what molsoncanadian was referring to.


----------



## Andromalia

asher said:


> But like, he's right. ISIL is a physical entity holding territory. They're not the same as every other branch of violent religious extremism in the area.



Problem is, it's still pretty informal, you can't just go and bomb the ISIS ministry of whatever. (Not saying you're advocating it)

The best way to get rid of those, apart of getting the states financing them to stop (Saudis, etc), is to break the ideological ground they are based on. Namely, build schools and educate people. Same as Africa. these extremist movements recruit among the disilusioned, the poor, the mentally unstable and overall the castouts of societies.

Some French people go to Syria and enroll. Who are they ? Mostly, people who have been told repeatedly they were .... all of their lives, because they are not white. Because the far right parties use freedom of speech to harass them. Because the police has a lot of racist behavior. Because the school system favors the informed, which they aren't. Because their parents are poor.

One good step would be to eradicate racist parties and speeches and not submit kids to Le Pen saying on TV "your dad is unemployed because of the arabs".


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

Well, this last page has been interesting. Things haven't been interesting for a few pages.



Emperor Guillotine said:


> Footage Obtained: ISIS Executions Shot in Studio


----------



## sevenstringj

Andromalia said:


> Problem is, it's still pretty informal, you can't just go and bomb the ISIS ministry of whatever. (Not saying you're advocating it)
> 
> The best way to get rid of those, apart of getting the states financing them to stop (Saudis, etc), is to break the ideological ground they are based on. Namely, build schools and educate people. Same as Africa. these extremist movements recruit among the disilusioned, the poor, the mentally unstable and overall the castouts of societies.
> 
> Some French people go to Syria and enroll. Who are they ? Mostly, people who have been told repeatedly they were .... all of their lives, because they are not white. Because the far right parties use freedom of speech to harass them. Because the police has a lot of racist behavior. Because the school system favors the informed, which they aren't. Because their parents are poor.
> 
> One good step would be to eradicate racist parties and speeches and not submit kids to Le Pen saying on TV "your dad is unemployed because of the arabs".



I'll need some evidence of all that. These people, for example, don't fit your theories and imagined scenarios:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/08/21/world/videos-isis-recruits.html?_r=0


----------



## SD83

It has been an ongoing problem in France and, specificly, Paris though for years. ISIS might be giving them new directions, new goals in life, but how often did they have riots in the suburbs in recent years? Unemployment is high, crime rates are high, and last time I was there with a friend of mine (born in Algeria, french muslim) he told me that even he wouldn't go to some parts of town for fear of being robbed, beaten up or worse.
Sure, there are also a lot of well educated people in ISIS that had good jobs and a family before they went rather insane, but those young people with a bleak future, or in general people who feel like they're being treated as second class humans are easy prey for propaganda aimed at them, be that by racist parties on the one side or ISIS on the other...


----------



## HeHasTheJazzHands

Paris&#8217; Bataclan will reopen despite terror attack | Consequence of Sound


----------



## sevenstringj

SD83 said:


> It has been an ongoing problem in France and, specificly, Paris though for years. ISIS might be giving them new directions, new goals in life, but how often did they have riots in the suburbs in recent years? Unemployment is high, crime rates are high, and last time I was there with a friend of mine (born in Algeria, french muslim) he told me that even he wouldn't go to some parts of town for fear of being robbed, beaten up or worse.
> Sure, there are also a lot of well educated people in ISIS that had good jobs and a family before they went rather insane, but those young people with a bleak future, or in general people who feel like they're being treated as second class humans are easy prey for propaganda aimed at them, be that by racist parties on the one side or ISIS on the other...



It's nice to imagine the well-to-dos just "went insane" while innocent adolescents were reeled in because of poverty and racist white people. But as shown in the NYT article and others like it, neither class status nor racism is the common thread. It's Islam. Alienation is self-inflcted as prescribed by the Quran. Harassment comes from within the faith to get people in line. The Islamic State doesn't offer an alternative to poverty and oppression.  They offer the fullest, most glorious manifestation of Islam: the caliphate, replete with sex slavery so prospective warriors won't have to worry about blue balls while they wait for judgment day.

Speaking of which, wouldn't you like to chill with martyrs on golden couches in gardens with rivers flowing underneath, with 24/7 access to the finest fruits, and perpetually youthful and beautiful servants? Or would you rather wallow in hell for eternity, where god will burn your skin off, then give you new skin and burn you again, ad nauseam... and in case you get thirsty, it'll be boiling water, so your innards can burn too.









No pressure tho.


----------



## SD83

sevenstringj said:


> Speaking of which, wouldn't you like to chill with martyrs on golden couches in gardens with rivers flowing underneath, with 24/7 access to the finest fruits, and perpetually youthful and beautiful servants? Or would you rather wallow in hell for eternity, where god will burn your skin off, then give you new skin and burn you again, ad nauseam... and in case you get thirsty, it'll be boiling water, so your innards can burn too.



If I only get to chill with the martyrs by being a major asshole, disregard women, tolerate slavery, kill people who think differently, fight to end music, sports, art etc... well, if that is what God wants he is the biggest asshole of them all and has to be fought at any cost... (plus I wouldn't rely on someone who is obviously that full of .... to make up on his promises)


----------



## Millul

SD83 said:


> If I only get to chill with the martyrs by being a major asshole, disregard women, tolerate slavery, kill people who think differently, fight to end music, sports, art etc... well, if that is what God wants he is the biggest asshole of them all and has to be fought at any cost... (plus I wouldn't rely on someone who is obviously that full of .... to make up on his promises)



At least not in 2015, FFS.

AD 1015? Ok, being a bit gullible MIGHT be fine, but c'mon, nowadays?


----------



## AxeHappy

SD83 said:


> If I only get to chill with the martyrs by being a major asshole, disregard women, tolerate slavery, kill people who think differently, fight to end music, sports, art etc... well, if that is what God wants he is the biggest asshole of them all and has to be fought at any cost... (plus I wouldn't rely on someone who is obviously that full of .... to make up on his promises)



Whichever one of the Abrahamic religions one chooses to follow, God is, by far, the most evil fictional character ever put to paper.


----------



## vilk

Saturn may have devoured his own children, but at least he didn't like mentally .... with them and stuff


----------



## vansinn

There's a lot more going on than what immediately meets the eye..
ISIL/ISIS/IC/Daesh really started about ten years ago, not ~3.
Still, noone were able to see a horizon long line of brand spanking new shiny polished white Toyotas with interesting weapons on the back - despite this area being one of the most satellite checked in the world. Gimme a break..

Before moving on with the resent Paris attacks, let's look back to the Charlie Hebdo attack. Same week this took place, Boko Haram in Nigeria massacred 2000+ and got in control of an area the size of Hungary - after which they joined in to ISIS/ISIL/IC/Daesh.
Hardly any comments on this in the main stream/corporate press.
From there on, try looking into which oil company has huge interests in Nigeria..

Now, back in Paris, a truly dreadful event takes place. And still, loads more being killed in Nigeria at the same time.
Not to mention that this of course totally overshadows the story about the Russian civilian airliner that was downed over Sinai - now with virtually zero press coverage.

For sure this is a most dreadful event, but at the same time, look at the coverage of the refugee situation here in Europe.
Hint: While these refugees are indeed refugees, they are at the same time political ponds on a game grid.
Syrac is a wanted theater, the refugees are wanted to leave Syria in huge numbers, as this will make it so much more difficult for the Syrian government to handle rebuilding it's own country.
Further, refugees are wanted imported into Europe, as this means the blending of cultures, and as such nicely fits with the wanted unipolar world.

The resent events in Paris is simply part of a global Fear Factory campaign, intended to keep us all in fear with a terrorised mind.
No control mechanism as more powerful than fear.

Do note that the mechanism that's always applied is: Problem, response, Solution.
Create the Problem (leading to fear), await the publics Response (it's terrible, do something!), present the Solution (Yo folks, here's how we'll fight the terror [that we've created]).

Also, notice George Soros comments that Europe should take one mil refugees per year and pay them each &#8364;6500, totaling 20´bil euros a year, and that Europeans should stop feeling nationality, but consider themselves as.. Europeans.

What is wanted is creating a unipolar world, splitting larger countries into smaller enclaves, as those are more easily managed.

Who's behind? Look towards Exxon, British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell, the über big international banksters.

And foremost: Read the bible behind it all, the 1972 book "Limits to growth", which led to the UN Agenda 21 being signed by 179 countries in Rio in 1992.
Read Glenn Beck's book "Agenda 21", and Rosa Koire's book "Behind The Green Mask".
Understand the importance of the very resent signing of the new UN Agenda 2030 (full title "the UN post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda") on September 25th.

And foremost, always use the principles of Qui Bono (who benefits) and Follow The Money.
As usual, I haven't provided links, as the usual response mostly has been "conspiracy theory".
I would suggest, though, looking up Asia Times (atimes.com), hit the Columnist tab -> Pepe Escobar, and spend some hours reading his articles.
Among the many news sites and journalists I've used through the last ~3½ years, he's one of the best to accurately describe what's really going on.



Finally, here's some quotes from some of the leaders of the wanted New World [dis]Order:

Frankfurt School of Social Engineering doctrine (Frankfurt was home city of the Rothchilds):

* The creation of racial offences.
* Continual change to create confusion.
* The teaching of sex to children.
* Huge immigration to destroy national identity.
* The promotion of excessive drinking.
* Emptying of churches (undermining of any form of social cohesion).
* Legal system with bias against victims of crime.
* Dependency on the state or state benefits.
* Control and dumbing down of the media.
* Encouraging the breakdown of the family.



Snippets from the document "Quiet Weapons for Quit Wars":

Media: Keep the adult public diverted away from real social issues, and captivated by matters of no real importance.
Schools: Keep the young public ignorant of real mathematics, real economics, real law, and real history.
Entertainment: Keep the public entertainment below a sixth-grade level.
Work: Keep the public busy, busy, busy, with no time to think back on the farm with the other animals.

And further:

* Keep the public ignorant and you have less public organisation.
* Create preoccupations and you have lower defences.
* Attack the family unit and you control the education of the young.
* Give out less cash and more credit and you trigger more self-indulgence and social engineering data.
* Encourage social conformity and you make programming easier.
* Minimize protests about tax and you maximise the input personal economic data while minimising enforcement problems.
* Stabilise consent and you stabilise control.
* Tighten control of variables (like individuality) and you have greater predictability.
* Maximise control and you minimise resistance to control.
* Collapse the currency and you destroy faith in a country and each other.



About the stepwise creation of the EU, going from a free-trade area to faschist-socialist bureaucrat dictatorship:
Jean Mornet, founding Father of the EU, Rothchild frontman, wrote in letter on April 30, 1952:

"Europa's nations should be guided towards the super-state without their people understanding what is happening.
This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having and economic purpose, but which will
eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."


"All that's needed is a [global] cataclismic event to make everybody sign up to New World Order."
-- David Rockefeller, in the Rockefeller Foundation decade report 2010-2020, page ~35


----------



## narad

^^ ....'s crazy, yo.


----------



## vansinn

It is crazy, indeed..
Our world is wanted transformed into a mechanism where we are ignorant of what's really taking place. I mentioned having spend about 3½ years loking into this.

To answer why I've done this: I slept in the hour, and summer 2006 bought an ordinary two room (living room, bedroom, connecting entrance, kitchen, bathroom) owners apartment here in Cph 'valued' 1.77 mil dkk.
1½-2 years later, it was down round about one mil. I sat there head in my hands literary crying "I'll never get out of this".
At this point I'd heard magic keywords like Omron, SubPrime loans, Freddy Mac & Fanny May, Lehman Brothers., realized big banking et al was behind the so-called 'crisis', and started searching out info on international banking, international trading, stock exchange manipulation, flash-crashes, frequent-trading..
Well, it took me most everywhere through geo-politics and what have I [not].

Now, before anyone may (rightfully so) think I've simply been an easy target of disinformation, I can assure I countless times shook my head in expressions like "Ahh, yes, religious fanaticism" and the proverbial ever useful expression "conspiracy theory".
Now, I've been long-term unemployed, so I had the time, and initially spend up to 10-12-14 hours a day on thjis, after which I simply had to scale down, not to risk go nuts.
I've had to come to accept that most everything I thought about how everything is structured simply has been a falsification, a lie, a designed fantasy, wrapped down over my mind.

Further, I would strongly advice anyone to really learn language, especially the basis of English and Germanic ones, which means learning some basic Latin.
Reason is that we often simply do not know what the powers that be are really referring to, as our every day language has been carefully obfuscated.
Examples of breakdown of words in language:

Entertainment - 'enter': 'during'/'while' ; 'tain': 'to hold'/'to hold'; 'ment': 'mind'
Television - 'telos': 'from a distance deliver'; 'visionaro': 'create a vision' - from a distance delivering visions into [us]
Government - 'gubernare': ''to control', 'to steer'; 'mens': 'mind' - to control the mind, mind control
Hypnosis - hyp'/'hypo': 'under'; 'gnosis': 'knowledge'/'information' - burying someone under [wanted] knowledge/information
Occult - 'occultura'; 'that which is hidden', or 'that which is being kept hidden'
Liber - 'free' and 'book' - i.e. reading [a book] and freedom (Liberty), and as such, freedom to information, was indistinctable to the ancients
Ignorance - disregarding that which is free[dom]
Aboriginal - 'ab'; meaning not, and 'originalis'; original - i.e. not the original [population], in effect the exact opposite than what we think


----------



## narad

While I could argue about anything in all that, let me just pick something objective. I've a couple of degrees in linguistics and while I'm not super great at my etymologies, I can say that right out 'hypnosis' isn't derived from 'hypo'+'gnosis', it's from 'hypnos', meaning sleep. Pretty much all your derivations look suspect. Then everything about them looks really suspect. And then the whole thing is super off topic.


----------



## vansinn

Thanks for the corrections; always useful. I have no degrees, but simply need to start somewhere..
One of the problems with stating something incorrect is, as you're indicating, that it may serve to make everything else likewise look incorrect too.
However, I do not think that what I wrote has to be off-topic, as it relates to how such events may be perceived.


----------



## narad

vansinn said:


> One of the problems with stating something incorrect is, as you're indicating, that it may serve to make everything else likewise look incorrect too.



I hope, because that's certainly what I'm implying. I mean, you just recommended looking at the etymology of these words as being something that's really important to this global conspiracy, yet every one I look at is incorrect. How can you reconcile that?

One that's laughably bad is "government." -- the "-ment" suffix isn't derived from the latin "mens", which comes into English as a root ("mental"). Instead, it's one of the de facto suffixes for creating nouns from verbs, which is ...well, completely obvious and you can rattle out these words one a second...treatment, measurement, judgement, enjoyment, etc. Extremely productive suffix.

Now, if you have that wrong, what else have you gotten wrong?

I can keep going - I spot 2 more that are immediately wrong (Latin), and I imagine the others are also wrong. But even if they were correct, I mean, the etymology of words has no bearing on how we perceive. It's quite obvious - if someone does not know the underlying derivation of a word, then they're not susceptible to any hidden semantics of these words. Words have no power on their own - it's how they're internalized.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

If only the world could accept there is no god


----------



## SD83

narad said:


> I hope, because that's certainly what I'm implying. I mean, you just recommended looking at the etymology of these words as being something that's really important to this global conspiracy, yet every one I look at is incorrect. How can you reconcile that?
> 
> One that's laughably bad is "government." -- the "-ment" suffix isn't derived from the latin "mens", which comes into English as a root ("mental"). Instead, it's one of the de facto suffixes for creating nouns from verbs, which is ...well, completely obvious and you can rattle out these words one a second...treatment, measurement, judgement, enjoyment, etc. Extremely productive suffix.
> 
> Now, if you have that wrong, what else have you gotten wrong?
> 
> I can keep going - I spot 2 more that are immediately wrong (Latin), and I imagine the others are also wrong. But even if they were correct, I mean, the etymology of words has no bearing on how we perceive. It's quite obvious - if someone does not know the underlying derivation of a word, then they're not susceptible to any hidden semantics of these words. Words have no power on their own - it's how they're internalized.



Well, that's because you don't learn "real linguistics" anywhere.

I'll not go into detail here, because I disagree with a lot of the details in vansinns post (eg empty churches, breakdown of families and nations etc. being bad), but I definitly agree with some others, and I don't want to derail the thread... what I totally agree with is that authorities will use the current situation to gain even more power. It is much easier to find a common fear than to find a common goal. If anything, I'd say what is needed is empty temples of all religions, and that includes more modern ones like "economic growth". 
"Enlightment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity." 
As long as anyone unquestioningly believes things that are written in the Bible or the Qu'ran or said in Congress or The Sun or on BBC (or Fox News for that matter. Or written in The Lord of the Rings.Or said in Star Wars Episode 7.) we're bound to run into trouble like this. What I don't understand is that a lot of us can have a small "inner circle" around themselves were all this violence and hatred is some outside thing and why that can't be true for everyone... And again, I'm disgressing... sorry


----------



## Randy

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> If only the world could accept there is no god



People who don't believe in God


Are still capable of being insane.
Still occasionally kill people.
Sometimes follow the teaching of polarizing leaders.


----------



## sevenstringj

Randy said:


> People who don't believe in God white supremacy
> 
> 
> Are still capable of being insane.
> Still occasionally kill people.
> Sometimes follow the teaching of polarizing leaders.


Hey, that's pretty neat! From stoning to lynching. What else can we trivialize with that logic?


----------



## The Reverend

Why are tragedies never just tragedies? Every time something happens here in the States, people trip over themselves to identify some crying brunette as a "crisis actor." As if an all-powerful, international shadow regime can't find more than one brunette to play a crisis actor?

I think governmental conspiracy theories stem from the same fear that creates religions, or rather a sort of existential anxiety: What if we are all that there is? What if these f--ked up acts of terrorism across the globe aren't the machinations of some nebulous group of men, but really just as simple as it seems? What if humans are really just that disgusting at times? When our collective sins stand out in such a stark, profound manner, why are we afraid to admit that this is just how we can be sometimes? 

I don't know if the attack in Paris was orchestrated as a way to diffuse European nationalism in EU member countries, or if it was the US using ISIS to get other countries to fight our wars. To me, the answer is less important than figuring out why people are capable of doing terrible things, and where the process to start changing our tolerance for evil begins.


----------



## asher

sevenstringj said:


> Hey, that's pretty neat! From stoning to lynching. What else can we trivialize with that logic?



I feel like you're missing Randy's point...

otherwise I have no idea what you're responding to...


----------



## flint757

I'm assuming that Randy was implying that if you removed religion there'd be something new to takes its places for justifying violence (otherwise he was just pointing out the obvious), and to a degree he's right. The one area I disagree with that sentiment is that religion is probably the easiest way to sway a huge number of people to do largely unspeakable things without them ever questioning why, since most religions frown on free thought/critical thinking. That being said, poverty and (real or fabricated) grievances/betrayals can be equally effective if you just take the leaders, whomever they may be, at their word. Somehow we've managed to invoke both of these at once with groups like ISIS (religion, and grievances and poverty).


----------



## Randy

Different things are going to resonate with different people at different times. Religion is most often embraced in situations of desperation (be it fear, health related or financial hardship) because it accompanies peace of mind that the bad or potential good in ones life is in the hands of someone (or something) else. 

Its possible and even historically proven that those criteria can be found and wielded without religion or a belief in God being the motivating factor or being present at all.

ISIS is being invoked for their somewhat consistent religious beliefs being a binding and motivating factor, but you look at a group responsible for comparatively (or even more) egregious acts, the Nazis, and youll see some variation among religious beliefs among followers and leadship alike... Their central motivation stemming from hatred of a single group and rabid nationalism.

Anyway, my post was mostly in direct response to what I quote. The 'when will people stop believing in god so that we can have a utopia' argument is usually disingenuous soapboxing, especially when it's a one liner in a marginally related story. I think it's just a lazy statement to make.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

Being vacant of my own point (as usual), I'll just plug Sam Harris's podcast as it often delves into this very subject of how religion and other factors influence societal behaviors. Very interesting discussions to say the least . Also his interviews on Rogan's podcast are an amazing example of philosophical brilliance being verbally articulated. (IMO of course)


----------



## sevenstringj

Randy said:


> Different things are going to resonate with different people at different times. Religion is most often embraced in situations of desperation (be it fear, health related or financial hardship) because it accompanies peace of mind that the bad or potential good in ones life is in the hands of someone (or something) else.
> 
> Its possible and even historically proven that those criteria can be found and wielded without religion or a belief in God being the motivating factor or being present at all.
> 
> ISIS is being invoked for their somewhat consistent religious beliefs being a binding and motivating factor, but you look at a group responsible for comparatively (or even more) egregious acts, the Nazis, and youll see some variation among religious beliefs among followers and leadship alike... Their central motivation stemming from hatred of a single group and rabid nationalism.
> 
> Anyway, my post was mostly in direct response to what I quote. The 'when will people stop believing in god so that we can have a utopia' argument is usually disingenuous soapboxing, especially when it's a one liner in a marginally related story. I think it's just a lazy statement to make.



He didn't say that though. You read into it.

Again, the NYT piece and others like it reveal that financial or mental status is NOT the reason certain people are strapping bombs to themselves. Their alienation & paranoia is self-inflicted as prescribed in the Quran. ISIS quite simply offers Islam carried out to its ultimate conclusion. Far from "being invoked," they're shouting from the rooftops. It's pointless to spout truisms about people committing violence for other reasons or for no reason, because (to go with your example) just like with Nazi Germany, we _know_ the ideology at the root of these crimes.

I'm pretty sure if a bunch of Jews got together, rebuilt the temple and started sacrificing animals, you wouldn't even THINK to type "people who don't believe in god can still be cruel to animals, you know."


----------



## Randy

sevenstringj said:


> I'm pretty sure if a bunch of Jews got together, rebuilt the temple and started sacrificing animals, you wouldn't even THINK to type "people who don't believe in god can still be cruel to animals, you know."



I didn't say that though. You read into it.


----------



## AxeHappy

He actually didn't as he said you wouldn't even think to type that...

And Christianity was actually a *HUGE* part of Nazi Germany. Other religions and atheists were rounded up as well. You couldn't even join the SS if you weren't some form of Christian. The Catholic church officially condemning Jewish people for the death of Christ may have played a roll in being able to rile up Christians against Jewish people as well.


----------



## Randy

Still amazed at the level of soapboxing in defense of somebody that made a _very_ white washed statement out on an island. 

If you wanna poke holes in my arguments or put words in my mouth because you figure you can generalize or trivialize my positions, it's all fair game but we're having an intense discussion about a coordinated terrorist attack by a known criminal enterprise, somebody throws "If only the world could accept there is no god" out there and he's beyond reproach?

I don't chime in on a P&CE events thread in a few months and apparently everybody forgets my posting style. I'll give you a reminder. 

I think 99% of the things we debate in these threads are VERY complex, most positions have at least one notch of truth or the other but none encompass the entirety of the issue. To add to that, I'll go a step further and say 100% of the things we debate in this forum will not be fixed/resolved by a few people talking on the internet. Those are realities and as such, I don't purport to have all, most or even any of the answers, so I don't put a lot of effort in sharing my ideas like it's going to fix the world (opinions are like A-holes, etc.)

What I DO take issue with is sloppy, or inconsiderate posting. If you want to make intelligent arguments, I'll do my best to engage with you intelligently and I believe you deserve at least that. If you're going to just stick your fingers in your ears and shout out generalities like you've got the only opinion that matters, you deserve to have your arguments trivialized.

Or, hey, if you want simple statements and simplified discussions, we can do that too... If belief in god doesn't exist, do we have terrorism? If Germany wasn't majority Christian, do we have the holocaust?


----------



## AxeHappy

Randy said:


> Or, hey, if you want simple statements and simplified discussions, we can do that too... If belief in god doesn't exist, do we have terrorism? If Germany wasn't majority Christian, do we have the holocaust?




Can you show any terror attacks done not by religious people? Not trying to be snarky. Honest question.


I am sure some sort of evil response to the after effect of treaties signed at the end of world war 1 would have happened by the holocaust as we saw it probably would not have happened no.




I would agree that one sentence blanket statements offer nothing to the conversation.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

@ Randy
I just find the likelihood of individuals banding together to kill in the name of a Holy text significantly higher than a cult leader gaining the same traction. 
I'm not trying to say that a religion free society would be free of acts of terror at all. 
As far as people being led by an individual to do evil; in most cases the leader deifies themselves and the followers accept them as a God. 
The way I see it, a mass rejection of deities makes it harder to gain a following of the same sort. 
Of course Hitler is an exception to that rule and I don't really have a way to defend that. But without the support in the name of God would the Crusades happened? 
It's a reducing factor IMO. Opinions, opinions, onions, ions

Also, apologies if you didn't think my post was text-walled enough to be considered as anything other than "trivial". Religious beliefs are so often used as a justification for actions. Be it the "will of God" or "Our leader shares our beliefs so we can't fault him"

Anyways, tear me a new one


----------



## asher

AxeHappy said:


> Can you show any terror attacks done not by religious people? Not trying to be snarky. Honest question.
> 
> 
> I am sure some sort of evil response to the after effect of treaties signed at the end of world war 1 would have happened by the holocaust as we saw it probably would not have happened no.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that one sentence blanket statements offer nothing to the conversation.



People that happen to be religious and also carrying out terror attacks, or religiously motivated terror attacks? To fit this criteria, do the perpetrators basically have to be atheists?


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

I think it's more of the perpetrator's either use religion as a motive or a justification. 
Without that they have no motivation other than extreme hatred and intolerance. Which anyone is capable of, not denying that.


----------



## asher

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> I think it's more of the perpetrator's either use religion as a motive or a justification.
> Without that they have no motivation other than extreme hatred and intolerance. Which anyone is capable of, not denying that.



Oh, duh, I'm stupid.

Dylan Roof.


----------



## sevenstringj

Randy said:


> I didn't say that though. You read into it.





Randy said:


> Still amazed at the level of soapboxing in defense of somebody that made a _very_ white washed statement out on an island.
> 
> If you wanna poke holes in my arguments or put words in my mouth because you figure you can generalize or trivialize my positions, it's all fair game but we're having an intense discussion about a coordinated terrorist attack by a known criminal enterprise, somebody throws "If only the world could accept there is no god" out there and he's beyond reproach?
> 
> I don't chime in on a P&CE events thread in a few months and apparently everybody forgets my posting style. I'll give you a reminder.
> 
> I think 99% of the things we debate in these threads are VERY complex, most positions have at least one notch of truth or the other but none encompass the entirety of the issue. To add to that, I'll go a step further and say 100% of the things we debate in this forum will not be fixed/resolved by a few people talking on the internet. Those are realities and as such, I don't purport to have all, most or even any of the answers, so I don't put a lot of effort in sharing my ideas like it's going to fix the world (opinions are like A-holes, etc.)
> 
> What I DO take issue with is sloppy, or inconsiderate posting. If you want to make intelligent arguments, I'll do my best to engage with you intelligently and I believe you deserve at least that. If you're going to just stick your fingers in your ears and shout out generalities like you've got the only opinion that matters, you deserve to have your arguments trivialized.
> 
> Or, hey, if you want simple statements and simplified discussions, we can do that too... If belief in god doesn't exist, do we have terrorism? If Germany wasn't majority Christian, do we have the holocaust?


I didn't read into anything. I made a perfect analogy to your "position." The fact that you disclaim it proves my point. Now you're accusing others of doing exactly what you're doing.  AngstRiddenDreams's point IN CONTEXT was clear. No god = no god-inspired massacres. And in this case, we know the specific doctrine at the heart of the Paris massacres:



sevenstringj said:


> It's nice to imagine the well-to-dos just "went insane" while innocent adolescents were reeled in because of poverty and racist white people. But as shown in the NYT article and others like it, neither class status nor racism is the common thread. It's Islam. Alienation is self-inflcted as prescribed by the Quran. Harassment comes from within the faith to get people in line. The Islamic State doesn't offer an alternative to poverty and oppression.  They offer the fullest, most glorious manifestation of Islam: the caliphate, replete with sex slavery so prospective warriors won't have to worry about blue balls while they wait for judgment day.
> 
> Speaking of which, wouldn't you like to chill with martyrs on golden couches in gardens with rivers flowing underneath, with 24/7 access to the finest fruits, and perpetually youthful and beautiful servants? Or would you rather wallow in hell for eternity, where god will burn your skin off, then give you new skin and burn you again, ad nauseam... and in case you get thirsty, it'll be boiling water, so your innards can burn too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No pressure tho.


A better question would be, why do you keep dodging it?


----------



## Randy

sevenstringj said:


> I didn't read into anything. I made a perfect analogy to your "position." The fact that you disclaim it proves my point. Now you're accusing others of doing exactly what you're doing.  AngstRiddenDreams's point IN CONTEXT was clear. No god = no god-inspired massacres. And in this case, we know the specific doctrine at the heart of the Paris massacres:
> 
> 
> A better question would be, why do you keep dodging it?



I'm going to be completely honest with you, and I don't mean this to be derogatory... After Angst elaborated on his positions, I fully understood where he was coming from... after Axe made a follow-up post, I better understood where he's coming from... other than being contrarian to me, I have absolutely no idea what your point is.


----------



## Randy

AxeHappy said:


> Can you show any terror attacks done not by religious people? Not trying to be snarky. Honest question.





asher said:


> People that happen to be religious and also carrying out terror attacks, or religiously motivated terror attacks? To fit this criteria, do the perpetrators basically have to be atheists?



Valid question. If you mean that the person can only be an atheist for this to fit the criteria, than it's a straw man because the population of people known or vocally atheist is so low that the sampling size for occurences of crime on the scale of 'terror attack' for a group that small would be hard to track because small sample sizes are wrought with anomalous averages. It's also hard to determine somebody's personal beliefs unless they're explicitly stated at the time they commit the crime and even then, it could be a lie or deception.

If you mean 'terror attacks' that weren't explicitly religiously motivated... two that spring to mind that definitely qualify as 'terror attacks' (because they were meant to be grand, fear inspiring incidences for reasons other than "God told me to do it"):

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/oklahoma-city-bombing

https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/april/unabomber_042408


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

Randy said:


> If you mean 'terror attacks' that weren't explicitly religiously motivated... two that spring to mind that definitely qualify as 'terror attacks' (because they were meant to be grand, fear inspiring incidences for reasons other than "God told me to do it"):
> 
> https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/oklahoma-city-bombing
> 
> https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/april/unabomber_042408



Excellent examples Randy. This is the type of thing I'm talking about when I say acts with no motives other than absolute hatred, intolerance and/or insanity. 

Say for example people get beat up a lot. Say more than half of these involved intoxicated individuals. If everyone gave up intoxicants, the rate would be lower. Though certainly there would still be people getting the crap kicked out of them from time to time. 

That's probably a dumb example, I've added all I have to say.


----------



## Skyblue

AxeHappy said:


> He actually didn't as he said you wouldn't even think to type that...
> 
> And Christianity was actually a *HUGE* part of Nazi Germany. Other religions and atheists were rounded up as well. You couldn't even join the SS if you weren't some form of Christian. The Catholic church officially condemning Jewish people for the death of Christ may have played a roll in being able to rile up Christians against Jewish people as well.



I really can't join the thread at this point as I'm a bit late to the party (about 8-9 pages late, and I hate jumping in in the middle of an argument) but I just wanted to say that if my memory serves me right, the Nazi regime was actually rather anti-religious. The top Nazi leaders weren't too keen on the church, and actually had to stop some of their actions because of pressure from it (you can look up operation T4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4#Voices_of_opposition). I can't say it it hadn't helped the German people accept the killing of Jews easier (as you said, betraying Jesus and all) but it isn't really correct saying Christianity was a big part of Nazism. 

Upon some quick reading I see it is mentioned in the Wikipedia page about Hitler, feel free to read up. 

That's it for now, I might be back after I'll catch up a bit


----------



## sevenstringj

Randy said:


> I'm going to be completely honest with you, and I don't mean this to be derogatory... After Angst elaborated on his positions, I fully understood where he was coming from... after Axe made a follow-up post, I better understood where he's coming from... other than being contrarian to me, I have absolutely no idea what your point is.



That's not derogatory at all. lol  My point, and this isn't to be asinine, was that you haven't made a point. You've diluted the point. "People who don't believe in god can still kill people" is a truism, much like "animals who don't have wings sometimes swim." And I knew what was coming next. Sure enough, you successfully derailed the discussion into "what about the nazis" territory. When I addressed your notions of why the subjects of this thread and those like them are drawn to the Islamic State, you ignored those parts of my replies. TWICE now. And that was the bulk of my replies. I don't know if that means you're granting it or dodging it or what.


----------



## Explorer

Skyblue said:


> ...I just wanted to say that if my memory serves me right, the Nazi regime was actually rather anti-religious.








I'm going to let their own belt buckles refute your memory. 

You should definitely do some research, especially regarding the roots of the Nordic identity ideas, how Martin Luther provided the blueprint for Kristallnacht, and so on.


----------



## TRENCHLORD

^^^That's true. 
The Nazi's fierce nationalism was largely fueled by an underlying "birthright" mentality, and anytime there's a birthright play then there's usually some religion being used as it's core validation.


----------



## estabon37

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> @ Randy
> As far as people being led by an individual to do evil; in most cases the leader deifies themselves and the followers accept them as a God.
> The way I see it, a mass rejection of deities makes it harder to gain a following of the same sort.
> Of course Hitler is an exception to that rule and I don't really have a way to defend that. But without the support in the name of God would the Crusades happened?
> It's a reducing factor IMO. Opinions, opinions, onions, ions



Was Hitler really an exception to this particular 'rule'? While North Korea certainly makes its leaders out to be god-like, I don't think you could say the same of Lenin or Stalin. Those guys wanted to be essentially worshipped, but I'm pretty sure they also wholeheartedly rejected the 'supernatural' elements that could be attached to religious leaders, the Kim family, and I think even Nazism to an extent (all that Ark and Grail chasing they did in the Indiana Jones films wasn't created in a vacuum). 

I mean, I agree that if religion disappeared tomorrow (if only), it would certainly reduce a large portion of the incentive towards mass violence. I'm less sure it would significantly reduce the mass violence itself, because there is no shortage of desperate, angry people that would be willing to sign on with sociopaths in a fight against affluent nations and people. Removing a reason for violence doesn't necessarily stop or stall the momentum of violence.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

^ I know. If you see my post clearly says it's a reducing factor. I'm not arguing that crime wouldn't exist.


----------



## sevenstringj

estabon37 said:


> I mean, I agree that if religion disappeared tomorrow (if only), it would certainly reduce a large portion of the incentive towards mass violence. I'm less sure it would significantly reduce the mass violence itself, because there is no shortage of desperate, angry people that would be willing to sign on with sociopaths in a fight against affluent nations and people. Removing a reason for violence doesn't necessarily stop or stall the momentum of violence.



Rest assured, if religion at the very least Islam disappeared tomorrow, there would be a significant reduction in mass violence, because there'd immediately be a shortage of desperate, angry devout people of diverse backgrounds willing to sign on with sociopaths jihadis in a fight against affluent nations and people nonbelievers, and even other Muslims who don't believe hard enough. Removing a reason a divine ordinance for said violence would definitely stop or stall its momentum.


----------



## Andromalia

> Also, notice George Soros comments that Europe should take one mil refugees per year and pay them each 6500, totaling 20´bil euros a year, and that Europeans should stop feeling nationality, but consider themselves as.. Europeans.



Sorry, but talk to Soros about abolishing fiscal boundaries at the same time and he's having a heart attack. Soros' opinions and lobbying aren't exactly philanthropic, he advertises what earns him more money.


----------



## Stealth7

Interview with the band.


----------



## will_shred

[I don't know if this is appropriate for this thread so forgive me if its not] 

Violence fueled by certain extreme religious dogma really disturbs me as a whole. The Paris attacks were just two weeks ago, and yesterday in Colorado a white, right wing christian terrorist shot up a planned parenthood. Many on the religious right are hailing him as a hero. 

So, in light of these attacks, I have a question. Its obviously not fair to say that either of these attacks are actually reflective of the religions that they claim to espouse. Is it unfair to point out the parallels between the two? Religious extremists massacring civilians. As an American, i'm more concerned about these people that I am of islamic terrorists. And statistically speaking I have reason to be "Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims: 48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, including the recent mass killing in Charleston, S.C., compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists, according to a count by New America, a Washington research center." (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/u...es-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=0). Nobody is saying that we need to lock up, or keep a database of all Christians. I think that most people would agree that traditional law enforcement investigative methods would be sufficient to "contain" the problem of white christian terrorism. It was also revealed that the Paris attackers planned the attacks in plain sight, using their real names, passports, ID's, and unencrypted messaging. They pulled off the attack in plain site despite the combined anti-terror efforts of the most powerful nations in the world. (Paris Attacks Plot Was Hatched in Plain Sight - WSJ) It just doesn't make any sense to me how we can continue to justify the kind of personally invasive national spying policy to counter terrorism when those policies don't actually seem to be very effective at combating actual terrorism. However the government of France did place "at least 24" peaceful climate activists under house arrest using the powers given by the state of emergency(Paris climate activists put under house arrest using emergency laws | Environment | The Guardian) right before the start of the historic COP21 climate talks, not to mention on the eleventh hour of total economic and environmental catastrophe. I don't think that it would be a stretch to say that the reason for the extreme expenditure is not necessarily to combat terrorism, though terrorism does make these laws politically convenient to pass. It seems that they are much more effective at, and suited for silencing decent than for fighting terrorism.

Edit: I haven't been on here in ages because of school, and band. Now that we're on hiatus I have more time to shred and post on SSO. win win.


----------



## asher

Because brown people.

Seriously, that's all I got.


----------



## Explorer

will_shred said:


> [I don't know if this is appropriate for this thread so forgive me if its not]
> 
> Violence fueled by certain extreme religious dogma really disturbs me as a whole. The Paris attacks were just two weeks ago, and yesterday in Colorado a white, right wing christian terrorist shot up a planned parenthood. Many on the religious right are hailing him as a hero.
> 
> *So, in light of these attacks, I have a question. Its obviously not fair to say that either of these attacks are actually reflective of the religions that they claim to espouse. Is it unfair to point out the parallels between the two? Religious extremists massacring civilians*. As an American, i'm more concerned about these people that I am of islamic terrorists. And statistically speaking I have reason to be "Since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly twice as many people have been killed by white supremacists, antigovernment fanatics and other non-Muslim extremists than by radical Muslims: 48 have been killed by extremists who are not Muslim, including the recent mass killing in Charleston, S.C., compared with 26 by self-proclaimed jihadists, according to a count by New America, a Washington research center." (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/u...es-perceptions-of-top-terror-threat.html?_r=0). Nobody is saying that we need to lock up, or keep a database of all Christians. I think that most people would agree that traditional law enforcement investigative methods would be sufficient to "contain" the problem of white christian terrorism.]



I do think it's fair to note how US terrorism sympathizers are like Islamist terrorism sympathizers. 

Some killings happen which the sympathizer agrees with, and the sympathizer celebrates and justifies the killings. If that's a bad thing, it doesn't matter which group of terrorists you're celebrating. You're still a terrorism sympathizer.


----------



## AngstRiddenDreams

^ My cousin is constantly posting Anti-Muslim meme's on FB and supports the planned parenthood shooter. I summarized your post to him to demonstrate his hypocrisy. Refused to acknowledge it. Then bashed me for being a communist because I support Bernie Sanders. lol @ bigots.


----------



## sevenstringj

will_shred said:


> Its obviously not fair to say that either of these attacks are actually reflective of the religions that they claim to espouse.



Tell that to the Islamic State. Or watch "Until There Came To Them Clear Evidence," the Islamic State's own documentary full of references to scripture.

Come to think of it, you know what moderate Muslims could do? Make a documentary thoroughly debunking that one, explaining exactly how the Islamic State is distorting Islam. And not just by quoting different verses, but by addressing the verses quoted.


----------



## narad

sevenstringj said:


> Tell that to the Islamic State. Or watch "Until There Came To Them Clear Evidence," the Islamic State's own documentary full of references to scripture.
> 
> Come to think of it, you know what moderate Muslims could do? Make a documentary thoroughly debunking that one, explaining exactly how the Islamic State is distorting Islam. And not just by quoting different verses, but by addressing the verses quoted.



I think "Its obviously not fair to say that either of these attacks are actually reflective of the majority of the practitioners of these religions." is more in line with reality. All written doctrine is subject to interpretation. It doesn't mean that ISIS is any less out of step with the predominant interpretation of that scripture, which is the point.


----------



## sevenstringj

narad said:


> I think "Its obviously not fair to say that either of these attacks are actually reflective of the majority of the practitioners of these religions." is more in line with reality. All written doctrine is subject to interpretation. It doesn't mean that ISIS is any less out of step with the predominant interpretation of that scripture, which is the point.



Paraphrase the same irrelevant "point" all you want. If the Islamic State is "out of step" with Islam, let's have a verse-by-verse refutation (again, not just quoting different verses, but dealing with the verses that the Islamic State cites) by self-proclaimed "normal" Muslims like these:



Oh wait...


----------



## Explorer

AngstRiddenDreams said:


> ^ My cousin is constantly posting Anti-Muslim meme's on FB and supports the planned parenthood shooter. I summarized your post to him to demonstrate his hypocrisy. Refused to acknowledge it. Then bashed me for being a communist because I support Bernie Sanders. lol @ bigots.



Here's my strong idea: I support the rule of law, and hate those who would use terroristic violence to subvert the Constitution and the United States. 

If someone is against the Constitution, they are anti-American. That's it. You can't argue that you are patriotic while reviling what the country's values are built upon. 

Your cousin is justifying his own form of religious jihad, and giving aid and comfort to terrorists while supporting attacks on our Constitutional liberties. His actions show him to be an enemy of America.

The thing is, you don't necessarily have to convince your cousin. You just have to call him out, so that others see what your cousin is doing. Calling that kind of behavior out makes it easier for others to reject it as well, and to realize that terrorism sympathies are not good for the country. As a bonus, it undermines the stance which allows so many terrorism sympathizers to use false patriotism as a form of camouflage for their hate-filled beliefs.


----------



## narad

sevenstringj said:


> If the Islamic State is "out of step" with Islam, let's have a verse-by-verse refutation (again, not just quoting different verses, but dealing with the verses that the Islamic State cites) by self-proclaimed "normal" Muslims like these:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wait...




You don't get it: having a verse-by-verse refutation doesn't prove anything, only that two groups of people can read the same thing and get two conflicting view points out of it, which the two of us have already proven...


----------



## sevenstringj

narad said:


> You don't get it: having a verse-by-verse refutation doesn't prove anything, only that two groups of people can read the same thing and get two conflicting view points out of it, which the two of us have already proven...



Don't flatter yourself.  You haven't proven anything other than your relentless aversion to reality. Did it ever occur to you that if 1 of those 2 groups of people can read the same text and overtly and admittedly alienate themselves from secular society and justify--and even join--the Islamic State that maybe, just _maybe_, the text itself is problematic? Not too many ways you can "interpret" beheading, or a woman's testimony being only half as good as a man's, or sex slavery, or the infidel tax, or the friendly burn in hellfire ultimatums. If the Quran were nothing but lovey dovey proclamations of peace, love, liberty, unity and equality, then it'd be easy to see how the Islamic State were distorting/abusing/misrepresenting/etc the faith.

If Jews rebuilt the temple and started sacrificing animals and executing people for working on Saturday, would you throw on your cape and reassure us that it's just a matter of perspective? Where are you in all of Explorer's Christianity-bashing threads?


----------



## Explorer

I don't think that noting facts should be considered "bashing."

The 9/11 attacks were undertaken by members of an organization centered on establishing a muslim Islamic state.

The Colorado killings followed from rhetoric in the US christian-based "pro-life" movement.

Violent religionist terrorists are enemies of the US Constitution.

Are facts considered "bashing"?


----------



## flint757

sevenstringj said:


> Don't flatter yourself.  You haven't proven anything other than your relentless aversion to reality. Did it ever occur to you that if 1 of those 2 groups of people can read the same text and overtly and admittedly alienate themselves from secular society and justify--and even join--the Islamic State that maybe, just _maybe_, the text itself is problematic? Not too many ways you can "interpret" beheading, or a woman's testimony being only half as good as a man's, or sex slavery, or the infidel tax, or the friendly burn in hellfire ultimatums. If the Quran were nothing but lovey dovey proclamations of peace, love, liberty, unity and equality, then it'd be easy to see how the Islamic State were distorting/abusing/misrepresenting/etc the faith.
> 
> If Jews rebuilt the temple and started sacrificing animals and executing people for working on Saturday, would you throw on your cape and reassure us that it's just a matter of perspective? Where are you in all of Explorer's Christianity-bashing threads?



I think the better question for you is what exactly are you proposing then? Islam being a problem doesn't automatically make it an easy problem to fix and someone following Islam isn't automatically a womanizer, terrorist, abuser, etc. anymore than any other faith. Pretty much all faiths justify some serious violence in their holy books and the majority of misguided religious people manage to not attack people, including Muslims. Hell, we just had a domestic terrorist attack at a Planned Parenthood recently and it was a Christian, not a Muslim, who did it using the bible to justify his bigotry. 

We aren't going to be getting rid of any religion anytime soon as the belief is irrational to begin with. You can't rationalize with someone who's beliefs are largely irrational.

Other than yelling Islam is the cause and Muslims are guilty I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at...


----------



## vilk

I think because of the mass emigration from the middle east resulting Arabic/Muslim children growing up in a culturally diverse atmosphere with elevated levels of living, along with ISIS practically destroying any positive image of Islamic fundamentalism, we are going to see a steep, oh so beautifully steep drop in religious Muslims living in the West. As non-religious Arabic populations increase, we're going to see more and more Arabic children grow up understanding that they don't have to be Muslim. Islam in the West will go the way of Christianity: reserved for science-deniers, people brainwashed since birth, and recovering substance addicts; or it will be turned into a new-age non-religion imitation crab meat where it's mostly just "lets have a fundraiser" and "lets play guitar at church" and "let's hang out with gay people maybe we can change them"


----------



## narad

sevenstringj said:


> Don't flatter yourself.  You haven't proven anything other than your relentless aversion to reality. Did it ever occur to you that if 1 of those 2 groups of people can read the same text and overtly and admittedly alienate themselves from secular society and justify--and even join--the Islamic State that maybe, just _maybe_, the text itself is problematic? Not too many ways you can "interpret" beheading, or a woman's testimony being only half as good as a man's, or sex slavery, or the infidel tax, or the friendly burn in hellfire ultimatums. If the Quran were nothing but lovey dovey proclamations of peace, love, liberty, unity and equality, then it'd be easy to see how the Islamic State were distorting/abusing/misrepresenting/etc the faith.
> 
> If Jews rebuilt the temple and started sacrificing animals and executing people for working on Saturday, would you throw on your cape and reassure us that it's just a matter of perspective? Where are you in all of Explorer's Christianity-bashing threads?



So it's the other 1.5 billion muslims that are mis-interpreting? We're 1500 years removed from the creation of the religion's sacred text -- you can argue ISIS's interpretation is more correct given their adherence to the aspects of the Quran that were most relevant to the life and thinking of the people alive at that time. You can also argue that the vast majority of muslims are more correct given their effort to apply Islamic tenets to the modern society they actually find themselves in. 

You want to know what defines a muslim today?? You're going with the former so you can make more silly points, I'll go with the latter since it's backed by essentially the entire muslim population.


----------



## sevenstringj

narad said:


> So it's the other 1.5 billion muslims that are mis-interpreting? We're 1500 years removed from the creation of the religion's sacred text -- you can argue ISIS's interpretation is more correct given their adherence to the aspects of the Quran that were most relevant to the life and thinking of the people alive at that time. You can also argue that the vast majority of muslims are more correct given their effort to apply Islamic tenets to the modern society they actually find themselves in.
> 
> You want to know what defines a muslim today?? You're going with the former so you can make more silly points, I'll go with the latter since it's backed by essentially the entire muslim population.



First of all, I don't think sex slavery is warranted at ANY time, past, present or future. But hey, that's just me.  If it was "relevant" 1500 yrs ago, the Quran could've simply said "thou shalt not take sex slaves" or "he who takes for himself sex slaves will face the grievous chastisement of the fire" or something like that. Instead it's stuff like "The believers must eventually win through; those who humble themselves in their prayers, who avoid vain talk, who are active in deeds of charity, and who abstain from sex except with those joined to them in marriage or the captives whom their right hands possess."

Second, since I've read the Quran--and I'm betting you haven't--I can honestly say that I'm with the moderate Muslims on how they interpret it.

But having read the Quran, I can also understand how ISIS derive their legitimacy from it.

I'm also guessing you didn't watch those NYT vids on ISIS recruits and the Muslims they grew up with, or Islam Net's vid on what self-proclaimed "normal" Muslims believe. So your "1.5 billion muslims/essentially the entire muslim population" is a bit naive.



flint757 said:


> I think the better question for you is what exactly are you proposing then? Islam being a problem doesn't automatically make it an easy problem to fix and someone following Islam isn't automatically a womanizer, terrorist, abuser, etc. anymore than any other faith. Pretty much all faiths justify some serious violence in their holy books and the majority of misguided religious people manage to not attack people, including Muslims. Hell, we just had a domestic terrorist attack at a Planned Parenthood recently and it was a Christian, not a Muslim, who did it using the bible to justify his bigotry.
> 
> We aren't going to be getting rid of any religion anytime soon as the belief is irrational to begin with. You can't rationalize with someone who's beliefs are largely irrational.
> 
> Other than yelling Islam is the cause and Muslims are guilty I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at...


Quick note: authorities haven't yet revealed Robert Dear's motive, and there's no indication yet that he used the bible to justify his shooting spree. I read the New Testament as well and I'd be fascinated to hear which verse(s) he quoted. Anyway...

I never said "Muslims are guilty." I'm pointing out that the "revealed" text itself justifies the Islamic State. The problem is that both moderates and fundamentalists agree that the Quran is the absolute, perfect, ultimate, final, UNCHANGEABLE word of the invisible bookkeeper in the sky. So unfortunately you're right. This _s_hit won't disappear anytime soon. But at least let's not delude ourselves into thinking it's just "some destitute, crazy people" because 1) it's empirically false, and 2) it perpetuates the root of the problem.


----------



## narad

sevenstringj said:


> First of all, I don't think sex slavery is warranted at ANY time, past, present or future. But hey, that's just me.



Well I'm very much in favor of sex slavery, as you might have figured out from my many mentions of it in my posts


----------



## sevenstringj

Paranoid much? I clearly wasn't talking about you, as indicated by the rest of my post which you hacked off in your thoughtless retort.


----------



## flint757

Could you be more sarcastic in literally every post you make. Argue like an adult, m'kay?


----------



## sevenstringj

"that's just me" is irony, not sarcasm. Now you can address the other 99% of my post, like an adult.


----------



## asher

flint757 said:


> Could you be more sarcastic in literally every post you make. Argue like an adult, m'kay?



Well, the condescending .gifs have mostly stopped, so: yes, he could.


----------



## sevenstringj

asher math: 1 gif = a continuous stream of gifs

To quote your homie, "Argue like an adult, m'kay?"


----------



## FILTHnFEAR

AxeHappy said:


> You couldn't even join the SS if you weren't some form of Christian.



Oh...really?  Want to show me anywhere that it says being a Christian was an SS requirement? 

We will have to deal with Christianity in a tougher way than hitherto. We must settle accounts with this Christianity, this greatest of plagues that could have happened to us in our history, which has weakened us in every conflict. -Heinrich Himmler Reichsfuhrer SS

GHDI - Document

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler#Anti-church_struggle




flint757 said:


> we just had a domestic terrorist attack at a Planned Parenthood recently and it was a Christian, not a Muslim, who did it using the bible to justify his bigotry.



Not saying he isn't some Christian nutjob justifying murder in opposition to abortion, but from what I've read they haven't given motive yet. I haven't paid too much attention to it today, though.


----------



## narad

sevenstringj said:


> Paranoid much? I clearly wasn't talking about you, as indicated by the rest of my post which you hacked off in your thoughtless retort.



I got confused when you *quoted my post and then immediately started off with "First of all..."*, especially given that no one else was talking about that either. Anyway, did you have some kind of point? Just wanted to set the record straight on where you stand on the very polarizing topic of sex slavery? You wanted to use the forum to create some kind of unconventional record of which/how many books you've read? Because as far as points, yea, this:



sevenstringj said:


> But at least let's not delude ourselves into thinking it's just "some destitute, crazy people" because 1) it's empirically false, and 2) it perpetuates the root of the problem.



This isn't something the people you are currently talking to are disagreeing with. And when asked repeatedly to be more on point, you've only deviated more from it with silly image posts and pedantic clarifications. It just seems like you're arguing with yourself, and being condescending and mean to everyone else.


----------



## sevenstringj

narad said:


> I got confused when you *quoted my post and then immediately started off with "First of all..."*, especially given that no one else was talking about that either. Anyway, did you have some kind of point? Just wanted to set the record straight on where you stand on the very polarizing topic of sex slavery? You wanted to use the forum to create some kind of unconventional record of which/how many books you've read? Because as far as points, yea, this:


Of course you're confused. Remember this? "Crazy how poor my conception of ISIS was prior to spending a couple hours today reading the collection of articles that had built up in my browser tabs."  Not only did you take nothing away from that, but you MOCK me for reading.  Yes, I'll quote something specific from the Quran when you speculate about "aspects" of it. And I'll reference self-proclaimed "normal" Muslims in their own words when you pretend to know what they think. My points were clear. They're in the 99% of the post you again conveniently left out of your reply.  They're also in constructive exchanges I've had with others.



narad said:


> This isn't something the people you are currently talking to are disagreeing with. And when asked repeatedly to be more on point, you've only deviated more from it with silly image posts and pedantic clarifications. It just seems like you're arguing with yourself, and being condescending and mean to everyone else.


Umm, that part of my post wasn't directed towards you--I clearly quoted the person I was responding to--and I was actually _agreeing_ with one of his points and reiterated my own because they're related. Don't complain about something like this...







...when you come at me with such scornful nonsense.


----------



## narad

sevenstringj said:


> Of course you're confused. Remember this? "Crazy how poor my conception of ISIS was prior to spending a couple hours today reading the collection of articles that had built up in my browser tabs."  Not only did you take nothing away from that, but you MOCK me for reading.



Ugh, I don't mock you for reading. I mock you for listing the things you've read as if stating these things makes your points stronger! It's just a dodge away from stating clearly what your point is and providing support for your argument (for like the 5th time on one page).



sevenstringj said:


> My points were clear. They're in the 99% of the post you again conveniently left out of your reply.



If I cut out all the sex slavery and "this is how much I read" content from your 99% post you only say two things: you agree with how moderate Muslims interpret it and you can also understand how ISIS derive their legitimacy from it. I don't know - kudos? That's not a special power you have because you read the Quran - myself and presumably others in the thread have this position as well. Was that supposed to be your point?


----------



## narad

Actually, you know... nevermind. It's just not worth the time to read more of your posts.


----------



## sevenstringj

narad said:


> Ugh, I don't mock you for reading. I mock you for listing the things you've read as if stating these things makes your points stronger! It's just a dodge away from stating clearly what your point is and providing support for your argument (for like the 5th time on one page).


In what alternate universe does reading the Quran, viewing profiles of ISIS recruits in their own words, and listening to moderate Muslims in their own words not inform the discussion or bolster my points about said faith and institution? And you're the guy who ADMITTED to being ignorant and having to backpedal after I and others posted some reading & viewing material.  Axehappy got it. vilk got it. molsoncanadian got it. FILTHnFEAR got it. You're the only one busting my balls for no apparent reason since...



narad said:


> If I cut out all the sex slavery and "this is how much I read" content from your 99% post you only say two things: you agree with how moderate Muslims interpret it and you can also understand how ISIS derive their legitimacy from it. I don't know - kudos? That's not a special power you have because you read the Quran - myself and presumably others in the thread have this position as well. Was that supposed to be your point?


...you're supposedly agreeing with me.  You're really trolling in an effort to diminish, dilute and obfuscate points I made pages ago. It's childish. I could do the same to you if I wanted. Every time you open your mouth I can go "So uhhh, what's your point? Oh, you think you have special powers cuz you read stuff? What's your point? What's your point? Wanna cookie? What's your point...."


----------



## Randy

This thread has gotten way too chippy and the next snarky post gets a month off. A few of you have been warned before, so don't test me or i'm bumping it to permanent.


----------



## Explorer

I think it's relevant to note that at this point, it's established that Robert Dear is a Christian who has been listening to the anti-planned-parenthood rhetoric and calls for violence common on the religious and political right. 

I just thought it would be good to eliminate claims that Dear's religious motivations are unknown.


----------



## flint757

My point in mentioning it was simply to point out that no faith is void of violence and violent scripture. The Christian Bible is full of just as much violence as any other holy book and sometimes crazy people act on it. I don't go around accusing my Christian neighbors of being potential terrorists however, like many seem to enjoy doing towards Muslims. Like 1/7 of the world's population is Muslim. This means two things: eliminating the religion is simply not going to happen (it's almost impossible to talk someone out of their faith once they've fully committed to it) and obviously the majority of them are in fact not terrorists (shocking to some, I know). Blaming Islam is akin to solely blaming the gun for a murder. Yes, it is part of the problem and yes removing it would certainly help the situation, but making that happen isn't as simple as declaring that it is the cause either. In both cases it usually just derails the discussion into pointless philosophical notions that will never come to pass.

No one has to apologize either, or do anything at all for that matter, when someone else commits a crime of some sort. Black people don't have to 'speak up' against gang violence, Muslims don't have to 'speak up' against terrorists, feminists don't have to 'speak up' against radical feminists, and so on. We are not responsible for other peoples behavior. On the flip side, Christians can't say that Christian terrorists/criminals aren't Christian anymore than a Muslim can say that ISIS, ISIL, Taliban, etc. aren't Muslim. It blows my mind sometimes how often people try to pull the 'No True Scotsman' when someone isn't representing their ideas the way they like. Perhaps we should stop labeling people as a group and just say that people are individuals who have a particular faith. That way people feel less of a need to disassociate from others who have done horrible wrongs. After all, it doesn't require faith for someone to be crazy and it certainly doesn't require religion for someone to want to kill someone else. Murders happen everyday over silly things like jealousy, anger, money, etc.


----------



## sevenstringj

False analogy. Guns aren't self-proclaimed sacred, unalterable text that instruct people to alienate themselves (which clearly pushes some people to "crazy" like in those NYT profiles of ISIS recruits) or instruct people to commit violence. Moderate Muslims who are sincere in their opposition to fundamentalism are thus hamstrung to an extent, but it's ridiculous to suggest they shouldn't speak out against it or continue to try to reform their religion.

Plenty religions have come and gone and other religions have steadily reformed and assimilated, thanks to internal & external pressures. No one's suggesting it'll happen overnight, but ZERO progress will be made if we just throw our hands up in the air and pretend there's no problem with religious doctrine and white wash the whole thing with truisms like "people do bad stuff."


----------



## asher

sevenstringj said:


> Moderate Muslims who are sincere in their opposition to fundamentalism are thus hamstrung to an extent, but it's ridiculous to suggest they shouldn't speak out against it or continue to try to reform their religion.



Many of them _do_ speak out. That said, the problem is claiming that they _must_, and if they don't, it's tacit or even explicit support.



> No one's suggesting it'll happen overnight, but ZERO progress will be made if we just throw our hands up in the air and pretend there's no problem with religious doctrine and white wash the whole thing with truisms like "people do bad stuff."



Nobody's suggesting we completely throw our hands up in the air about the entire problem, and then extremist violence is just going to magically sort itself out; we're arguing that religious extremism is a symptom, or a vector, and not the root of the problem itself.


----------



## will_shred

sevenstringj said:


> Don't flatter yourself.  You haven't proven anything other than your relentless aversion to reality. Did it ever occur to you that if 1 of those 2 groups of people can read the same text and overtly and admittedly alienate themselves from secular society and justify--and even join--the Islamic State that maybe, just _maybe_, the text itself is problematic? Not too many ways you can "interpret" beheading, or a woman's testimony being only half as good as a man's, or sex slavery, or the infidel tax, or the friendly burn in hellfire ultimatums. If the Quran were nothing but lovey dovey proclamations of peace, love, liberty, unity and equality, then it'd be easy to see how the Islamic State were distorting/abusing/misrepresenting/etc the faith.
> 
> If Jews rebuilt the temple and started sacrificing animals and executing people for working on Saturday, would you throw on your cape and reassure us that it's just a matter of perspective? Where are you in all of Explorer's Christianity-bashing threads?



The "jews" have done some pretty egregious things in the name of Isreal, so I still don't see how Islam as a whole is the fundamental promoter of violence. Wahabi Islam, exported by the Saudi's mostly is without a doubt part of the problem. However you seem to be taking Islam out of context of the entire geopolitical history of the region. Like, it seems as though you're trying to frame islam as the #1 root cause of the problems in the middle east, and that is just plain small minded. The world isn't that simple. Just as an example, I know many people who served with the US army, who were Afghani natives, who are Muslim, who fought against the radical jihadists. Another example, Iraq and Iran were once both much more progressive nations, until in 1953 the CIA facilitated an overthrow of the democratically elected prime minister of Iran in order to strengthen the Shah (who would then allow BP to drill and export Iranian oil).The Shah was then overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini who established what we know today as The Islamic Republic of Iran. Again, these are just little anecdotes. My point is that the political situation in the middle east is ridiculously complicated, and there are LOTS of players involved in the background that aren't discussed in the national conversation. Not to mention the US invasion of Iraq, and i'm not even going to get into that, but lets just say that wars aren't great for political stability. They use a lot of resources and kill a lot of people, and leave many more homeless and hungry, with dead loved ones. People who are backed into corners like that are more likely to become violent. Who would'a thought, huh? The Syrian revolution happened during one of the longest droughts in the modern history of Syria which caused a huge spike in food prices, not to mention massive water shortages "As described here, water and climatic conditions have played a direct role in the deterioration of Syria&#8217;s economic conditions. There is a long history of conflicts over water in these regions because of the natural water scarcity, the early development of irrigated agriculture, and complex religious and ethnic diversity. In recent years, there has been an increase in incidences of water-related violence around the world at the subnational level attributable to the role that water plays in development disputes and economic activities. Because conflicts are rarely, if ever, attributable to single causes, conflict analysis and concomitant efforts at reducing the risks of conflict must consider a multitude of complex relationships and contributing factors." (source, American Meteorological society, Dr. Peter Gelick). Trying to explain it all away by blaming Islam is stupid. Islam is the second largest religion in the world, and there are over a billion Muslims, trying to paint a billion people with one brush is also kind of, well, stupid. Only %20 of Muslims live in the middle east, and of those people, they are highly varied in their practices and social beliefs. Like any other large group of humans. I mean, what if people imagined that all christian Americans were liked the PP shooter? This is practically a demonstration of the kind of double standard I was just talking about. 

Also


I don't really know how many more ways I can explain it. My dad's best friend married a Muslim from Morocco, she's a wonderful person who says .... Daesh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DopY5N3JeYA


----------



## sevenstringj

asher said:


> Many of them _do_ speak out.


Nowhere did I say they didn't. 


asher said:


> That said, the problem is claiming that they _must_, and if they don't, it's tacit or even explicit support.


I didn't say that either.


asher said:


> Nobody's suggesting we completely throw our hands up in the air about the entire problem, and then extremist violence is just going to magically sort itself out; we're arguing that religious extremism is a symptom, or a vector, and not the root of the problem itself.


You haven't argued that at all. The statement is meaningless. Symptom of WHAT is the question. And we've been through that already.


will_shred said:


> The "jews" have done some pretty egregious things in the name of Isreal, so I still don't see how Islam as a whole is the fundamental promoter of violence. Wahabi Islam, exported by the Saudi's mostly is without a doubt part of the problem. However you seem to be taking Islam out of context of the entire geopolitical history of the region. Like, it seems as though you're trying to frame islam as the #1 root cause of the problems in the middle east, and that is just plain small minded. The world isn't that simple. Just as an example, I know many people who served with the US army, who were Afghani natives, who are Muslim, who fought against the radical jihadists. Another example, Iraq and Iran were once both much more progressive nations, until in 1953 the CIA facilitated an overthrow of the democratically elected prime minister of Iran in order to strengthen the Shah (who would then allow BP to drill and export Iranian oil).The Shah was then overthrown by Ayatollah Khomeini who established what we know today as The Islamic Republic of Iran. Again, these are just little anecdotes. My point is that the political situation in the middle east is ridiculously complicated, and there are LOTS of players involved in the background that aren't discussed in the national conversation. Not to mention the US invasion of Iraq, and i'm not even going to get into that, but lets just say that wars aren't great for political stability. They use a lot of resources and kill a lot of people, and leave many more homeless and hungry, with dead loved ones. People who are backed into corners like that are more likely to become violent. Who would'a thought, huh? Trying to explain it all away by blaming Islam is stupid. Islam is the second largest religion in the world, and there are over a billion Muslims, trying to paint a billion people with one brush is also kind of, well, stupid. Only %20 of Muslims live in the middle east, and of those people, they are highly varied in their practices and social beliefs. Like any other large group of humans. I mean, what if people imagined that all christian Americans were liked the PP shooter? This is practically a demonstration of the kind of double standard I was just talking about.
> 
> Also
> 
> [some blogger with annoying edits trying to refute something I never said]


That's a whole lotta words you put in my mouth.   Nowhere did I absolve Jews of their role in perpetuating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nowhere did I absolve their scripture either. You in fact quoted me referencing some of its inhumane parts. Nowhere did I say US foreign policy hasn't had disastrous consequences in the mideast. Nowhere did I say all Muslims are the same. Nowhere did I say Muslims are scary and dangerous.  HOWEVER...

...this relentless narrative of "people who are backed into corners like that are more likely to become violent" ignores the inconvenient facts that ISIS recruits come from diverse backgrounds and that the one common thread IS Islam. I referenced the NYT article in support of that. You can google plenty others. That's not "explaining it all away by blaming Islam." That's identifying a real problem. Moderates recognize this and are trying to combat it. Again, they're hamstrung to an extent because inherent to the faith is the concept that it's revealed truth and unchangeable, but their efforts are important.


----------



## flint757

sevenstringj said:


> False analogy. Guns aren't self-proclaimed sacred, unalterable text that instruct people to alienate themselves (which clearly pushes some people to "crazy" like in those NYT profiles of ISIS recruits) or instruct people to commit violence. Moderate Muslims who are sincere in their opposition to fundamentalism are thus hamstrung to an extent, but it's ridiculous to suggest they shouldn't speak out against it or continue to try to reform their religion.
> 
> Plenty religions have come and gone and other religions have steadily reformed and assimilated, thanks to internal & external pressures. No one's suggesting it'll happen overnight, but ZERO progress will be made if we just throw our hands up in the air and pretend there's no problem with religious doctrine and white wash the whole thing with truisms like "people do bad stuff."





> sim·i·le
> &#712;sim&#601;l&#275;/Submit
> noun
> a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid (e.g., as brave as a lion, crazy like a fox ).
> the use of simile.



I was making a simile, not an analogy, and it works in both cases anyhow (nothing 'false' about it). They don't have to be one-to-one the same for the idea to be comprehensible.

I never said that they shouldn't say anything, but that they are under ZERO obligation to do so and the lack of an opinion on the topic has ZERO implications on their affiliation with terrorist groups. It doesn't make you a supporter and it doesn't make you a sympathizer for you to not rally against bad people. That completely aside, many Muslims have publicly denounced these practices and events despite the fact they have ZERO obligation to do so. I don't go around apologizing for white guys who behave like jackasses or men for being pigs just because I'm a white male and I'm under no obligation to (and not so surprisingly no one expects me to like they do for minority groups).

You've been speaking in far more absolutes than the majority of posters on here yet you claim we are all speaking in 'truisms'. One could argue saying religion is the root and sole cause of it all is a truism as well. It certainly doesn't add anything to the discussion and there isn't anything you as an individual can really do about it either.

ZERO progress is going to be made by trying to oversimplify complex issues and trying to pin almost all of it on a singular idea that for the most part is immutable to begin with. 'Religion is to blame for it all!!!' So now what do you propose exactly? You've picked the one piece of this puzzle that not only doesn't seem to garner the same interpretation one reader to the next (since the massive majority of Muslims in fact don't commit acts of terror), but is also literally the least likely to change in any meaningful way. Even if it were to change terrorists aren't going to just up and change with them (their motives are not strictly religious). Christianity changed because its support diminished over time and they had to more and more agree to secular logic and laws to fit in with society (something geopolitics has forced to stall and in some cases made worse for Islamic countries). It wasn't because it's demonized as the root of all that is wrong with the world. To this day someone reading the Christian bible could very easily interpret a vast number of chapters as a call to violence and some of them still do to this day, despite all the progress made in making it a more modern religion. How do you exactly propose eliminating Islam from the picture now that you've narrowed it down as the sole and majority cause of the problem?

We (and by we I mean national leaders since none of us here are actually going to be changing anything in any meaningful way) need to focus on things that they can actually help with. Putting all our focus and energy on religion is just simply not helpful, even if it were true.

---

Ideally I agree with you, as I do think the world would be a better place without any religion whatsoever, but it exists and it isn't going anywhere anytime soon so we need to think about more practical issues. An outsider of Islam certainly isn't going to convince any followers to be more secular or to stop believing all together. Islam is practiced by a gigantic number of people and, like all Abrahamic religions, very much against scrutiny. Telling a religious person their faith is wrong isn't going to just make them up and quit their faith. The only people I've ever seen leave their religion were people who didn't have strong convictions for their beliefs to begin with. People who believe it to their core are lifers.


----------



## sevenstringj

flint757 said:


> I was making a simile, not an analogy, and it works in both cases anyhow (nothing 'false' about it). They don't have to be one-to-one the same for the idea to be comprehensible.


You said "Blaming Islam is akin to solely blaming the gun for a murder." That's not simile. That's analogy. Your own copy-pasted definition and examples clearly show the difference, and that difference is not up for debate. The _comparison_ is invalid because a gun doesn't come with self-proclaimed sacred, unalterable war doctrine and alienating social imperatives.



flint757 said:


> I never said that they shouldn't say anything, but that they are under ZERO obligation to do so and the lack of an opinion on the topic has ZERO implications on their affiliation with terrorist groups. It doesn't make you a supporter and it doesn't make you a sympathizer for you to not rally against bad people. That completely aside, many Muslims have publicly denounced these practices and events despite the fact they have ZERO obligation to do so. I don't go around apologizing for white guys who behave like jackasses or men for being pigs just because I'm a white male and I'm under no obligation to (and not so surprisingly no one expects me to like they do for minority groups).


Whether they're obligated or not is moot, but thanks for clarifying.



flint757 said:


> You've been speaking in far more absolutes than the majority of posters on here yet you claim we are all speaking in 'truisms'.


Absolutes and truisms are not at all the same. So your attempt at painting me hypocritical there is bunk even if your accusation had merit. And it doesn't.



flint757 said:


> One could argue saying religion is the root and sole cause of it all is a truism as well. It certainly doesn't add anything to the discussion and there isn't anything you as an individual can really do about it either.
> 
> ZERO progress is going to be made by trying to oversimplify complex issues and trying to pin almost all of it on a singular idea that for the most part is immutable to begin with. 'Religion is to blame for it all!!!' So now what do you propose exactly? You've picked the one piece of this puzzle that not only doesn't seem to garner the same interpretation one reader to the next (since the massive majority of Muslims in fact don't commit acts of terror), but is also literally the least likely to change in any meaningful way. Even if it were to change terrorists aren't going to just up and change with them (their motives are not strictly religious). Christianity changed because its support diminished over time and they had to more and more agree to secular logic and laws to fit in with society (something geopolitics has forced to stall and in some cases made worse for Islamic countries). It wasn't because it's demonized as the root of all that is wrong with the world. To this day someone reading the Christian bible could very easily interpret a vast number of chapters as a call to violence and some of them still do to this day, despite all the progress made in making it a more modern religion. How do you exactly propose eliminating Islam from the picture now that you've narrowed it down as the sole and majority cause of the problem?
> 
> We (and by we I mean national leaders since none of us here are actually going to be changing anything in any meaningful way) need to focus on things that they can actually help with. Putting all our focus and energy on religion is just simply not helpful, even if it were true.


Would you kindly stop putting words in my mouth? LITERALLY? That whole spiel is arguing stuff I never said, never implied, and never advocated.


flint757 said:


> Ideally I agree with you, as I do think the world would be a better place without any religion whatsoever, but it exists and it isn't going anywhere anytime soon so we need to think about more practical issues. An outsider of Islam certainly isn't going to convince any followers to be more secular or to stop believing all together. Islam is practiced by a gigantic number of people and, like all Abrahamic religions, very much against scrutiny. Telling a religious person their faith is wrong isn't going to just make them up and quit their faith. The only people I've ever seen leave their religion were people who didn't have strong convictions for their beliefs to begin with. People who believe it to their core are lifers.


Quite a few absolutes in there.  Not to mention the usual straw man.


----------



## will_shred

sevenstringj said:


> Nowhere did I say they didn't.
> 
> I didn't say that either.
> 
> You haven't argued that at all. The statement is meaningless. Symptom of WHAT is the question. And we've been through that already.
> 
> That's a whole lotta words you put in my mouth.   Nowhere did I absolve Jews of their role in perpetuating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nowhere did I absolve their scripture either. You in fact quoted me referencing some of its inhumane parts. Nowhere did I say US foreign policy hasn't had disastrous consequences in the mideast. Nowhere did I say all Muslims are the same. Nowhere did I say Muslims are scary and dangerous.  HOWEVER...
> 
> ...this relentless narrative of "people who are backed into corners like that are more likely to become violent" ignores the inconvenient facts that ISIS recruits come from diverse backgrounds and that the one common thread IS Islam. I referenced the NYT article in support of that. You can google plenty others. That's not "explaining it all away by blaming Islam." That's identifying a real problem. Moderates recognize this and are trying to combat it. Again, they're hamstrung to an extent because inherent to the faith is the concept that it's revealed truth and unchangeable, but their efforts are important.



I still think that out of all the issues that could be discussed in the war on terror, religion is the lowest hanging fruit, and to me the argument wreaks of xenophobia. Not to mention that religion is probably the least productive issue to choose to debate about, because out of all the numerous causes of the extremely unstable situation, there are probably a few that we could actually work on and make progress on, however religion is not one of them. You're not going to have a secular middle east, that's just not going to happen. People mostly have nothing but their religion to hang onto, it might be easier for people to let go of their orthodoxies if they had some economic and political security. I really don't think that Islam itself would even be a significant contributing factor. People with bad intentions have always, and will always wrap their actions up in some kind of holy text to make it easier for their subordinate to swallow. But don't forget, Christianity has also been used in this way plenty of times. That kind of systemic violence is the result of a lot of different things going wrong for a lot of different reasons.


----------



## sevenstringj

will_shred said:


> I still think that out of all the issues that could be discussed in the war on terror, religion is the lowest hanging fruit, and to me the argument wreaks of xenophobia.


Xenophobia!?!? Hold on a sec... Ben Affleck, is that you?  Sorry, but that's your issue, not mine.


will_shred said:


> Not to mention that religion is probably the least productive issue to choose to debate about, because out of all the numerous causes of the extremely unstable situation, there are probably a few that we could actually work on and make progress on, however religion is not one of them. You're not going to have a secular middle east, that's just not going to happen. People mostly have nothing but their religion to hang onto, it might be easier for people to let go of their orthodoxies if they had some economic and political security. I really don't think that Islam itself would even be a significant contributing factor.


There's really no debate here. You're speculating. I'm presenting fact. ISIS recruits come from diverse backgrounds, including economically. The only common thread is Islam. Say what you will about the relative value of scrutinizing that part of the problem; your idea that comfy, secure lifestyles preempt fundamentalism and Islamic State recruitment is EMPIRICALLY FALSE and thus a nonstarter altogether, no matter how many times you paraphrase it.


will_shred said:


> People with bad intentions have always, and will always wrap their actions up in some kind of holy text to make it easier for their subordinate to swallow.


Well that's just false. I doubt you meant what you said there.


will_shred said:


> But don't forget, Christianity has also been used in this way plenty of times. That kind of systemic violence is the result of a lot of different things going wrong for a lot of different reasons.


This thread ain't about Christian terrorism. But I'd wager that among all those "different reasons," Christianity would be common to all cases, and thus worthy of scrutiny.


----------



## narad

sevenstringj said:


> There's really no debate here. You're speculating. I'm presenting fact. ISIS recruits come from diverse backgrounds, including economically. The only common thread is Islam. Say what you will about the relative value of scrutinizing that part of the problem; your idea that comfy, secure lifestyles preempt fundamentalism and Islamic State recruitment is EMPIRICALLY FALSE and thus a nonstarter altogether, no matter how many times you paraphrase it.



I don't want to take sides regarding the extent to which regional instability (as Will mentions), anti-muslim sentiment (as mentioned earlier, regarding France IIRC), and other social factors influence muslims to sympathize or join ISIS. But, your fact is anything but:

1.) Will is talking about pressures and unrest closer to the region of ISIS's influence (correct me if I'm wrong). You're citing an article that studies the attitudes of US sympathizers. Clearly the demographics and motivations of Americans will likely differ significantly from those physically close to the turmoil. Do we know anything about the lifestyles of sympathizers in Europe and Asia? No. How many Americans are joining up with ISIS? Almost none.

2.) Your reference is itself referencing a study of 400 US sympathizers. While it is a large study for a study of its kind, that is a tiny number with respect to the actual number of sympathizers. Between the size of the study and the fact that it deals solely with Americans, you're not in any position to make claims about what is or isn't motivating the people who actually join ISIS (our target of discussion here), or their socioeconomic characteristics. This is even forgoing the fact that there's a huge difference between someone who sympathizes with ISIS on social media, and someone who actually desires to join that community.

3.) Socioeconomic status, largely the focus of the study, is only one part of a larger number of societal pressures at play, that could be improved through policy or through efforts that are otherwise spent not blaming Islam itself for everything. Simply because someone appears to have a "comfy, secure" lifestyle on their Facebook or their annual census doesn't mean they don't feel ostracized in their school or community for their religious beliefs, or any number of additional factors that push them towards extremism. 

In short, you're "presenting fact"? "EMPIRICALLY FALSE"? First, you're going to need some different articles with different studies that actually support that. Claiming that something is not a significant factor is much harder than the other way around. The burden of proof is on you.

Second, you're likely going to have to accept that no study in the social sciences, regardless of what direction its conclusions point to, is going to deal a death blow to what other factors could be at play. Nor will you see the studies themselves actually state that, because..well...they're written by actual scientists who, if they're good scientists, know just how definitive their conclusions can be given their methodology. Claiming such absolutes just does not fly in real life.

So... "US ISIS sympathizers are young and diverse" =/= ~"It's *just* Islam!!"

In fact, let me close with a quote from the actual study referenced in the article you linked to, which speaks with the cautioned, qualified, and rational tone that all your posts are lacking:



> While the U.S.- based ISIS supporters who have been charged come from
> a wide range of ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds,
> many share core characteristics: they were American-born,
> under age 30, and had no previous history of radical views
> or activities. How could these seemingly ordinary young
> American men and, in growing numbers, women, be attracted
> to the worlds most infamous terrorist organization?
> *There is no simple answer to this question, as each
> individuals radicalization has its own unique dynamics*


----------



## flint757

sevenstringj said:


> Whether they're obligated or not is moot, but thanks for clarifying.



When you're stating that they have to it actually isn't all that moot. Just because YOU feel like they have to say something because you have an axe to grind with religion (and no I'm not religious at all) doesn't mean they have to. Frankly, with all the morons out their constantly making illogical statements about how an individual who is indirectly associated with any group is somehow responsible for that groups outcomes I'd personally prefer they didn't.



sevenstringj said:


> Absolutes and truisms are not at all the same. So your attempt at painting me hypocritical there is bunk even if your accusation had merit. And it doesn't.



But you are absolutely behaving like a hypocrite whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. 



sevenstringj said:


> Quite a few absolutes in there.  Not to mention the usual straw man.



And? Pretty much every single thing you've said in your posts have either been deflective or condescending and on top of that almost all of your points have been framed as absolutes. It's not a straw man to say that religion runs deep in those who believe in it, but in your case I'm not surprised you took it as such.



narad said:


> ...which speaks with the cautioned, qualified, and rational tone that all your posts are lacking:



Which is why I'm just no longer going to respond to any of his posts.


----------



## sevenstringj

flint757 said:


> When you're stating that they have to it actually isn't all that moot. Just because YOU feel like they have to say something because you have an axe to grind with religion (and no I'm not religious at all) doesn't mean they have to. Frankly, with all the morons out their constantly making illogical statements about how an individual who is indirectly associated with any group is somehow responsible for that groups outcomes I'd personally prefer they didn't.


Didn't say they have to.


flint757 said:


> But you are absolutely behaving like a hypocrite whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.


First you confounded simile with analogy. Now it's absolutes vs truisms. smh If you had said "You've been speaking in absolutes yet you claim we are speaking in truisms absolutes" you'd have a point. But you didn't. And you don't. /tangent


flint757 said:


> And? Pretty much every single thing you've said in your posts have either been deflective or condescending and on top of that almost all of your points have been framed as absolutes. It's not a straw man to say that religion runs deep in those who believe in it, but in your case I'm not surprised you took it as such.


So when you and others deflect, put words in my mouth, attack my character with baseless accusations, and speculate in absolutes, it's fine and dandy. When I condescend, deflect and use absolutes present facts with references, it's a problem.



flint757 said:


> I'm just no longer going to respond to any of his posts.


Like narad?


narad said:


> Actually, you know... nevermind. It's just not worth the time to read more of your posts.





narad said:


> I don't want to take sides regarding the extent to which regional instability (as Will mentions), anti-muslim sentiment (as mentioned earlier, regarding France IIRC), and other social factors influence muslims to sympathize or join ISIS. But, your fact is anything but:
> 
> 1.) Will is talking about pressures and unrest closer to the region of ISIS's influence (correct me if I'm wrong). You're citing an article that studies the attitudes of US sympathizers. Clearly the demographics and motivations of Americans will likely differ significantly from those physically close to the turmoil. Do we know anything about the lifestyles of sympathizers in Europe and Asia? No. How many Americans are joining up with ISIS? Almost none.
> 
> 2.) Your reference is itself referencing a study of 400 US sympathizers. While it is a large study for a study of its kind, that is a tiny number with respect to the actual number of sympathizers. Between the size of the study and the fact that it deals solely with Americans, you're not in any position to make claims about what is or isn't motivating the people who actually join ISIS (our target of discussion here), or their socioeconomic characteristics. This is even forgoing the fact that there's a huge difference between someone who sympathizes with ISIS on social media, and someone who actually desires to join that community.
> 
> 3.) Socioeconomic status, largely the focus of the study, is only one part of a larger number of societal pressures at play, that could be improved through policy or through efforts that are otherwise spent not blaming Islam itself for everything. Simply because someone appears to have a "comfy, secure" lifestyle on their Facebook or their annual census doesn't mean they don't feel ostracized in their school or community for their religious beliefs, or any number of additional factors that push them towards extremism.
> 
> In short, you're "presenting fact"? "EMPIRICALLY FALSE"? First, you're going to need some different articles with different studies that actually support that. Claiming that something is not a significant factor is much harder than the other way around. The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> Second, you're likely going to have to accept that no study in the social sciences, regardless of what direction its conclusions point to, is going to deal a death blow to what other factors could be at play. Nor will you see the studies themselves actually state that, because..well...they're written by actual scientists who, if they're good scientists, know just how definitive their conclusions can be given their methodology. Claiming such absolutes just does not fly in real life.




Of course you don't want to take sides on any of those factors. You've done nothing to look into them. And you won't. You even admit that your case should be easier to substantiate but you want me to do your homework for you. 


narad said:


> So... "US ISIS sympathizers are young and diverse" =/= ~"It's *just* Islam!!"


If you can't argue without putting words in my mouth, kindly refrain. Thanks in advance.


narad said:


> In fact, let me close with a quote from the actual study referenced in the article you linked to, which speaks with the cautioned, qualified, and rational tone that all your posts are lacking:
> 
> "While the U.S.- based ISIS supporters who have been charged come from
> a wide range of ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds,
> many share core characteristics: they were American-born,
> under age 30, and had no previous history of radical views
> or activities. How could these seemingly ordinary young
> American men and, in growing numbers, women, be attracted
> to the world&#8217;s most infamous terrorist organization?
> There is no simple answer to this question, as each
> individual&#8217;s radicalization has its own unique dynamics"


And guess what they're all dynamically radicalizing into.


----------



## narad

sevenstringj said:


> Like narad?



I am done actually arguing about ISIS (and would probably wind up being snooty enough to get banned if I did). But if you're going to claim you're bringing all this evidence to the table and point to this article (and transitively, the study) you can't be surprised if someone actually takes the time to read said article and discovers out how irrelevant it actually is. Very disingenuous to link an article, and instead of discussing what it says, reduce the entire thing to a single line that better supports your claim but doesn't reflect what the article/study show. And this is a big problem right now - not just in this thread, but on social media at large. Misinformation can travel quickly, and lots of people will reference this paper or that paper without verifying that it does support their argument, because they're too eager to make a point.

There's really no way around it -- If this was homework, you'd get an F, or if you were in a scientific field and tried submitting a paper referencing that article as you did, it'd be rejected. I know you're not the type to ever admit your mistakes, but anyone who wants to take the time to go back and see how well your article lines up with your claims has some nice pointers now. So I hope in the future you will only cite papers and articles from credible sources that truly support the claims you are making, especially if your purpose in doing so is to entirely dismiss the points that others make.

I like how you started adding smileys though. That's a nice touch


----------



## sevenstringj

narad said:


> I am done actually arguing about ISIS (and would probably wind up being snooty enough to get banned if I did). But if you're going to claim you're bringing all this evidence to the table and point to this article (and transitively, the study) you can't be surprised if someone actually takes the time to read said article and discovers out how irrelevant it actually is. Very disingenuous to link an article, and instead of discussing what it says, reduce the entire thing to a single line that better supports your claim but doesn't reflect what the article/study show. And this is a big problem right now - not just in this thread, but on social media at large. Misinformation can travel quickly, and lots of people will reference this paper or that paper without verifying that it does support their argument, because they're too eager to make a point.
> 
> There's really no way around it -- If this was homework, you'd get an F, or if you were in a scientific field and tried submitting a paper referencing that article as you did, it'd be rejected. I know you're not the type to ever admit your mistakes, but anyone who wants to take the time to go back and see how well your article lines up with your claims has some nice pointers now. So I hope in the future you will only cite papers and articles from credible sources that truly support the claims you are making, especially if your purpose in doing so is to entirely dismiss the points that others make.
> 
> I like how you started adding smileys though. That's a nice touch



That's not the only article I referenced, and even if it were, you've come to the table with 0 articles, 0 facts, 0 homework, 50% speculation, and 50% attacks on my character, even AFTER Randy's warning. And now you try to brush the whole thing off as irrelevant. Sorry, but the study authors found no trend of poverty or mental illness or insecurity or any of the things you and others have been insisting--with zero evidence--are somehow driving people to join the Islamic State. They even say how surprised they were by this finding. Like you, they probably expected to see at least 1 trend among those factors. But that's how science works: the hypothesis is abandoned or at least revised when evidence contradicts it. The only common thread they did uncover among ISIS recruits is Islam. This is fact, not "misinformation." And since you're admittedly unwilling to do any research in support of your thus-far unsubstantiated and/or debunked claims, I dunno what else to tell ya.

And um, I've _been_ using smileys. lol


----------



## Randy

Well, that was fun while it lasted.

Not really.


----------

