Paris terror attacks on Friday 13th

Sir Matt said:
But there's a fairly sizable portion of the Muslim population around the world (including the West) that is sympathetic to terrorists acting in the name of Islam. It's obviously a minority in most countries, but there are far more people who are supportive or at least sympathetic than .5%. Thankfully, very few of them are willing to put their feelings into actions.

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=97
Click to expand...
Some interesting answers there, and a lot of them seem to disprove this "islam is evil" milarky

http://imgur.com/a/WycyQ
 
Unbelievable title to this thread. How can you talk about jihadis without discussing their motivating ideology.

That's like trying to discuss Manchester United without mentioning football.
 
Uzz said:
No - you're wrong. The US decided to go into Iraq on spurious half reasons, changing the goalposts to try and justify the killing of up to 1m Iraqis and causing 12-14 years of displacement and chaos which has just gotten worse and worse. This is a huge factor in today's events. Of course it is. The discussion for IS starts there..
Click to expand...

The idea that we can just cleanly separate IS from the myriad of groups with the same MO and recruitment drive, that have been operating well before the invasion of Iraq (an invasion justified on the back of a terror attack by one very such group!) is just a bit disingenuous. Again, you're deliniating history to suit your argument. IS is merely the newest head of the hydra.
 
Last edited:
FortBoyard said:
Unbelievable title to this thread. How can you talk about jihadis without discussing their motivating ideology.

That's like trying to discuss Manchester United without mentioning football.
Click to expand...
That came in over night when there were still updates coming in about what was happening, and it was tiring to pick through all the religion crosstalk to find them.
 
Uzz said:
I'm nothing like him.

I've never justified killing in any of my posts.

And my post was on US policy for creating IS as they were formed in American prisons in Iraq.

And lastly, I've said time and time again, this isn't excusing IS for their own actions.
Click to expand...

I meant in terms of being biased.
 
Mockney said:
The idea that we can just cleanly separate IS from the myriad of groups with the same MO and recruitment drive, that have been operating well before the invasion of Iraq - an invasion justified on the back of a terror attack by one very such group! - is just a bit disingenuous. Again, you're deliniating history to suit your argument.
Click to expand...

Which terror attack was that? Aren't you confusing Iraq with Afghanistan?
 
Arruda said:
Which terror attack was that? Aren't you confusing Iraq with Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

Yes, but no. It clearly paved the way for it, even if it wasn't the primary justification. The whole WMD thing wouldn't have flown without the climate created by 9/11.
 
Just seen Sky News saying one of the guys came in with the Syrian refugee's via Greece.

However or whatever, if thats proves true, expect a whole lot of disgusting politicking and fear-mongering to follow.
 
Sir Matt said:
But there's a fairly sizable portion of the Muslim population around the world (including the West) that is sympathetic to terrorists acting in the name of Islam. It's obviously a minority in most countries, but there are far more people who are supportive or at least sympathetic than .5%. Thankfully, very few of them are willing to put their feelings into actions.

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=97

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html
Click to expand...

Not sure how much that really means though. I mean in Ireland there are a fair few people who'd be "sympathetic" to the IRA's cause without it really meaning anything in real terms as they would never act upon it. Basically some people just talk the talk, for cultural reasons as much as political up ones.
 
rotherham_red said:
But all that would have been moot if the powers that be created nation states that had some semblance of ethnic identity.
Click to expand...

The empire was in crisis long before WW1 though. You had anti-Christian massacres in Syria in 1860 and in Anatolia in 1895. You had streams of Muslim refugees from the Balkans and Caucasus pouring into Anatolia as Christian peoples in those region claimed independence or succumbed to Russian rule (one estimate I've read claims that 62% of the Muslim population of the Balkans was displaced and 27% killed in the decades before WW1 - a precursor to the Armenian massacres of 1915).

The empire probably would have been conquered by the Russians and divided between the powers a century or so earlier had it not been for the 'balance of power' maintained in Europe by Britain and the French. So 'Sykes-Picot', however misguided (although it was never implemented), was more a symptom than a cause of the region's problems.
 
GimmeAKitKat said:
Just seen Sky News saying one of the guys came in with the Syrian refugee's via Greece.

However or whatever, if thats proves true, expect a whole lot of disgusting politicking and fear-mongering to follow.
Click to expand...

The Daily Mail is limbering up.
 
This could well the advent of a huge political shift in Europe. Reports suggest that an attacker was a migrant whom traveled from Syria via Greece in October. Expect the right wing to rise now, Britain edges closer to an EU exit and France to Le Pen.
 
Eyepopper said:
Click to expand...


Wasn't that connection determined to be false? My memory is a bit fuzzy but it always looked like another bullshit to add to the WMD angle. I think we should distinguish the public lies that were told to get people to support the war, from the real reasons that were behind it.

And though I understand @Mockney 's rationale of a very long back log of events making it impossible to pinpoint a specific cause for the wider problem at hand, ISIS itself is a very specific problem which can be pinpointed to a very specific cause. In comparison to Al-Qaeda, it's a different animal. Al-Qaeda was a far more "traditional" terror organization, ISIS is just a gigantic mess with far greater implications. Not to mention, gut-wrenching to think that we let our leaders get away with it without any kind of serious evaluation of the events.
 
KM said:
Tbf it's take the religion talk to the appropriate thread is rubbish in this case. It's a discussion thread related to the attack, so yes religion(rightly or wrongly) is going to be discussed in context of this attack.
Click to expand...

its laughable really , when you reed the isis statement ...
 
We originally went into Iraq at the formal request of the arab nations.
 
Arruda said:
And though I understand @Mockney 's rationale of a very long back log of events making it impossible to pinpoint a specific cause for the wider problem at hand, ISIS itself is a very specific problem which can be pinpointed to a very specific cause.
Click to expand...

I don't think thats true at all. Yes their formation can be traced, and their landgrabbing is novel, but their motivations and justifications for terrorist attrocities is the same as it's always been. It's the same recruitment drive hoovering up and brainwashing disenfranchised youngsters, and it's the same blend of politics, desperation and bonkers iron age extremism fuelling it. It's just the new head of a hydra that's been about for a while, justifying itself a new every time.
 
Arruda said:
Wasn't that connection determined to be false? My memory is a bit fuzzy but it always looked like another bullshit to add to the WMD angle. I think we should distinguish the public lies that were told to get people to support the war, from the real reasons that were behind it.

And though I understand @Mockney 's rationale of a very long back log of events making it impossible to pinpoint a specific cause for the wider problem at hand, ISIS itself is a very specific problem which can be pinpointed to a very specific cause. In comparison to Al-Qaeda, it's a different animal. Al-Qaeda was a far more "traditional" terror organization, ISIS is just a gigantic mess with far greater implications. Not to mention, gut-wrenching to think that we let our leaders get away with it without any kind of serious evaluation of the events.
Click to expand...

It looks just like the other groups before it, just in the new world of social networks and with its own everlasting jihad to fight in Syria and Iraq. Ok, you might argue the notion that if Iraq were somehow under Saddam there wouldn't be ISIS... but would it still be under him? Would there not have been an Arab spring anyways, which could've caused Iraq to be much like Syria is?

Even if there were no ISIS, would Al-Qaeda have been the last terror group?
 
Mockney said:
I don't think thats true at all. Yes their formation can be traced, and their landgrabbing is novel, but their motivations and justifications for terrorist attrocities is the same as it's always been. It's the same recruitment drive hoovering up and brainwashing disenfranchised youngsters, and it's the same blend of politics, religion and desperation fuelling it. It's just the new head of a hydra that's been about for a while, justifying itself a new every time.
Click to expand...

Yep, on what I didn't care to elaborate on. All these groups talk much of the same talk, have many of the same goals and use the same tactics since about the PLO in the 60s.
 
From BBC live tracker
16:38
A Greek government minister says the holder of a Syrian passport found at the scene crossed into the European Union through the Greek island of Leros in October.

Deputy public order minister Nikos Toskas, said in a statement:

On the case of the Syrian passport found at the scene of the terrorist attack, we announce that the passport holder passed from Leros on October 3 where he was identified based on EU rules ... We do not know if the passport was checked by other countries through which the holder likely passed.
Click to expand...
 
Sad thing is that the outcome of this is likely going to make things worse.

IS get what they want, a less tolerant "West", pushing more Islamic communities away from us and towards them, strengthening their cause.

Western powers get further ammunition with which to reduce liberties and give themselves more powers.
 
Claiming that Islam needs reform because a group of evil scumbags are using it as a means to recruit and manipulate the young and impressionable is a bit like claiming Manchester United needs reform because of the 3 lads who arrived to Bilbao to sign Ander Herrera a couple of years ago.

Muslim leaders have said again and again that ISIS do not represent Islam. ISIS and those who fund them or assist them are the enemy. Not any particular religion or its legitimate followers.

When the IRA were attacking Canary Wharf, we didn't lump British protestants and Russian Orthodox in with them even though they were all Christians. When that youth shot up the college in Oregon last month, he questioned students on their religion before firing on them. We didn't demand that all agnostics and atheists speak out to officially condemn his attack or demand for the reformation of atheism.

We didn't do these things because it would have made no sense. To demand reform of the many different strings of Islam because an illegitimate group of assholes are using their text and skewing it to meet their own twisted goals would make no more sense.

It's not even about being a Muslim apologist. From a totally selfish point of view, every time we blame ordinary Muslims for the actions of others, we simply push more of the impressionable or disillusioned ones into the arms of the guys taking delight in driving these cracks in our societies.
 
I do find it weird that they carry their passports to their deaths. So for a second I wonder if its not someone else's passport they carry with the intention of causing confusion in the aftermath. But the authorities will run it all down in the next few days and we'll probably know for certain where they came from. If it turns out he was definitely among refugees, I hope some people who seem to have been in denial about the possibility of this wake up (not that the refugees arrive and then become terrorists, but that terrorists leave Syria among refugees with this goal all along).
 
Mockney said:
I don't think thats true at all. Yes their formation can be traced, and their landgrabbing is novel, but their motivations and justifications for terrorist attrocities is the same as it's always been. It's the same recruitment drive hoovering up and brainwashing disenfranchised youngsters, and it's the same blend of politics, desperation and bonkers iron age extremism fuelling it. It's just the new head of a hydra that's been about for a while, justifying itself a new every time.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the general idea of your post at all. I just think that the bolded part is far more relevant than what you make it out to be. At least in what concerns us.
 
2cents said:
The empire was in crisis long before WW1 though. You had anti-Christian massacres in Syria in 1860 and in Anatolia in 1895. You had streams of Muslim refugees from the Balkans and Caucasus pouring into Anatolia as Christian peoples in those region claimed independence or succumbed to Russian rule (one estimate I've read claims that 62% of the Muslim population of the Balkans was displaced and 27% killed in the decades before WW1 - a precursor to the Armenian massacres of 1915).

The empire probably would have been conquered by the Russians and divided between the powers a century or so earlier had it not been for the 'balance of power' maintained in Europe by Britain and the French. So 'Sykes-Picot', however misguided (although it was never implemented), was more a symptom than a cause of the region's problems.
Click to expand...
Indeed it was, but the reasons why it stayed on as long as it did are certainly up for debate... In particular, the roles of France and Britain as you alluded to. There's a reason why the Ottomans were known as the sick man of Europe after all.

Don't get me wrong, I know that the Ottoman Caliphate was no utopia. It had many aspects to it which were decidedly dodgy, but the roles played by these powers was much more crucial to the way the current Middle East is shaped than the Empire itself. The fact is, yes the Empire was crumbling and it would definitely have fallen no matter what but it is the gross incompetence of the powers has created the situation which we see now, IMO.

Re the Balkans though, you would be 100% right. There were longstanding ethnic tensions which would probably have come to a head no matter what happened, and for that, the blame should lay at the Ottomans for creating the system they did.
 
Wait, I thought the argument regarding refuges was that they were destroying their passports so no one could be sure who they were, thus posing a threat of terrorists hiding amongst them.

Now we get a terrorist holding on to a Syrian passport and bringing it with him to carry out an attack?
 
Mockney said:
The idea that we can just cleanly separate IS from the myriad of groups with the same MO and recruitment drive, that have been operating well before the invasion of Iraq (an invasion justified on the back of a terror attack by one very such group!) is just a bit disingenuous. Again, you're deliniating history to suit your argument. IS is merely the newest head of the hydra.
Click to expand...
Exactly they will continue to do what they're doing and they'll always find a reason for justification. That's what cowards do, use any and everything to fuel their hate. They will always be hiding in the shadows of some cause or reason but the world knows that they're just evil. Only people with a pure barbaric evil mindset can be convinced that killing innocents is acceptable payback for all the 'injustice' they suffered. If America wasn't in the picture they would have no trouble finding another reason to keep doing what they do because it's just who they are. ..terrorist scums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.