Paris terror attacks on Friday 13th

Here's the alleged mastermind in a Syrian trench a while back:
 
Frightening how deluded and utterly committed to their cause they are. Indoctrination bordering on mind control.
 
rcoobc said:
This PS4 thing is a joke too.

Our media will print anything. Why did that Belgium minister decide the PS4 is more difficult than Whatsapp? The text isnt even encrypted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...ion/11997952/paris-attacks-playstation-4.html

Having said that, on PS4 there are a lot of people saying they are going to bomb or kill each other, so maybe it is easier to hide.
Click to expand...
There's an interesting fragment in that article though: "It has also been speculated that messages could be drawn out within games, rather than written, in creative ways such as firing patterns of bullets at a wall."
Now that seems a little clumsy and unlikely, but once you start to think in that direction the possibilities across various games are endless and extremely difficult to monitor. This isn't exclusive to the PS4 though, as you could implement the same ideas across a wealth of mobile apps. That must be a nightmare for intelligence agencies.
 
Oo0AahCantona said:
Frightening how deluded and utterly committed to their cause they are. Indoctrination bordering on mind control.
Click to expand...
These people are willing to blow themselves up and take other people's lives with them. What on earth goes on in their minds?
 
VorZakone said:
These people are willing to blow themselves up and take other people's lives with them. What on earth goes on in their minds?
Click to expand...
And in their minds they wont stop until were all dead and they live in this bizarre middle ages paradise that doesn't and will never exist. its sickening.
 
Ainu said:
There's an interesting fragment in that article though: "It has also been speculated that messages could be drawn out within games, rather than written, in creative ways such as firing patterns of bullets at a wall."
Now that seems a little clumsy and unlikely, but once you start to think in that direction the possibilities across various games are endless and extremely difficult to monitor. This isn't exclusive to the PS4 though, as you could implement the same ideas across a wealth of mobile apps. That must be a nightmare for intelligence agencies.
Click to expand...
I mean, exactly.

And to be honest, this is a huge problem. What organisation was it recently that was writing emails but not sending them, and then someone else would log in and read the drafts?

Was it related to banking? Fixing of interest rates?

I can't remember.
 
rcoobc said:
Just can't understand why it's being played. Maybe as an exhibition.
Click to expand...
It's being played, correctly in my opinion, to make a point. The aim of these terrorist attacks is to disrupt our way of life, if things are cancelled out of fear, then the terrorists win.
 
rcoobc said:
I mean, exactly.

And to be honest, this is a huge problem. What organisation was it recently that was writing emails but not sending them, and then someone else would log in and read the drafts?

Was it related to banking? Fixing of interest rates?

I can't remember.
Click to expand...
I know that David Petraeus was doing that with his biographer slash woman on the side when he was head of the CIA.
 
Dans said:
Another account of what's been going wrong in the middle east:

Click to expand...

Was watching this.. uploaded in Feb..
at 9:35
talk about ISIS getting anti aircraft missiles and eventually blowing up passenger aircrafts.



Crazy.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. Because I do feel like a bit of a cnut for finding something so well-meaning as annoying as I do. I guess I find the whole platform so fluffy and trivial (not to mention nakedly commercial) it seems wrong when it's used to address stuff which is so significant.
Click to expand...

I get annoyed by it to, i saw it termed slacktivism on reddit:

Slacktivism (sometimes slactivism or slackervism) is a portmanteau of the words slacker and activism. The word is usually considered a pejorative term that describes "feel-good" measures, in support of an issue or social cause, that have little physical or practical effect, other than to make the person doing it feel satisfied that they have contributed. Slacktivism can be defined as the act of showing support for a cause but only truly being beneficial to the egos of people participating in this so-called activism. The acts tend to require minimal personal effort from the slacktivist.

But then I remember I've done even less than that, so I guess I don't have a leg to stand on.
 
NextSeason said:
Good insight but what's his suggestion to stop the attacks?
Click to expand...
Well, not to be all Louis about it, but it's a process. The more people start to realise that a lot of what happens can be linked directly back to western governments, perhaps the more people will start to question what their governments are doing in their names and reject those governments at the next poll.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. Because I do feel like a bit of a cnut for finding something so well-meaning as annoying as I do. I guess I find the whole platform so fluffy and trivial (not to mention nakedly commercial) it seems wrong when it's used to address stuff which is so significant.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it is so well meaning. It's often quite ego centric - superimpose the French flag on a photo of you, because you know, you need to let everyone know you care

Maybe I'm a horrible cynic
 
Mockney said:
"Yo, bro, I'm like, so much more caring than you. I care about stuff you haven't even heard of..."

https://storify.com/JamilesLartey/on-fff

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...coverage-paris-attacks-not-just-media-s-fault
Click to expand...

I saw you post this on Twitter. It's quite a difficult issue to discuss actually. Jamiles' Storify is a good read so thanks for that.

I definitely agree that guilt tripping people for caring about Paris whilst pointing out how much you care about other parts of the world is just a dick move.

On the other hand there is an important point that our reaction to Paris as compared to attacks in Iraq or Africa or of course the Beirut attack that is endlessly mentioned is indicative of a degree of tribalism that is not something to be proud of. And of course humans are naturally tribalistic, we associate more with those from our city, our country, our continent or in our case, some vague idea of "the west". But not valuing the lives of those outside of our tribe is clearly a horrible human trait, and one that we must collectively overcome if we are to make the world a better place.

I doubt you disagree really. Showing off how much you care about the "right" tragedies is definitely a shitty thing to do. But so is the fact that the BBC flew half their newsreaders to Paris and no one out to Beirut. It's just that perhaps we shouldn't discuss this tribalism by comparing two tragedies whilst the grief for both is still incredibly raw.
 
Silva said:
Might be worth pointing out that Muslims reject Ahmadis probably more than ISIS.
Click to expand...

This is where it gets confusing with all the different sects within Islam. According to that Atlantic article ISIS reject all Muslims that reject their brand of Islam or that leave the Islamic State under their current caliphate, that even stretches to an extent to some IS members that return from the Islamic state to their nations of birth. I am sure that ISIS would slaughter any Ahmadi they came across that wouldn't convert.

Talking about 'Muslims' is problematic in itself because of all the different observances of the Islamic faith. Compare your everyday Turkish Muslim to a strict observer of Wahhabism and there is a great great contrast there.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
This is where it gets confusing with all the different sects within Islam. According to that Atlantic article ISIS reject all Muslims that reject their brand of Islam or that leave the Islamic State under their current caliphate, that even stretches to an extent to some IS members that return from the Islamic state to their nations of birth. I am sure that ISIS would slaughter any Ahmadi they came across that wouldn't convert.

Talking about 'Muslims' is problematic in itself because of all the different observances of the Islamic faith. Compare your everyday Turkish Muslim to a strict observer of Wahhabism and there is a great great contrast there.
Click to expand...

Here's a Caf discussion on the Ahmadi question - https://www.redcafe.net/threads/sunnis-and-shias.397615/page-5#post-18343058
 
Mrs Smoker said:
Got a French flag on your Facebook profile picture? Congratulations on your corporate white supremacy
Click to expand...

:lol: I'm as against slacktivism as anyone, but that is ridiculous.

Facebook’s use of the flag, as well as the new use of its Safety Check feature in the wake of the Paris attacks – the first time it has been used for an act of conflict rather than a natural disaster – is an example of both of these.
Click to expand...

How dare Facebook use their ubiquitous platform (1/3 of French people have an account) to allow people to let their family and friends know they're safe.
 
Mozza said:
Load of nonesense, his central point being ISIS is inevitable under Islam. Most Islamic nations through most of history have not resembled anything like IS
Click to expand...
You sure? The Middle-Ages were very violent times and my country of birth Georgia was constantly under attack from Muslims who wanted to make Georgians become Muslims and kill them if they refused. I have no grudge against Muslims but those were the times back then and there are many more examples which also put the Christian nations in bad daylight.
 
VorZakone said:
You sure? The Middle-Ages were very violent times and my country of birth Georgia was constantly under attack from Muslims who wanted to make Georgians become Muslims and kill them if they refused. I have no grudge against Muslims but those were the times back then and there are many more examples which also put the Christian nations in bad daylight.
Click to expand...

Muslim nations were no more war like in the middle ages than Christian nations, as you said it was a violent time
 
Mozza said:
Load of nonesense, his central point being ISIS is inevitable under Islam. Most Islamic nations through most of history have not resembled anything like IS
Click to expand...
I don't think that it is his central point at all.

Central point is that if you do a direct interpretation of Quran and Hadith, then yes, you are going to get ISIS. It isn't a coincidence that the state which has the closest policies to ISIS, is Saudi Arabia who also do a near direct interpretation of Quran/Hadith.

Like every other religion, Islam is an ideology. If you insist of using 7th centuries policies, it would be batshit crazy. Similarily to if Jews decide to go by the rule of Tora, or Christians by the Rule of the Old Testament, then they would also have ISIS like groups.

If you do a more deeper interpretation, then you can get good stuff there. In pretty much everything. You can imagine Mahdi as the batshit crazy nutter who will come and kill every non-Muslim around, or the wise scholar who will make social reforms and make Islam so good that other people will convert to it. It is all how you decide to interpret it, and people have been doing so since the inception of Islam. For a large part of history (and in a large geogrpahical territory) it has been fine. But if you decide to copy how Islam worked in 7th century, now that we are in 21th century, then you will have ISIS.
 
VorZakone said:
You sure? The Middle-Ages were very violent times and my country of birth Georgia was constantly under attack from Muslims who wanted to make Georgians become Muslims and kill them if they refused. I have no grudge against Muslims but those were the times back then and there are many more examples which also put the Christian nations in bad daylight.
Click to expand...

"There is also in the East another Christian people, who are very warlike and valiant in battle, being strong in body and powerful in the countless numbers of their warriors. They are much dreaded by the Saracens and have often by their invasions done great damage to the Persians, Medes and Assyrians on whose borders they dwell, being entirely surrounded by infidel nations. These men are called Georgians, because they especially revere and worship St. George, whom they make their patron and standard-bearer in their fight with the infidels, and they honor him above all other saints. Whenever they come on pilgrimage to the Lord's Sepulchre, they march into the Holy City with banners displayed, without paying tribute to anyone, for the Saracens dare in no wise molest them. They wear their hair and beards about a cubit long and have hats on their heads."
Jacques de Vitry, Patriarch of Jerusalem

Lets not pretend it was a one-way street.
 
Mozza said:
Muslim nations were no more war like in the middle ages than Christian nations, as you said it was a violent time
Click to expand...

Christianity has by and large moved on from the days of oppression, ethnic cleansing and tribal warfare common throughout the Middle Ages though, along with most other religions. Much of Islam has not, and some factions of it still desire all of the above.
 
What i really want to know is if French security forces already knew all these locations they have raided and found weapons etc in, why hadnt they raided them before and possibly avoided all this? If the law prevented them doing so, the law needs to change. I cant help feeling they dropped the ball as they did back in January.
 
Revan said:
I don't think that it is his central point at all.

Central point is that if you do a direct interpretation of Quran and Hadith, then yes, you are going to get ISIS. It isn't a coincidence that the state which has the closest policies to ISIS, is Saudi Arabia who also do a near direct interpretation of Quran/Hadith.

Like every other religion, Islam is an ideology. If you insist of using 7th centuries policies, it would be batshit crazy. Similarily to if Jews decide to go by the rule of Tora, or Christians by the Rule of the Old Testament, then they would also have ISIS like groups.

If you do a more deeper interpretation, then you can get good stuff there. In pretty much everything. You can imagine Mahdi as the batshit crazy nutter who will come and kill every non-Muslim around, or the wise scholar who will make social reforms and make Islam so good that other people will convert to it. It is all how you decide to interpret it, and people have been doing so since the inception of Islam. For a large part of history (and in a large geogrpahical territory) it has been fine. But if you decide to copy how Islam worked in 7th century, now that we are in 21th century, then you will have ISIS.
Click to expand...

Why is ISIS interpretation any truer then most other Muslims interpretation? Why is theirs a direct interpretation and not what most other muslims follow?
 
Mozza said:
Why is ISIS interpretation any truer then most other Muslims interpretation? Why is theirs a direct interpretation and not what most other muslims follow?
Click to expand...

The ISIS interpretation is the to the letter interpretation. Most realise a watered down version is much better to live by.

If you follow the bible to the letter it wouldnt be great either btw.
 
Mozza said:
Why is ISIS interpretation any truer then most other Muslims interpretation? Why is theirs a direct interpretation and not what most other muslims follow?
Click to expand...
Not truer, but more direct. More direct in the sense that they don't look on what scholars say. They just look at Quran and Hadith and that's it.

There is a long list of verses in Quran which are extremely violent. Surprise, surprise, these usually came when Mohamed was in war. There is also a list of verses which are quite peaceful (which came at the time there was a ceasefire). ISIS has decided to use these violent verses, because they are closer to their goals. Furthermore, they interpret these verses as they are written for now (obviously based on the verses that Quran is a book for the entire mankind and for every time). Others interpret these verses that were written for a specific time and for specific purpose (considering that there was war back then).

The entire Salafi/Wahabbism philosophy, is to go back to the roots. Something that ISIS has done.

This is why saying IS has nothing to do with Islam (favorite moto of politicians) is completely wrong. ISIS have to do with Islam, as much as anyone else. It is just that they have chosen the worst part of Islam, and are interpreting it in the worst possible way. Admiting that (be it from politicians or other Muslim groups) would be a good start. When you know the problem, you can fight it better. There is plenty of good stuff in Islam (as is on other religions), as it is plenty of terrible stuff. And all these good/bad stuff can be interpreted in different ways. ISIS interpretation is just one of those interpretation. A terrible one, but a valid one.
 
11101 said:
Christianity has by and large moved on from the days of oppression, ethnic cleansing and tribal warfare common throughout the Middle Ages though, along with most other religions. Much of Islam has not, and some factions of it still desire all of the above.
Click to expand...

Christianity hasn't got any power in the West, so testing that hypothesis isn't possible. We in the West don't oppress our own people but we sure will turn a blind eye to oppression, ethnic cleansing and worse if a friendly dictator is the one doing it in his country
 
11101 said:
The ISIS interpretation is the to the letter interpretation. Most realise a watered down version is much better to live by.

If you follow the bible to the letter it wouldnt be great either btw.
Click to expand...

It isn't the too letter interpretation, it's an interpretation based on a narrow period of Islamic history
 
Revan said:
Not truer, but more direct. More direct in the sense that they don't look on what scholars say. They just look at Quran and Hadith and that's it.

There is a long list of verses in Quran which are extremely violent. Surprise, surprise, these usually came when Mohamed was in war. There is also a list of verses which are quite peaceful (which came at the time there was a ceasefire). ISIS has decided to use these violent verses, because they are closer to their goals. Furthermore, they interpret these verses as they are written for now (obviously based on the verses that Quran is a book for the entire mankind and for every time). Others interpret these verses that were written for a specific time and for specific purpose (considering that there was war back then).

The entire Salafi/Wahabbism philosophy, is to go back to the roots. Something that ISIS has done.

This is why saying IS has nothing to do with Islam (favorite moto of politicians) is completely wrong. ISIS have to do with Islam, as much as anyone else. It is just that they have chosen the worst part of Islam, and are interpreting it in the worst possible way. Admiting that (be it from politicians or other Muslim groups) would be a good start. When you know the problem, you can fight it better. There is plenty of good stuff in Islam (as is on other religions), as it is plenty of terrible stuff. And all these good/bad stuff can be interpreted in different ways. ISIS interpretation is just one of those interpretation. A terrible one, but a valid one.
Click to expand...

A interpretation based on only some of the Quran and Hadith, so like every other interpretation, no more direct than any other
 
You must log in or register to reply here.