EPTHe was know by the French secret services for his radicalization, but as often, they had no evidences that he would commit a terrorist act, thus they had no motives to arrest him...
Shootings and Casualties in Central Paris - Page 66
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Keep the discussion ON TOPIC. This thread is for discussing the terror attacks in Paris. | ||
|
SiroKO
France721 Posts
He was know by the French secret services for his radicalization, but as often, they had no evidences that he would commit a terrorist act, thus they had no motives to arrest him... | ||
|
Yuljan
2196 Posts
On November 15 2015 20:45 Slydie wrote: 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. 1. Killing all non-muslims is not the goal of any muslim organization. However the expansion of islam is their goal. People of other book religions (Christians/Jews) are allowed to live in muslim territories if they pay the jhyza tax. They are not blindly killing either. France has attacked the IS and is therefore a legitimate goal in their opinion. The true underlying reasons for the creation of the IS are way more complicated and involve former iraqi armies, the support of syrian rebels by the west (these rebels are almost all IS/Al Nusra now) and a general movement towards the roots of islam and its untainted teachings. 2. The IS is not looking to scare the military out of their region. They know full well that the west will not stop the air strikes and might even commit soldiers as ground force now. Their goal is recruitment. As the western way of live is very unpopular in muslim circles these attacks reeinforce their popularity in their communities. It is also seen as beneficial that tensions between muslims and non muslim in European countries rise. Their most likely bet would be that these tensions leads to muslims being more drawn to their religion and joining the IS as well. 3. People join them because they believe in Mohammed as their prophet. IS is following most of his teachings very closely in a strict interpretation, that seems to appeal to people. Koran is the direct word of god so their is not much leeway for different interpretations. Most of the dispute seems to be about whether a word should be interpreted as mutilate or burn alive. The IS is following the teachings most closely and is therefore also a threat to other muslims extremists as Al-Qaida (competitors for recruits) or the Taliban (more so than Al-Qaida since the Taliban are not only drawing their ideology from islam but als the pashtunwili code of behaviour). Saudia Arabia/Qatar are the financial and intellectual masterminds behind the IS and most muslim terrorism. The only thing that is different is that Saudia Arabias government is not actively preaching expansion and has a more stable regime (i.e. less openly visible atrocities). They openly supported them before and now are just flying token military action against them while still arming the Al-Nusra front (formerly known as Al-Qaida) while complaining against russians attacks on "their" rebels. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On November 15 2015 20:45 Slydie wrote: 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. EDIT: just added additional text for the third point of the poster above me as a supplement: 3) It's basically war of two different ideologies, western one and the ideology which IS is promoting, so naturally each side promotes their own view and calls the other side the devil. Just because people are drawn to a certain ideology doesn't mean it's not bullshit, just take suicide cults, they always manage to draw hundreds, sometimes thousands of people and then convince them to kill themselves for various reasons. Hundreds of ideologies has risen and fallen, most of them have been short lived and made no sense since they've been highly damaging to its followers and IS is no different in this regard. Certain ideologies are more stable and lasts for a long time, I don't think IS will be one of them and it will be taking allot of people with it when it falls. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
On November 15 2015 20:55 SiroKO wrote: One of the terrorist "Ismaël Omar Mostefaï" has been identified. He was know by the French secret services for his radicalization, but as often, they had evidences that he would commit a terrorist act, thus they had no motives to arrest him... Apparently he was in Syria for quite some time. That must have gone unnoticed then! | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8153 Posts
On November 15 2015 18:39 Incognoto wrote: 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 Charlie Hebdo was and is wonderful. Those people have been brutally murdered for drawing cartoons and caricature, and all you find to say is "fuck those people"? Disgusting. You have the right not to like them, but this is disgusting. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 15 2015 19:07 xM(Z wrote: 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. No it's about the events themselves. A plane crashing is very different from people being gunned down in a central city. When the plane crashed, the russian authorities themselves considered that it was not a terrorist attack but the result of some problem with the plane (altho the plane compagny refuted this). This changed our behavior towards the event : only one or two days latter did we got info claiming that terrorist did it. For Paris, you have people running through the most visited city in the world with kalachnikov and killing everyone for no reasons. Young kids from britain died, people from the US. The restaurant attacked was called "the little cambodgia"... The brutality of the event itself, the weapon of choice (gun and not bombs) and the place all have specific impact on the way media portrait the attack. | ||
|
REDBLUEGREEN
Germany1904 Posts
On November 15 2015 20:45 Slydie wrote: 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. Most of the time it is to provoke an emotional irrational response from those that feel targeted. Imagining terrorist as dumb cave dwelling people who just act out of vengeance is something that hollywood portrays but often the attacks have been highly successful in changing geopolitics to their desire. I could very well be that the goal was to influence european refugee politics. It's an emotional topic and decisions have already been altered by Poland for example. The way Germany for example handled the refugee crisis was hugely popular in the middle east. Maybe ISIS saw the growing popularity of humanistic policies as a threat to their caliphate. It's hard to tell what the goals were but it is safest to completely ignore the terrorist attacks and not make any decisions that are based on emotions right now. | ||
TheNewEra
Germany3128 Posts
On November 15 2015 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote: Charlie Hebdo was and is wonderful. Those people have been brutally murdered for drawing cartoons and caricature, and all you find to say is "fuck those people"? Disgusting. You have the right not to like them, but this is disgusting. Charlie Hebdo says: 'Fuck the people who were murdered just for flying in an airplane'. That seems to be ok for you. Two people here basically say: ' Fuck Charlie Hebdo for making cruel jokes of such a dire situation'. And you get crazy defensive because they were murdered. I'm terrible sorry for what happened to Charlie Hebdo. But that doesn't mean you can't call them out for being assholes in that situation. Let's see if they will make fun of the victims of this attack. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On November 15 2015 21:33 WhiteDog wrote: No it's about the events themselves. A plane crashing is very different from people being gunned down in a central city. When the plane crashed, the russian authorities themselves considered that it was not a terrorist attack but the result of some problem with the plane (altho the plane compagny refuted this). This changed our behavior towards the event : only one or two days latter did we got info claiming that terrorist did it. For Paris, you have people running through the most visited city in the world with kalachnikov and killing everyone for no reasons. Young kids from britain died, people from the US. The restaurant attacked was called "the little cambodgia"... The brutality of the event itself, the weapon of choice (gun and not bombs) and the place all have specific impact on the way media portrait the attack. i won't disagree with you but i'll file this under the expected bias scenario; things being close to home and France being France. also, your chosen example(for the comparison) plays into your argument. | ||
|
CptMarvel
France236 Posts
On November 15 2015 21:49 TheNewEra wrote: Charlie Hebdo says: 'Fuck the people who were murdered just for flying in an airplane'. That seems to be ok for you. Two people here basically say: ' Fuck Charlie Hebdo for making cruel jokes of such a dire situation'. And you get crazy defensive because they were murdered. I'm terrible sorry for what happened to Charlie Hebdo. But that doesn't mean you can't call them out for being assholes in that situation. Let's see if they will make fun of the victims of this attack. A lot of people here, having never opened a satirical paper in their lives, don't seem to understand what Charlie Hebdo is about. I won't comment on the attacks, everything's been said already. And to hell with your religions already. They're nothing but nests to the stupidest, most horrific radicalizations of the modern era. Take your absolute beliefs and shove them up your butts. Or well, keep shutting your eyes so tight you end up seeing the feeble lights emitted by what's left of your brains, but FOR FUCKS SAKE stop pulling the trigger on innocent people. | ||
|
zdarr
France375 Posts
On November 15 2015 22:05 CptMarvel wrote: A lot of people here, having never opened a satirical paper in their lives, don't seem to understand what Charlie Hebdo is about. I won't comment on the attacks, everything's been said already. And to hell with your religions already. They're nothing but nests to the stupidest, most horrific radicalizations of the modern era. Take your absolute beliefs and shove them up your butts. Or well, keep shutting your eyes so tight you end up seeing the feeble lights emitted by what's left of your brains, but FOR FUCKS SAKE stop pulling the trigger on innocent people. Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 15 2015 21:58 xM(Z wrote: i won't disagree with you but i'll file this under the expected bias scenario; things being close to home and France being France. also, your chosen example(for the comparison) plays into your argument. Yes France is France, but even in France the bombing attacks never had the same impact. I know because I was there in 1995 during the bombing attack in the subway and they didn't create the same international outrage. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On November 15 2015 22:05 CptMarvel wrote: A lot of people here, having never opened a satirical paper in their lives, don't seem to understand what Charlie Hebdo is about. I won't comment on the attacks, everything's been said already. And to hell with your religions already. They're nothing but nests to the stupidest, most horrific radicalizations of the modern era. Take your absolute beliefs and shove them up your butts. Or well, keep shutting your eyes so tight you end up seeing the feeble lights emitted by what's left of your brains, but FOR FUCKS SAKE stop pulling the trigger on innocent people. I'm usually kind of a religion hater, but I don't understand the "fuck all religions" reaction of some people as a reaction of attacks like this. Isn't it pretty clear, from history, that people can kill and make terrorists attacks with a basis other than religion (political ideologies or nationalism, for instance) ? Then why should you call out all religions for the acts of a really small minority of people? By that reasoning, you should also call out all political ideologies and nationalist feelings. | ||
|
Reaps
United Kingdom1280 Posts
On November 15 2015 22:11 zdarr wrote: Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid. Dumbest comparison I seen all day, well done. Also go read the statement made by ISIS after the attacks. | ||
|
CptMarvel
France236 Posts
On November 15 2015 22:11 zdarr wrote: Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid. You sir greatly underestimate the role religions play in spreading ignorance, violent behavior and the fatal lack of common sense that's instrumental in losing enough of your humanity to actually kill another person. An everspreading mental disease with no known cure. | ||
|
Integra
Sweden5626 Posts
On November 15 2015 22:11 zdarr wrote: Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid. reason people are blaming religion is because ISIS is based on a religious belief... | ||
|
CptMarvel
France236 Posts
On November 15 2015 22:17 OtherWorld wrote: I'm usually kind of a religion hater, but I don't understand the "fuck all religions" reaction of some people as a reaction of attacks like this. Isn't it pretty clear, from history, that people can kill and make terrorists attacks with a basis other than religion (political ideologies or nationalism, for instance) ? Then why should you call out all religions for the acts of a really small minority of people? By that reasoning, you should also call out all political ideologies and nationalist feelings. Would be beyond idiotic to pretend the fire is lit up with sacred texts alone. All I'm saying is you can't bring these people to such mercilessness without drowning them in bigotry and illusions beforehand. edit : and I am indeed calling out every nationalist feeling/every extreme political ideology ever. | ||
|
zdarr
France375 Posts
On November 15 2015 22:19 CptMarvel wrote: You sir greatly underestimate the role religions play in spreading ignorance, violent behavior and the fatal lack of common sense that's instrumental in losing enough of your humanity to actually kill another person. An everspreading mental disease with no known cure. Yeah i guess i'm missing the majority of religious people getting their weapons as we speak to enter a war jew against christian against muslim. Religion is probably to blame when 90% of muslims lives peacefully, probably more to blame then a bunch of other things such as imperialism, globalisation and things like that, who legitimately creates hates and violence. | ||
|
zdarr
France375 Posts
On November 15 2015 22:23 Integra wrote: reason people are blaming religion is because ISIS is based on a religious belief... So you never doubt the official excuses an immature kid would make after making something stupid? | ||
|
ForTehDarkseid
8139 Posts
| ||
| ||
