Paris: Dozens Killed In Terrorist Attack

[angelo]

Let's have a holiday where everyone shows support for the the poor victimised muslims by hugging one. It could be called " Hug A muslim Day."

No joke, I actually heard a talk back radio listener ring in with that suggestion.

 

[untermensche]

Accidentally?

Oops I slipped and dissolved the Iraqi army?

Idiotic.

You're responsible for your actions, Mr. Principle.

I didn't say dissolving the Iraqi army was accidental; I said it was idiotic. The consequence of those people going to work for ISIS was accidental -- it was not intended and not foreseen. It should have been foreseen, but that's how accidents work. When you intentionally take your eyes off the road to send a text message, and as a foreseeable result you drive through a crosswalk and kill a pedestrian, you still didn't mean to kill him and it's still an accident.

Nobody ever said that giving ISIS highly trained military leadership was the plan of the terrorist attack of the Iraqi people.

Only that it happened and without the terrorist attack of the Iraqi people ISIS today would not amount to anything.

 

[untermensche]

What many Muslims all over the world are actually doing is condemning the Paris attacks and distancing themselves and according to them, their religion, from this massive crime.

'This Is Not Islam': #NotInMyName Campaign Revived After Paris Attacks

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/notinmyname-paris-attacks_56494ef7e4b045bf3defbf7a

 

[Jokodo]

Who cares if you're impressed or not? You're the one making claims and then not backing them up.

Show us some solid, credible evidence of these countless Muslims cheering on ISIS, or scurry off back to JihadWatch where your fearmongering bullshit belongs.

Dude: ISIS probably dosn't represent even a majority of Sunni Muslims. However, you have to concede that ISIS controls currently controls approximately 40% of the ME. It's being reported that ISIS sanctioned these attacks.

Do tell us what metric you used to come up with the 40% figure. They might be in control of 40% of the land area in Syria, but most of there holdings are sparsely populated, so in population terms they more likely hold 10% to maximally 15% (and that's the peacetime population of the areas they control, before accounting for the outpour of refugees from these areas), and a similar figure in Iraq.

And the East is quite a bit bigger than Syria and Iraq, too.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What many Muslims all over the world are actually doing is condemning the Paris attacks and distancing themselves and according to them, their religion, from this massive crime.

'This Is Not Islam': #NotInMyName Campaign Revived After Paris Attacks

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/notinmyname-paris-attacks_56494ef7e4b045bf3defbf7a

Well that's ... tepid and uninspiring.

I guess that means there are Muslims who are against this. When some people drew a picture of Mohammed, I didn't need to guess in order to figure out their position. They were very loud and passionate about letting everyone know that position.

When Bush went and started a war and murdered a bunch of innocents in the name of America, there were thousands out in the streets marching and protesting to let the world know how disgusted they, as Americans, were about what was being done in their name. If the anti-Iraq War campaign had consisted of snitty tweets, I would have assumed that there wasn't any real objection to the war.

While sending a tweet may not be the absolute least that one can do when someone commits mass murder in your name, it is pretty close. At least they took five minutes to make a little sign and they got up from the couch for long enough to take a quick selfie - so that's something ... I guess.

 

[untermensche]

What many Muslims all over the world are actually doing is condemning the Paris attacks and distancing themselves and according to them, their religion, from this massive crime.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/notinmyname-paris-attacks_56494ef7e4b045bf3defbf7a

Well that's ... tepid and uninspiring.

I guess that means there are Muslims who are against this. When some people drew a picture of Mohammed, I didn't need to guess in order to figure out their position. They were very loud and passionate about letting everyone know that position.

When Bush went and started a war and murdered a bunch of innocents in the name of America, there were thousands out in the streets marching and protesting to let the world know how disgusted they, as Americans, were about what was being done in their name. If the anti-Iraq War campaign had consisted of snitty tweets, I would have assumed that there wasn't any real objection to the war.

While sending a tweet may not be the absolute least that one can do when someone commits mass murder in your name, it is pretty close. At least they took five minutes to make a little sign and they got up from the couch for long enough to take a quick selfie - so that's something ... I guess.

Yes you are right.

These people didn't destroy ISIS before they tweeted.

How ignorant of them to express their opinion and let the world know how many Muslims feel before doing that.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well that's ... tepid and uninspiring.

I guess that means there are Muslims who are against this. When some people drew a picture of Mohammed, I didn't need to guess in order to figure out their position. They were very loud and passionate about letting everyone know that position.

When Bush went and started a war and murdered a bunch of innocents in the name of America, there were thousands out in the streets marching and protesting to let the world know how disgusted they, as Americans, were about what was being done in their name. If the anti-Iraq War campaign had consisted of snitty tweets, I would have assumed that there wasn't any real objection to the war.

While sending a tweet may not be the absolute least that one can do when someone commits mass murder in your name, it is pretty close. At least they took five minutes to make a little sign and they got up from the couch for long enough to take a quick selfie - so that's something ... I guess.

Yes you are right.

These people didn't destroy ISIS before they tweeted.

How ignorant of them to express their opinion and let the world know how many Muslims feel before doing that.

Wow. Way to ignore the point.

You seem to be against the Iraq war. Was your opposition to that limited to making internet comments to that effect or have you done more in the real world? Protesters, marches, things like that. You seem to me to be someone who's done more.

You didn't violently overthrow the Bush government, but did you manage to find somewhere in between the two extremes of destroying your enemy completely and engaging in thirty seconds of light typing in order to express your feelings about the war?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Dude: ISIS probably dosn't represent even a majority of Sunni Muslims. However, you have to concede that ISIS controls currently controls approximately 40% of the ME. It's being reported that ISIS sanctioned these attacks.

Uh, no, I don't have to concede that because it's demonstrably false. ISIS does not control 40% of the Middle East. But even if they did, putting aside the fact that the overwhelming majority of the world's Muslims don't live in the Middle East, it doesn't mean anything. Unless you buy into Trausti's shitty line of reasoning that anyone who lives under oppressive governments is complicit in their crimes.

Are you making the claim that it is wrong for a country to defend itself if it is attacked by an oppressive government?

 

[untermensche]

Yes you are right.

These people didn't destroy ISIS before they tweeted.

How ignorant of them to express their opinion and let the world know how many Muslims feel before doing that.

Wow. Way to ignore the point.

You seem to be against the Iraq war. Was your opposition to that limited to making internet comments to that effect or have you done more in the real world? Protesters, marches, things like that. You seem to me to be someone who's done more.

You didn't violently overthrow the Bush government, but did you manage to find somewhere in between the two extremes of destroying your enemy completely and engaging in thirty seconds of light typing in order to express your feelings about the war?

You seem to confuse two things.

The opinions people hold and what they do about them.

The reason the criminals in the US were able to launch an unprovoked terrorist attack on the Iraqi people was because in poll after poll about 60% of Americans supported it.

There were no amount of protests (at least peaceful protests which are the only justifiable way to protest the use of violence) in the streets that were going to stop it with poll numbers like that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The reason the criminals in the US were able to launch an unprovoked terrorist attack on the Iraqi people was because in poll after poll about 60% of Americans supported it.

The government does things without the consent of the people quite often, though. And actually, technically in the case of Iraq the people were in favor of it IF the UN approved of it. Probably that was because the people were looking for general agreement from different non-US perspectives that Iraq had dangerous WMDs and was an imminent threat. The UN did not approve of it and W attacked with his allies anyway. When WMDs were not found that created a lot of backlash for W, political and otherwise.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh, no, I don't have to concede that because it's demonstrably false. ISIS does not control 40% of the Middle East. But even if they did, putting aside the fact that the overwhelming majority of the world's Muslims don't live in the Middle East, it doesn't mean anything. Unless you buy into Trausti's shitty line of reasoning that anyone who lives under oppressive governments is complicit in their crimes.

Are you making the claim that it is wrong for a country to defend itself if it is attacked by an oppressive government?

Why qualify this question with an oppressive government? Can't people defend themselves regardless of whether you decide if a government is oppressive?

 

[iolo]

People have never been killed for 'drawing cartoons'. They have been killed for deliberately and pointlessly insulting other people's religion, as you know. If someone kicks you in the balls, laddie, you will have objections. Think on!

Because it's important to allow the worst elements of society to control what the rest of us say and do out of fear of their reprisals. Violence and terror really are the best ways to make your point and we should always submit to the demands of those who engage in it and let those sorts of people decide what is or is not acceptable behaviour.

The worst elements in society, as you know, are those who colonise other people's countries and make war on the weak, creating counter-violence. Have a look at that beam in your own eye, kiddo.

 

[Warpoet]

Are you making the claim that it is wrong for a country to defend itself if it is attacked by an oppressive government?

How does this in any way follow from what I posted?

 

[Jokodo]

What many Muslims all over the world are actually doing is condemning the Paris attacks and distancing themselves and according to them, their religion, from this massive crime.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/notinmyname-paris-attacks_56494ef7e4b045bf3defbf7a

Well that's ... tepid and uninspiring.

I guess that means there are Muslims who are against this. When some people drew a picture of Mohammed, I didn't need to guess in order to figure out their position. They were very loud and passionate about letting everyone know that position.

When Bush went and started a war and murdered a bunch of innocents in the name of America, there were thousands out in the streets marching and protesting to let the world know how disgusted they, as Americans, were about what was being done in their name. If the anti-Iraq War campaign had consisted of snitty tweets, I would have assumed that there wasn't any real objection to the war.

While sending a tweet may not be the absolute least that one can do when someone commits mass murder in your name, it is pretty close. At least they took five minutes to make a little sign and they got up from the couch for long enough to take a quick selfie - so that's something ... I guess.

There's a huge difference. The invasion of Iraq was decided by the democratically elected representatives of the American people. So the assumption that the invasion is happening in the name of American voters and with their consent is a priori reasonable. The assumption that the Paris attacks are happening in the name of any odd Muslim off the street is a priori unreasonable, and thus he has no more reason to clarify that they're not happening in his name than you or I.

 

[iolo]

Well that's ... tepid and uninspiring.

I guess that means there are Muslims who are against this. When some people drew a picture of Mohammed, I didn't need to guess in order to figure out their position. They were very loud and passionate about letting everyone know that position.

When Bush went and started a war and murdered a bunch of innocents in the name of America, there were thousands out in the streets marching and protesting to let the world know how disgusted they, as Americans, were about what was being done in their name. If the anti-Iraq War campaign had consisted of snitty tweets, I would have assumed that there wasn't any real objection to the war.

While sending a tweet may not be the absolute least that one can do when someone commits mass murder in your name, it is pretty close. At least they took five minutes to make a little sign and they got up from the couch for long enough to take a quick selfie - so that's something ... I guess.

There's a huge difference. The invasion of Iraq was decided by the democratically elected representatives of the American people.

It was decided on the basis of lies and was contrary to international law, as you know.

 

[Jokodo]

There's a huge difference. The invasion of Iraq was decided by the democratically elected representatives of the American people.

It was decided on the basis of lies and was contrary to international law, as you know.

It was. That's not relevant to my point though. Given that the entities that decided were elected in a fairly democratic process by the citizens of the US and UK (and a few other countries), it was reasonable for an outsider to assume that any British or American citizen randomly picked off the street had a chance of >50% of supporting the invasion. Therefore, if you don't want that perception applied to you, you gotta do something about it.

It is not reasonable to assume that a French Muslim randomly picked off the street today supports the recent attacks because the attackers were not voted in to carry them out by the aggregate of French Muslims. Therefore, a Muslim in France (or elsewhere) shouldn't have to do anything to clear themselves of the association with the terrorists - he or she is clear by default.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Well that's ... tepid and uninspiring.

I guess that means there are Muslims who are against this. When some people drew a picture of Mohammed, I didn't need to guess in order to figure out their position. They were very loud and passionate about letting everyone know that position.

When Bush went and started a war and murdered a bunch of innocents in the name of America, there were thousands out in the streets marching and protesting to let the world know how disgusted they, as Americans, were about what was being done in their name. If the anti-Iraq War campaign had consisted of snitty tweets, I would have assumed that there wasn't any real objection to the war.

While sending a tweet may not be the absolute least that one can do when someone commits mass murder in your name, it is pretty close. At least they took five minutes to make a little sign and they got up from the couch for long enough to take a quick selfie - so that's something ... I guess.

There's a huge difference. The invasion of Iraq was decided by the democratically elected representatives of the American people. So the assumption that the invasion is happening in the name of American voters and with their consent is a priori reasonable. The assumption that the Paris attacks are happening in the name of any odd Muslim off the street is a priori unreasonable, and thus he has no more reason to clarify that they're not happening in his name than you or I.

The American people did not specifically vote for the Invasion of Iraq the reasoning of which was based on a falsehood resulting in the pointless deaths of US servicemen and women and now accepted as such the majority. In fairness variable polls showed half to 60% were in favour, based on the false information they were fed. However most of the Americans now believe it was a mistake.
The Muslims did not have an election either to vote for an attack on Paris either.

 

[J842P]

There's a huge difference. The invasion of Iraq was decided by the democratically elected representatives of the American people. So the assumption that the invasion is happening in the name of American voters and with their consent is a priori reasonable. The assumption that the Paris attacks are happening in the name of any odd Muslim off the street is a priori unreasonable, and thus he has no more reason to clarify that they're not happening in his name than you or I.

The American people did not specifically vote for the Invasion of Iraq the reasoning of which was based on a falsehood resulting in the pointless deaths of US servicemen and women and now accepted as such the majority. In fairness variable polls showed half to 60% were in favour, based on the false information they were fed. However most of the Americans now believe it was a mistake.
The Muslims did not have an election either to vote for an attack on Paris either.

Even if they information they fed wasn't false the invasion was a terrible crime.

 

[Jokodo]

There's a huge difference. The invasion of Iraq was decided by the democratically elected representatives of the American people. So the assumption that the invasion is happening in the name of American voters and with their consent is a priori reasonable. The assumption that the Paris attacks are happening in the name of any odd Muslim off the street is a priori unreasonable, and thus he has no more reason to clarify that they're not happening in his name than you or I.

The American people did not specifically vote for the Invasion of Iraq the reasoning of which was based on a falsehood resulting in the pointless deaths of US servicemen and women and now accepted as such the majority. In fairness variable polls showed half to 60% were in favour, based on the false information they were fed. However most of the Americans now believe it was a mistake.
The Muslims did not have an election either to vote for an attack on Paris either.

Most of this is besides my point.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wow. Way to ignore the point.

You seem to be against the Iraq war. Was your opposition to that limited to making internet comments to that effect or have you done more in the real world? Protesters, marches, things like that. You seem to me to be someone who's done more.

You didn't violently overthrow the Bush government, but did you manage to find somewhere in between the two extremes of destroying your enemy completely and engaging in thirty seconds of light typing in order to express your feelings about the war?

You seem to confuse two things.

The opinions people hold and what they do about them.

The reason the criminals in the US were able to launch an unprovoked terrorist attack on the Iraqi people was because in poll after poll about 60% of Americans supported it.

There were no amount of protests (at least peaceful protests which are the only justifiable way to protest the use of violence) in the streets that were going to stop it with poll numbers like that.

Again, who cares? We're talking about the people who didn't support it, just as we're talking about the people who don't support ISIS attacks on French civilians.

It's not about stopping it, it's about registering their outrage over what's being done in their name. There were a large number of Americans who were pissed off over what was happening and they took to the streets often and in large numbers in order to express their outrage. It doesn't matter if these Americans represented 10% of their country or 90% of their country. They were passionate enough about their opposition to the war to actually take a little bit of time out of their lives to leave the house.

The Muslims who are protesting what's being done by ISIS in the name of Islam are making some tweets. That's about the same level of outrage that I have expressed over the direction that the Terminator franchise has gone after T2. I'm slightly annoyed enough over the matter to mention it briefly. I've gone far more in depth about the problems with the Matrix sequels and my level of outrage over those might creep into the "pretty annoyed" level and the #NotInMyName protests don't seem to have engaged the moderate Muslim community into quite that level of concern and passion.

If the amount of outrage expressed by Muslims over these attacks is about the equivalent of the amount of outrage expressed by casual fans of the Terminator series that the last few films haven't lived up to the franchise's potential, then that's not really an expression of opposition to it. That's more of an "Well, I guess I'm kind of against it in a sort of vague and half-hearted way but not really enough to give too much of a shit. It's not like ISIS is ruining the Matrix or anything".

 

[Horatio Parker]

Accidentally?

Oops I slipped and dissolved the Iraqi army?

Idiotic.

You're responsible for your actions, Mr. Principle.

I didn't say dissolving the Iraqi army was accidental; I said it was idiotic. The consequence of those people going to work for ISIS was accidental -- it was not intended and not foreseen. It should have been foreseen, but that's how accidents work. When you intentionally take your eyes off the road to send a text message, and as a foreseeable result you drive through a crosswalk and kill a pedestrian, you still didn't mean to kill him and it's still an accident.

Good luck in court.