Paris: Dozens Killed In Terrorist Attack

[untermensche]

Protip: no one's justifying the act. They're merely looking at the causes. There's a clear difference.

Why do you believe no one's justifying it? Yes, there's a clear difference; and some people are merely looking at the causes. untermensche is justifying the act.

Nobody is trying to justify these attacks. Nothing can justify them.

And yet you tried to justify them.

Yes, god forbid the West ever pay for it's crimes.

Caught red-handed trying to justify them.

FYI, these attacks are not "the West" paying for "it's crimes". These attacks are individuals who committed no crime against Syrians and Iraqis paying for IS's not giving a damn whether the people they take their anger out on are the same people who they feel have committed crimes against them. That's a characteristic of IS that no one in the West deserves the blame for.

You can remove things from context all you want.

2 things are clear.

The US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people was the beginning of ISIS in it's current and deadly form.

When you terrorize a population, like the US did in it's terrorist attack of the Iraqi people, you will create many terrorists in the process.

 

[arkirk]

ISIS exists in it's current form because of US terrorism.

Anybody who denies that is just ignorant.

And if these terrorists are involved with ISIS then French blood is on American hands.

Your characterization of the US as having been engaged in terrorism is as exagerative as a child's hand being slapped with a ruler by a teacher as being regarded as child abuse in the 1950's. People's emotions get the best of them to such a degree that any form of unacceptable physical contact in today's climate is met with the most extreme distortions of a word's meaning. Terrorism my ass!

Perhaps you should move somewhere that has a constant buzzing of drones and an occasional home or market or hospital blown up. At first you could say..."It didn't get me," but as time passed and more and more non judicial executions by drone and hellfire occurred in your area....At first you would lose only a few friends, but in time...You have no idea what you are talking about that what we do is just a little unacceptable physical contact. We are talking about whole lifetimes spent under the domination of foreign countries who care not one bit about the countries where these lifetimes occur. You appear to have no empathy with people whose lives are deemed 'an acceptable sacrifice as long as we get the BAD GUYS. It is the philosophy of the leadership in this country that they are qualified to dole out justice anywhere in the world by remote control. So when some of the injured parties manage to get close enough to our common people at football games and concerts they too are apt to NOT MAKE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CIVILIAN AND MILITARY.

If you don't want blowback you don't perpetrate violence on other countries. The French and the British are about as bad as we are and it is no surprise that such violence would occur in Paris.

 

[Bomb#20]

Enough to cause mayhem whenever there are significant number of Muslims: Israel, India, Europe, US, Indonesia, etc.

The European countries with the highest percentage of Muslims are, in this order, Kosovo (close to 90%), Albania (around 60%), Bosnia-Herzegovina (40%), Macedonia (30%), Montenegro (19%), Bulgaria (13%).

And what do they all have in common, besides having more Muslims and less Islamist violence than France et al.? They're all ex-Communist countries. What this tells us is that, just as Western Civilization finally figured out how to defang Christianity, Communism figured out how to defang Islam. Bravo! It did something useful during its eighty-year run.

So while Derec is technically incorrect to argue that Muslims collectively cause mayhem whenever they are present in significant numbers, the mere fact that there's an obvious massive exception to his generalization has policy implications for the West only if the West (a) is able to figure out how Communism pulled off that feat, and (b) is prepared to do what it takes to repeat it.

There have been wars in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina within my lifetime, but the general consensus seems to be that they were instigated by Serb nationalists (i.e. anti-Muslim bigots like you);

You say that as though there was no history prior to the instigation by Serb nationalists; you are giving a free pass to the culture of anti-Serb bigotry among Muslim ethnic Albanian nationalists that spawned the KLA.

 

[Jayjay]

That's a gross oversimplification. ISIS exists for many reasons, including US invasion of Iraq but also the brutal regime that Saddam had prior to that, and the civil war and support for the extremists from Assad. It's naive to blame every problem in the world on US intervention.

What does ISIS in it's current form have to do with the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein?

You said it yourself in a recent post: Some of Saddam's top lietanants helped ISIS ramp up and organize. Basically continuing the same tactics that they used under Saddam. Also, Saddam deliberately stoked the setarian and tribal divisions.

If that regime was still in place ISIS would be a minor nothing, not a blip on anybodies radar.

And if Saddam's regime wasn't so brutal, ISIS would be a minor nothing. And if Assad had not let the proto-ISIS freely move weapons and people over the Syrian border, ISIS would be a minor nothing. And if the Iraqi Shia had not fucked over the Sunnis after they came to power, ISIS would be a minor nothing. There are more than one causes and pinning it all on US invasion is misleading.

 

[arkirk]

What does ISIS in it's current form have to do with the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein?

You said it yourself in a recent post: Some of Saddam's top lietanants helped ISIS ramp up and organize. Basically continuing the same tactics that they used under Saddam. Also, Saddam deliberately stoked the setarian and tribal divisions.

If that regime was still in place ISIS would be a minor nothing, not a blip on anybodies radar.

And if Saddam's regime wasn't so brutal, ISIS would be a minor nothing. And if Assad had not let the proto-ISIS freely move weapons and people over the Syrian border, ISIS would be a minor nothing. And if the Iraqi Shia had not fucked over the Sunnis after they came to power, ISIS would be a minor nothing. There are more than one causes and pinning it all on US invasion is misleading.

WHO PUT THE IRAQI SHIA IN POWER? The main cause of violence in the ME is instability caused by the U.S. and its allies destroying all the institutions of governance and civil life in Iraq, and not just Saddam. You always are trying to pin the responsibility on the victims. It is getting really tiresome.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This was a terrible tragedy. So what's the solution?

Did you ask the same question when the US invaded Iraq and began bombing and torturing the innocent?

I asked the question years beforehand. It's always good to think about trying to identify the problem and think about solutions. Of course, we're just the anonymous rabble, but our awareness and discussion of solutions can have some limited effect on outcomes.

I will ask again, though, to you this time in particular. What's the solution?

 

[untermensche]

What does ISIS in it's current form have to do with the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein?

You said it yourself in a recent post: Some of Saddam's top lietanants helped ISIS ramp up and organize. Basically continuing the same tactics that they used under Saddam. Also, Saddam deliberately stoked the setarian and tribal divisions.

What "tactics" are you imagining?

These military leaders in ISIS are using military tactics.

And the last time they did that was when the US urged and supported Hussein's attack of Iran. Reagan took Iraq off the list of "terrorist nations" so the US could sell them weapons used against the Kurds and Iran.

If that regime was still in place ISIS would be a minor nothing, not a blip on anybodies radar.

And if Saddam's regime wasn't so brutal, ISIS would be a minor nothing. And if Assad had not let the proto-ISIS freely move weapons and people over the Syrian border, ISIS would be a minor nothing. And if the Iraqi Shia had not fucked over the Sunnis after they came to power, ISIS would be a minor nothing. There are more than one causes and pinning it all on US invasion is misleading.

The only connection between ISIS and Iraq is the military leadership.

There is no connection between ISIS and Saddam Hussein.

Despite your desperate nonsense to make one.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What does ISIS in it's current form have to do with the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein?

You said it yourself in a recent post: Some of Saddam's top lietanants helped ISIS ramp up and organize. Basically continuing the same tactics that they used under Saddam. Also, Saddam deliberately stoked the setarian and tribal divisions.

If that regime was still in place ISIS would be a minor nothing, not a blip on anybodies radar.

And if Saddam's regime wasn't so brutal, ISIS would be a minor nothing. And if Assad had not let the proto-ISIS freely move weapons and people over the Syrian border, ISIS would be a minor nothing. And if the Iraqi Shia had not fucked over the Sunnis after they came to power, ISIS would be a minor nothing. There are more than one causes and pinning it all on US invasion is misleading.

The problem with the Americans is they did not read Sun Tze namely that it is best to capture an army intact. It could have retained the army with loyalty to a new leader after a pay rise and security could have been maintained. With Saddam gone, ISIS soon grew to fill the void having mutated from other groups. The root causes are traced directly to US actions.
How many hundreds of thousands died for WMDs that were not even there?

- - - Updated - - -

You said it yourself in a recent post: Some of Saddam's top lietanants helped ISIS ramp up and organize. Basically continuing the same tactics that they used under Saddam. Also, Saddam deliberately stoked the setarian and tribal divisions.

If that regime was still in place ISIS would be a minor nothing, not a blip on anybodies radar.

And if Saddam's regime wasn't so brutal, ISIS would be a minor nothing. And if Assad had not let the proto-ISIS freely move weapons and people over the Syrian border, ISIS would be a minor nothing. And if the Iraqi Shia had not fucked over the Sunnis after they came to power, ISIS would be a minor nothing. There are more than one causes and pinning it all on US invasion is misleading.

WHO PUT THE IRAQI SHIA IN POWER? The main cause of violence in the ME is instability caused by the U.S. and its allies destroying all the institutions of governance and civil life in Iraq, and not just Saddam. You always are trying to pin the responsibility on the victims. It is getting really tiresome.

Correct

 

[untermensche]

Did you ask the same question when the US invaded Iraq and began bombing and torturing the innocent?

I asked the question years beforehand. It's always good to think about trying to identify the problem and think about solutions. Of course, we're just the anonymous rabble, but our awareness and discussion of solutions can have some limited effect on outcomes.

Usually when criminals commit crimes you try to find evidence and accomplices and bring people into courts and try them.

How about we try that one?

 

[fast]

Textbooks of today, no less, I presume. I suppose my point escaped you, as well as today's 'educated', I'd hazard to guess.

If one can't make their points clearly many will miss them.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

If you understand that the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people was the beginning of ISIS in it's current form, great.

If not, try to make a clear argument.

My qualm is with your characterization of the US's actions as terroristic. It's as juvenile as today's liberal's prolific misuse of provacative wording. Don't call a mole hill a mountain and I won't say a word, but call the use of a ruler on a child's hand of the 50's child abuse or an invasion by US troops terroristic, then expect to be called out on verbal extremism. You keep regarding the US as if they are terrorists, as if they should somehow be held to the same level of contempt as genuine terrorists. You are the one talking as if the US is engaging in terroristic activities. Your word usage would please the morally bankrupt.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I asked the question years beforehand. It's always good to think about trying to identify the problem and think about solutions. Of course, we're just the anonymous rabble, but our awareness and discussion of solutions can have some limited effect on outcomes.

Usually when criminals commit crimes you try to find evidence and accomplices and bring people into courts and try them.

How about we try that one?

Sure, and that would have done something for the US if we had brought W and others to courts to try them, too. But right now, don't you think that this bombing and killing is part of a "piecemeal WW3" like the Pope said? Isn't that the symptom of the problem?

 

[fast]

Your characterization of the US as having been engaged in terrorism is as exagerative as a child's hand being slapped with a ruler by a teacher as being regarded as child abuse in the 1950's. People's emotions get the best of them to such a degree that any form of unacceptable physical contact in today's climate is met with the most extreme distortions of a word's meaning. Terrorism my ass!

Perhaps you should move somewhere that has a constant buzzing of drones and an occasional home or market or hospital blown up. At first you could say..."It didn't get me," but as time passed and more and more non judicial executions by drone and hellfire occurred in your area....At first you would lose only a few friends, but in time...You have no idea what you are talking about that what we do is just a little unacceptable physical contact. We are talking about whole lifetimes spent under the domination of foreign countries who care not one bit about the countries where these lifetimes occur. You appear to have no empathy with people whose lives are deemed 'an acceptable sacrifice as long as we get the BAD GUYS. It is the philosophy of the leadership in this country that they are qualified to dole out justice anywhere in the world by remote control. So when some of the injured parties manage to get close enough to our common people at football games and concerts they too are apt to NOT MAKE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CIVILIAN AND MILITARY.

If you don't want blowback you don't perpetrate violence on other countries. The French and the British are about as bad as we are and it is no surprise that such violence would occur in Paris.

Ugh. You misaligned the point with the example.

 

[untermensche]

If one can't make their points clearly many will miss them.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

If you understand that the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people was the beginning of ISIS in it's current form, great.

If not, try to make a clear argument.

My qualm is with your characterization of the US's actions as terroristic. It's as juvenile as today's liberal's prolific misuse of provacative wording. Don't call a mole hill a mountain and I won't say a word, but call the use of a ruler on a child's hand of the 50's child abuse or an invasion by US troops terroristic, then expect to be called out on verbal extremism. You keep regarding the US as if they are terrorists, as if they should somehow be held to the same level of contempt as genuine terrorists. You are the one talking as if the US is engaging is terroristic activities. Your word usage would please the morally bankrupt.

You are merely attaching labels to my accurate description of US action.

You have not one rational argument.

I merely use the word consistently. I would describe all illegitimate force to effect political change as terrorism.

No matter who is using the illegitimate force.

And your notion that I am exaggerating is nonsense. There are not words to describe the massive US crime against the Iraqi people.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Did you ask the same question when the US invaded Iraq and began bombing and torturing the innocent?

I asked the question years beforehand. It's always good to think about trying to identify the problem and think about solutions. Of course, we're just the anonymous rabble, but our awareness and discussion of solutions can have some limited effect on outcomes.

I will ask again, though, to you this time in particular. What's the solution?

That's a tough one. The problem is that people have always killed each other when competing over resources.

 

[fast]

nm about the crime question. I know where you'll go with that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If one can't make their points clearly many will miss them.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

If you understand that the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people was the beginning of ISIS in it's current form, great.

If not, try to make a clear argument.

My qualm is with your characterization of the US's actions as terroristic. It's as juvenile as today's liberal's prolific misuse of provacative wording. Don't call a mole hill a mountain and I won't say a word, but call the use of a ruler on a child's hand of the 50's child abuse or an invasion by US troops terroristic, then expect to be called out on verbal extremism. You keep regarding the US as if they are terrorists, as if they should somehow be held to the same level of contempt as genuine terrorists. You are the one talking as if the US is engaging is terroristic activities. Your word usage would please the morally bankrupt.

 

[untermensche]

Usually when criminals commit crimes you try to find evidence and accomplices and bring people into courts and try them.

How about we try that one?

Sure, and that would have done something for the US if we had brought W and others to courts to try them, too. But right now, don't you think that this bombing and killing is part of a "piecemeal WW3" like the Pope said? Isn't that the symptom of the problem?

I didn't read what the Pope said but this is a cycle of violence begun with the US invasion of Iraq.

The only way to break a cycle of violence is to do something besides violence.

 

[repoman]

Touche, Don

My point has been, if you are gonna be a dick to some people --- then DON'T bring them into your country.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I asked the question years beforehand. It's always good to think about trying to identify the problem and think about solutions. Of course, we're just the anonymous rabble, but our awareness and discussion of solutions can have some limited effect on outcomes.

I will ask again, though, to you this time in particular. What's the solution?

That's a tough one. The problem is that people have always killed each other when competing over resources.

So you think the root cause of the issue comes down to resources once really and rigorously analyzed at its core?

 

[Jayjay]

You said it yourself in a recent post: Some of Saddam's top lietanants helped ISIS ramp up and organize. Basically continuing the same tactics that they used under Saddam. Also, Saddam deliberately stoked the setarian and tribal divisions.

If that regime was still in place ISIS would be a minor nothing, not a blip on anybodies radar.

And if Saddam's regime wasn't so brutal, ISIS would be a minor nothing. And if Assad had not let the proto-ISIS freely move weapons and people over the Syrian border, ISIS would be a minor nothing. And if the Iraqi Shia had not fucked over the Sunnis after they came to power, ISIS would be a minor nothing. There are more than one causes and pinning it all on US invasion is misleading.

WHO PUT THE IRAQI SHIA IN POWER? The main cause of violence in the ME is instability caused by the U.S. and its allies destroying all the institutions of governance and civil life in Iraq, and not just Saddam. You always are trying to pin the responsibility on the victims. It is getting really tiresome.

What's getting tiresome is portrayal of ISIS as "victims" and somehow justified in their actions. Let alone Saddam or Assad.

Who put the Iraqi shia in power? The Iraqi demographics did. US respected the democratic elections, but for the result Iraqis can blame themselves. Or if you want to extend the cause and effect, it's the ethnic divisions inherited from Saddam's rule. What are you suggesting? That Americans should have stepped in and nullified the elections?