|
Keep the discussion ON TOPIC. This thread is for discussing the terror attacks in Paris. |
I wonder what is next. Will everyone just sit passively and wait for the next killing to occur or will people try to actually do something since it all seems to originate from Syria.
|
On November 15 2015 14:52 ElMeanYo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 10:36 darkness wrote:
It's funny how Facebook, Youtube, etc wear a French flag but no one wore one when that Russian plane was taken down. Not that I'm fan of Russia but double standards.. EXACTLY.
Just like no flags went up because of the German pilot who decided to commit suicide and take 200 people with him.
Edit, please don't reference charlie shitdo, that magazine is trash and I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, I'd get aids from doing so. seriously fuck those people
|
Attacker's Syrian passport was fake
This confirms what many speculated. He was not a refugee, although he probably (Re?) entered France under the guise of a legitimate refugee.
Edit: added the correct link.
|
On November 15 2015 18:39 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 14:52 ElMeanYo wrote:On November 15 2015 10:36 darkness wrote:
It's funny how Facebook, Youtube, etc wear a French flag but no one wore one when that Russian plane was taken down. Not that I'm fan of Russia but double standards.. EXACTLY. Just like no flags went up because of the German pilot who decided to commit suicide and take 200 people with him. Edit, please don't reference charlie shitdo, that magazine is trash and I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, I'd get aids from doing so. seriously fuck those people
#ParisIsAboutLife
dont be so mad just because you don't agree with their views
|
On November 15 2015 12:28 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 09:31 Squat wrote:On November 15 2015 09:06 Rebs wrote:On November 15 2015 07:45 Squat wrote:On November 15 2015 07:24 Nebuchad wrote:On November 15 2015 07:12 Squat wrote:On November 15 2015 05:03 Nebuchad wrote:On November 15 2015 04:51 Djzapz wrote:On November 15 2015 04:43 yamato77 wrote:On November 15 2015 04:28 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
The discussion does not need to be framed around Islam, it needs to understand that it is one important concept. The people who are indoctrinated to ISIS often (not always) have some prior understanding of Islam which allows them to integrate ISIS's crazy stuff to their own beliefs. Much like Christianity can be used to be homophobic, it's a platform on which bad shit can be added. Is this not possible to discuss?
Perhaps a lot of Christians are fine with homosexuality, and yet that doesn't mean one cannot point at the correlation and say "there is something here". Something about Christianity preemptively supports the negative vision of homosexuality, right? Which takes absolutely nothing away from Christians who do NOT adhere to this vision, but there is a correlation (which does not imply causation) which NEEDS to be explored if we want to understand this phenomenon, right?
And so belief and ideology are a problem, they are at the very least something to explore and something to try to understand! To say "blame the individuals" seems to make sense until you understand that these phenomenons are not simple freak cases, they're part of a larger context which, of course, is not all religious - it's social and cultural and it has roots in poverty and oppression. It's all these things. It's religion too. It's belief, too. It doesn't take anything away from Muslims who don't adhere to this, but to just say we should ignore part of it because it's uncomfortable is absolutely absurd, in my opinion.
I mean to point at another example, the Christian man who went to Africa to talk about how horrible homosexuality is which eventually led to Uganda adopting horrible anti-homosexuality laws, he had a religious baggage. It doesn't mean Christianity is all bad, it means that it plays a role in how this is articulated. There's even a clip that John Oliver showed in one of his shows, where a Ugandan woman says "at first it wasn't Adam and Eve, it was Adam and Steve". Does Christianity really have NOTHING to do with this hatred of homosexuals? Even if it did not, it would be insane to say it cannot be discussed, it cannot be studied. It would be absurd to say the issue is too contentious to be looked at. Why silence thought? And once again this shouldn't be viewed as an affront to Christianity. The problem is it's offensive because it seems like a way in which Christianity could be attacked, but I have no interest in that. It's just clearly a factor.
And so while I understand the defense and the complete denial that it could even possibly be a factor, I disagree. It's an argumentative strategy that I can understand, but it closes off important topics that need to be discussed and are not irrelevant. That's presupposing a causal relationship, which is simply not the case. I'd argue that bigotry against homosexuals in the U.S. was inbuilt by the hetero-normative societal structure that obviously included Christian values, but was not caused by Christianity itself. Alas, this is a stupid digression and has nothing to do with the attacks on Paris any longer. Debating the merits of religion is a poor way to understand what happened in Paris, and why groups like ISIS perpetuate violence. I'd say anyone who wants to understand ISIS better should take a closer look at 20th century Middle-Eastern history, particularly the history of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Understanding the cycles that have created groups like the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS is important. Russia, the U.S. and Europe all played a role in the instability of the region that has led to its current state. To consider the possibility of a relation does not presuppose a causal relationship. You said it yourself, "hetero-normative societal structure that obviously included Christian values". To understand this phenomenon (which I don't), people have to consider Christian values and its influences, its dynamics - which, like I said, takes nothing away from Christians. But the ideology is there. If you want to understand the ideology, you need to consider this factor as part of the explanation. Or at the VERY LEAST, a potential part of the explanation that needs to be vetted before it's dismissed. This is just an example to point out that Islam extremism cannot be understood if we're constantly told that it has nothing to do with Islam. You can't just take a sensitive component of a problem and just say "we have no clear causal link right now (having not looked at it closely), so we'll just not look at it at all, ever". The thing is, in the picture that you describe, the role of islam is the role of any ideology. There is a certain notion going on, that notion needs help channeling, an ideology happens to be in the vicinity and so that ideology is used. That's always been how these things work. So does islam play a role in that sense? Yeah, of course. But is that role relevant? I don't see how you can make that case without going for specific criticism of islam as opposed to other ideologies, like others in the thread have been doing. Unless you want to make a case against ideologies in general, in which case I would agree with you, but not think this is the best time to make it. Out of curiosity, when would be the right time to have that debate? Because according to the self-flagellating crowd who seem incapable of believing that things can go wrong without western imperialism, that time is never. The amount of mental gyrations on display in this thread speaks volumes about how eager people are to assume the mantle of responsibility for everything bad happening in the middle east, conveniently ignoring the fact that thousands of European-born citizens, who have never had a hair touched by any western occupation force, have made a mass exodus to some of the most war-torn and desolate places in the world, all to enroll with the most brutal and doctrinaire group of religious fanatics in modern history. Everything matters. History matters. Geopolitics matter. Socioeconimics matter. Lack of national identity and long-standing tribal feuds matter. Lack of opportunity, failed states and crumbling societies matter. And yes, sincerely held beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality and the ancillary ideology matter. Taking any of these factors off the table or simply waving them away with the peremptory hand of the effete neo-liberal too mired in white guilt for real objectivity is not a recipe for honest discussion. It's simply lazy and disingenuous. And the real irony here is that the people who are most likely to suffer from this obscurantism are regular, peaceful muslims,who only want to go about their lives. The refusal to engage directly with the deeply problematic aspects of Islam is the cause of an immense amount of both confusion and conflation, linking every expression of the faith to the suicidal mania that jihadists so fervently embrace. No one has any trouble believing that the homophobia of some local judge in Arizona is rooted partly in Christianity, yet no one is tempted to indict all Christians because of it. There is no reason we cannot have a similarly broad view of Islam. So we agree. Everything matters. Why are you telling this to me, and not to the countless people in this thread who would like to focus on religion, and are doing just that? Why is it that everything is so clear when it comes to christianity and islam to you, but when someone correctly describes how ideologies work, it must automatically mean that he's an apologist who says the ideology doesn't matter at all? Why is it that everything is so clear when it comes to christianity and islam to you, but when someone correctly says there are other factors at play, he just wants to "self-flagellate" and blame the west for everything? Please, be consistent. First, I should probably take a step back and acknowledge that many people place undue focus on religion as a factor. Point taken. However, when you say that the versions of the anatomy of an ideology presented in this thread are correct, I have to disagree. The problem with this view of ideologies is that the possibility for destructive behaviour is directly linked to the tenets, and therefore subject to whatever doctrine is in play. Take Mao or Stalin, who murdered millions in the name of their vision of how humanity ought to live, actions directly attributable to what they believed to be true about the larger reality. Yet they never threw homosexals off of rooftops, or whipped women who did not cover their hair. There is nothing in the doctrine of communism that mandates that kind of behaviour, yet it is not too difficult to find in any one of the holy books revered by most people on this planet. Belief guides behaviour. This idea that ideologies simply serve as vehicles or frameworks for deeper values is just manifestly false. Ideology moulds people just as people mould the ideology. There seems to be a rather virulent meme going around these days that suggests no one ever really does anything on the basis of these ideas, that somehow the ideological committments are stored on an external hard drive and don't interact with worldly actions in any way. You do not appear to be one of them, so don't take it personally. I was arguing against this intellectual malaise that strikes me as almost entirely self-imposed, not pointing fingers. If it came off that way, I apologise for that. And there in lies the problem, the fact that you accept of quotes without context that scripture being employed is meant to extol the ideology. + Show Spoiler +http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html Tthese ideologies did not exist where I was brought up. They were imported and forced onto the poverty stricken, the marginalized and the disenfranchised. Yes after a certain point your right, in that once its weaved into the fabric of a peoples identity then they become mutually reinforcing. They are quite mainstream now No religion has a single binding overwhelming set of jurisprudence and rules that governs every ones actions. That is why you have sects for example. But because a specific subsection decides to behave a certain way they are in fact imposing their ideology because its a very fresh ideology in the context of the religions history. There is a historical context to the lines that are quoted by ISIS or whatever for doing things that are unsavory. Most of them are instructions to address issues for a very specific time, place or incident often unsavory but understandable if not endorsable. They are not "core" tenets.However easy it might be to assume because if you pick a a few lines out of a book that has over 6000 verses as "supposedly" core tenets. They are not and when you do that, and say "accept responsibility for your religion and lets talk about we can fix it" you are automatically forcing people to put up walls and fire back. If you like you really want to have this discussion then also educate yourself a bit on both sides instead of saying. Well we cant have a discussion if one part of the discussion doesnt do the requisite research and not some half assed googling that lets you find exactly what you are looking for, because the internet is quite good at that (im not saying you do it but that seems to be the standard justification.) Here are some quick tips. Your first sentence is strange, not sure what it means. For whatever it's worth, I have read the Koran cover to cover and much of the Hadith. My best friend's father was a mulla for eleven years in Teheran before they moved to Sweden, and he taught me a great deal about the practical application of specific doctrines. I am also very familiar with the concept and tenets of Wahabism. I don't blame you for reflexively assuming I lacked any in-depth knowledge, since many who speak on this subject clearly do. My point was not that the core tenets of Islam are best expressed in the behaviour of ISIS, which I am perfectly aware is not the case. But it does manifest some version or interpretation of Islam, or sub-sect if you prefer; one that can only be discredited by attacking its roots, which in turn is an impossible task if the efforts are constantly disrupted by well-meaning yet confused cries of bigotry. Ultimately, I was talking more about the general reluctance to attribute any maladaptive behaviour whatsoever to ideology, to any degree. A few quick questions: Why is IS doing this? What are they hoping to accomplish? What is their ultimate goal? How are they specifically distorting the core teachings of Islam? What is the main motivating force that drives college educated, middle class parents in their late twenties or older in western Europe to go to Syria and likely end up dead in a ditch somewhere? I'm not being facetious here, I am genuinely interested in your response. You cant really attack an ideology that is fundamentally corrupt because you fall into a gutter game that doesnt have a solution. Most ideoligies are based on faith, or atleast should be. Extremist ideologies are based on conviction. Conviction does not question it just does. Faith by its very nature exists because there is doubt and hence interpretations are fluid and honesty thats how the state of religion should be. + Show Spoiler +Just so you know I do a grand total of zero conventionally islamic things. I drink, I love pepperoni and smoke weed everyday. I dont follow the core tenets of any of the interpretations. I am not a huge fan of ritual practice either. But I do consider myself a person of faith, I just make faith based exceptions to what my understanding of religion affords me and find myself better of for it. Honestly my solution is not attacking ideology but as morbid as it sounds is to frankly wipe them out. Its not really a solution as much as an exasperation and frustration and although I havent lived in Pakistan for the last 10 years or so. I visit often and they have tried everything, after a certain point even Frankenstein decided he just had to kill his monster that was the only way, and its the same for us. Everything else they try is a disaster.Its easy to sit here and say that sitting in relative safety which is why I avoid saying it but thats really it. IS is doing this for power and control why else do people do bad things ? Realistically the people at the top are doing exactly what they profess, they are going to at the very least try and land grab as much of the middle east that they can. it doesnt matter if there isnt a realistic goal at the end of the day a life of loot and plunder with the kind of power trips it affords is something these people have warped into. As for how they are distorting teachings. I gave you a link read it. I cant speak to the specifics but again its mostly people who are disavowed, disenfranchised or looking for some kind of meaning. Twisted messages while twisted can still be appealing depending on circumstance. And its not like the people they are fighting against dont have their own fair share of blood on their hands. Its an easy argument to make if you have killed as many people as the West has. There are some people attracted to that, not all people. + Show Spoiler [On Hadith] + most Hadith are bullshit even the ones that offer genuinely good advice. Its similar to how politicians in the US quote founding fathers like their quotes are a dime a dozen. There hardly 7 or 8 Muttawatir Hadith iirc (i'll give you credit for knowing what Muttawatir is. At the very least everything else is a chinese whisper a millenium in the making.
I'll part by saying we'll just have to agree to disagree on the degree to which ISIS and their recruits are influenced by doctrine vs terrestrial grievances or ambitions, but I do take your point about the immense and perhaps unnavigable quagmire of trying to engage in a war of ideas with people like them. Other than that, thank you for your reply. We see things differently, but you clearly know a great deal more than the average person on the subject.
Also, for those who are upset with the percieved double standard of French flags on youtube etc, please consider the deeper implications of an attack like this. Going simply on body count doesn't really tell the whole story here. This was an attack on the very heart of the enlightenment and the cradle of modern, secular democracy. Choosing Paris as the target was no accident. The symbolic value of the act matters.
|
On November 15 2015 16:19 Bleak wrote:
Just a month ago 100 people were killed in the capital of my country by the same goatfuckers. Result? Two pages worth of a thread. It is already over 50 pages here. Is it because this time white Western people died and 'brown' people dont deserve the same compassion and attention? Just saying. I am not trying to belittle what happened but it is what it is and it is really sad.
Oh and the day before 45 died in Beirut. Has anyone even heard about it?
It's more of a matter of what is perceived as part of Europe. Things like these get reported from the middle east all the time so at some point it feels like it's normal to you. Turkey is seen more as middle east than Europe.
Italy and Spain also have a fair share of "brown" people and if it happened there you would also have a longer discussion just cause they're countries where terrorism isn't that common (well, there's the ETA and the mafia, but this is about fundamentalist and not domestic terrorism), plus they are seen as part of EU.
|
On November 15 2015 18:46 Ghanburighan wrote:Attacker's Syrian passport was fake This confirms what many speculated. He was not a refugee, although he probably (Re?) entered France under the guise of a legitimate refugee.
Nothing in the quoted article indicating the passport was fake. All that is known is that the passport was used to enter Schengen on October 3rd in Greece.
|
On November 15 2015 14:52 ElMeanYo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 10:36 darkness wrote:
It's funny how Facebook, Youtube, etc wear a French flag but no one wore one when that Russian plane was taken down. Not that I'm fan of Russia but double standards.. EXACTLY.
it's not about double standards(even though they are obvious but somewhat expected), it's about pragmatism: the situation which can give the most gains politically and ideologically(which are the front runners for shitty economical agendas), gets pushed up front.
|
On November 15 2015 19:07 Oshuy wrote:Nothing in the quoted article indicating the passport was fake. All that is known is that the passport was used to enter Schengen on October 3rd in Greece.
Mybad, pasted an associated link instead of the one I meant to. here's the correct one.
|
As I said yesterday, the probability that all terrorists were french is close to 99%. Sorry for all the retarded blaming on refugees.
|
On November 15 2015 19:20 Furikawari wrote:
As I said yesterday, the probability that all terrorists were french is close to 99%. Sorry for all the retarded blaming on refugees.
Despite the fact that I agree with your point, the way you post rubs me I'm all the wrong ways. You merely speculate, providing no evidence for your probability claim, yet you those that don't share your speculated conclusion 'retarded' which is also offensive to people with mental disabilities. So, please, put some more effort into your posting so you don't sully what I consider a reasonable position in the ongoing discussion.
|
On November 15 2015 19:31 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 19:20 Furikawari wrote:
As I said yesterday, the probability that all terrorists were french is close to 99%. Sorry for all the retarded blaming on refugees. Despite the fact that I agree with your point, the way you post rubs me I'm all the wrong ways. You merely speculate, providing no evidence for your probability claim, yet you those that don't share your speculated conclusion 'retarded' which is also offensive to people with mental disabilities. So, please, put some more effort into your posting so you don't sully what I consider a reasonable position in the ongoing discussion.
wow so much SJW... It's no speculation: it's assumptions based on previvous attacks and based on what is going on in France. Yes blaming on refugees is retarded and is one expression of the on growing racism.
|
Let's face it, Muslims are like Klingons.
User was banned for this post.
|
On November 15 2015 19:05 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 16:19 Bleak wrote:
Just a month ago 100 people were killed in the capital of my country by the same goatfuckers. Result? Two pages worth of a thread. It is already over 50 pages here. Is it because this time white Western people died and 'brown' people dont deserve the same compassion and attention? Just saying. I am not trying to belittle what happened but it is what it is and it is really sad.
Oh and the day before 45 died in Beirut. Has anyone even heard about it? It's more of a matter of what is perceived as part of Europe. Things like these get reported from the middle east all the time so at some point it feels like it's normal to you. Turkey is seen more as middle east than Europe. Italy and Spain also have a fair share of "brown" people and if it happened there you would also have a longer discussion just cause they're countries where terrorism isn't that common (well, there's the ETA and the mafia, but this is about fundamentalist and not domestic terrorism), plus they are seen as part of EU.
It is, without a doubt, a tragedy that people probably die every week to these immature, godless bastards without anyone else hearing about it until it is at their front door. That being said, when events like these occur, I feel it would be best to come together in mourning rather than to bicker over how skewed and biased the media is. If anything, people need to understand that these fuckers are not Muslim; they are godless bastards vilifying a peaceful religion and taking down as many people as they can with them through murder and slander until the world is burning or until they are all dead.
|
|
|
www.huffingtonpost.com
Holy shit is it times for USA to open their eyes on their fucking forign policies??? Let's dream.
|
On November 15 2015 18:48 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 18:39 Incognoto wrote:On November 15 2015 14:52 ElMeanYo wrote:On November 15 2015 10:36 darkness wrote:
It's funny how Facebook, Youtube, etc wear a French flag but no one wore one when that Russian plane was taken down. Not that I'm fan of Russia but double standards.. EXACTLY. Just like no flags went up because of the German pilot who decided to commit suicide and take 200 people with him. Edit, please don't reference charlie shitdo, that magazine is trash and I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, I'd get aids from doing so. seriously fuck those people #ParisIsAboutLife dont be so mad just because you don't agree with their views
isn't it blatant disrespect to the victims of plane crashes? fuck them
|
Zurich15366 Posts
So according to German police, when they arrested the guy with a shipment of AKs in Bavaria on Thursday, they did warn the authorities in Paris (The guy had Paris entered in his GPS).
The problem is this could have been mistaken for a smuggling operation rather than an immanent attack. Still, it seems like a screw-up that the French services didn't at least check up on the suspects on their watch list after the warning came in from Germany.
|
A lot of educated people here it seems, even muslims. I have a few questions:
1: Are there really muslim extremists whose ultimate goal is to kill all non-muslims? My theory is that they are very few, and that the cause og terrorist attacks are others than blindly killing (revenge, political split, fear, involving nations in wats etc.)
2: What did IS want to achieve by doing this? There would take a lot more attacks to scare all western military out of the area. Also, a lot of Syrian refugees will have a harder time in Europe because of this.
3: In western media, IS is portrayed like pure evil. If they were, so many would not have supported them, and thousands of western youth have joined them as fighters. There must be more to the organisation and their goals!
Also it annoys me that Saudia Arabia is getting away with essentially being the kind of nation IS is fighting to become.
|
On November 15 2015 19:59 imBLIND wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 19:05 Vivax wrote:On November 15 2015 16:19 Bleak wrote:
Just a month ago 100 people were killed in the capital of my country by the same goatfuckers. Result? Two pages worth of a thread. It is already over 50 pages here. Is it because this time white Western people died and 'brown' people dont deserve the same compassion and attention? Just saying. I am not trying to belittle what happened but it is what it is and it is really sad.
Oh and the day before 45 died in Beirut. Has anyone even heard about it? It's more of a matter of what is perceived as part of Europe. Things like these get reported from the middle east all the time so at some point it feels like it's normal to you. Turkey is seen more as middle east than Europe. Italy and Spain also have a fair share of "brown" people and if it happened there you would also have a longer discussion just cause they're countries where terrorism isn't that common (well, there's the ETA and the mafia, but this is about fundamentalist and not domestic terrorism), plus they are seen as part of EU. It is, without a doubt, a tragedy that people probably die every week to these immature, godless bastards without anyone else hearing about it until it is at their front door. That being said, when events like these occur, I feel it would be best to come together in mourning rather than to bicker over how skewed and biased the media is. If anything, people need to understand that these fuckers are not Muslim; they are godless bastards vilifying a peaceful religion and taking down as many people as they can with them through murder and slander until the world is burning or until they are all dead.
You can sing the "islam is a religion of peace" mantra if that's what you like.
You can believe that Islamic djihadists shouting "Allah Akbar" have nothing to do with Islam.
But "people" don't "need to understand" that.
Repeating an opinion over and over doesn't make it the truth.
Islam justifies war and (what I believe) cruelty for a wide variety of reasons.
And the prophet Muhammed was a war leader, who slaid and decapitated his ennemies.
I'm not saying it is a religion of hate or war, or that the terrorists are valid fallowers of Islam...
But these facts proof that it is NOT a religion of peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
