Paris: Dozens Killed In Terrorist Attack

[Bomb#20]

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

Exactly. But when I therefore quite logically called that outcome "accidental", HP ridiculed the term. So I'm pointing out that I was right and he was wrong. What's the problem?

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.

Um, what exactly do you think a court is going to do to disagree with me on that point? Convict you of murder?!? Courts live and breathe exactly this sort of distinction. You'll get convicted of vehicular manslaughter and do a couple of years, far less than if the court decides you hit him on purpose.

Perhaps you're assuming "accident" means "not your fault". That's not what "accident" means.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I

Duh. But if the action has political aims, or political effects, it's a political action. And countries, even illegitimate ones like IS, are political entities. Are you suggesting that there were no political considerations in the Paris attacks?

Yes, and if it has religious aims, or religious effects, it's a religious action. And people, even illegitimate ones like IS members, can be religious entities. Are you suggesting that there were no religious considerations in the Paris attacks?

The two things aren't somehow mutally exclusive.

Yes. It was a political action. Obviously there are religious considerations to IS and its minions, but that doesn't make its actions religious, any more than Israels being a Jewish state makes their actions religious.

 

[untermensche]

Exactly. But when I therefore quite logically called that outcome "accidental", HP ridiculed the term. So I'm pointing out that I was right and he was wrong. What's the problem?

Words can mean many things but it was really a huge crime to disband the army and allow it's top leadership to join ISIS.

Gross negligence.

And every death from ISIS is blood on the terrorists hands that disbanded the Iraqi army.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Are you suggesting that only Muslims are morally permitted to say what Islam is?
But then, who judges who is a Muslim?

It's not about who has the moral high ground to judge other person's belief, but who has the epistemological high ground. Muslim A who thinks muslim B is not really a muslim is usually just making a religious statement that is meaningless outside the context of Muslim A's belief system. But at the same time muslims B might just as strongly feel the opposite, again in context of his own belief system. What's a person outside those belief systems to do? At best, we can take their self-identification at face value and agree that they are both muslims because they think they are.

To put it another way, it's not me that the moderate muslim needs to convince about what Islam is or isn't. That's a theological dispute and to an atheist about as relevant as how many angels can dance on a head of a pin.

A few points:

1. By taking self-identification at face value, you're making a decision as to who a Muslim is. But why not also making an assessment about what Islam is?
2. Whether the moderate self-identified Muslim needs to convince you or other self-identified Muslims depends on what they're trying to accomplish.
3. With regard to the epistemological high ground, I'm not sure how that works: why would a self-identified Sunni Muslim be in a better epistemological position than a self-identified former Muslim, or a self-identified atheist who has studied philosophy of religion, history of Islam and the Quran, to assess whether a Shia Muslim is a Muslim, or whether the Quran entails that thieves deserve to have a hand (or both) cut off, or some other thing you're thinking about?

 

[dismal]

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015...opean-nationals-according-to-top-eu-official/

All of the attackers from Friday’s massacre in Paris so far have been identified as European Union nationals, according to a top EU official. The announcement further casts doubt on the validity of a Syrian passport found near the bodies of a slain attacker.

“Let me underline, the profile of the terrorists so far identified tells us this is an internal threat,” Federica Mogherini, the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy/Vice-President of the European Commission, said after a meeting with EU foreign ministers. “It is all EU citizens so far. This can change with the hours, but so far it is quite clear it is an issue of internal domestic security.”

The Egyptian passport found was that of a victim.

Well don't all the people trying to make this about Western actions in the Middle East look stupid (even stupider...) now that this is shown to be the work of regular Europeans.

Everyday Belgians pissed off at France because of Napoleon and such.

 

[fromderinside]

Damn. Terrorism is so terrible. The massacre in Paris was two time the number of people who die in Paris every day. At this rate Paris population will only increase by about 20,000 a year if DASH executes as many as they did last Friday every day of the year.

So yes it terrible, but, no it isn't going to be problem for Paris or Europe any time soon. Its a bit like how the gangs in Chicago are taking lives in Chicago. Are we going to war with Chicago gangs?

Brutal way to bring people back to earth on this little problem.

Think of it as you taking two aspirin for a headache.

Geez. 15 governors, all republican, wetting their pants about Syrian refugees. I'm sure Swedes, Irish, Italians, can attest to what their ancestors went through coming to the country with streets of gold. Maybe they should try reading that constitution they carry up their arses.

 

[angelo]

So in your thinking we forget about the atrocity because more than that number of victims die on the roads every year.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

3. With regard to the epistemological high ground, I'm not sure how that works: why would a self-identified Sunni Muslim be in a better epistemological position than a self-identified former Muslim, or a self-identified atheist who has studied philosophy of religion, history of Islam and the Quran, to assess whether a Shia Muslim is a Muslim, or whether the Quran entails that thieves deserve to have a hand (or both) cut off, or some other thing you're thinking about?

Have you not read of self-identification being used in peer-reviewed papers?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

3. With regard to the epistemological high ground, I'm not sure how that works: why would a self-identified Sunni Muslim be in a better epistemological position than a self-identified former Muslim, or a self-identified atheist who has studied philosophy of religion, history of Islam and the Quran, to assess whether a Shia Muslim is a Muslim, or whether the Quran entails that thieves deserve to have a hand (or both) cut off, or some other thing you're thinking about?

Have you not read of self-identification being used in peer-reviewed papers?

1. Papers in which field?
2. Let's say yes in the field(s) you're thinking about. How is that relevant to my question?

 

[bilby]

So in your thinking we forget about the atrocity because more than that number of victims die on the roads every year.

It wouldn't be a totally bad idea.

Certainly it would do far more to prevent future terrorism if everyone (and in particular the news media) simply ignored them and got on with life as if they didn't exist.

Instead, they kill a few hundred people, and terrorise, not just the couple of thousand witnesses, and the friends and relatives of the victims; but instead billions of people who all rush to do ISIS's work for them by posting about their atrocities across the world.

Terrorism was a LOT harder back in the 19th century, when only the people in the immediate vicinity found out about what had happened before it was stale news; Why anyone in Australia should feel threatened by an event that killed less than a thousand people on the other side of the planet is beyond me.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Exactly. But when I therefore quite logically called that outcome "accidental", HP ridiculed the term. So I'm pointing out that I was right and he was wrong. What's the problem?

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.

Um, what exactly do you think a court is going to do to disagree with me on that point? Convict you of murder?!? Courts live and breathe exactly this sort of distinction. You'll get convicted of vehicular manslaughter and do a couple of years, far less than if the court decides you hit him on purpose.

Perhaps you're assuming "accident" means "not your fault". That's not what "accident" means.

You brought into the discussion the word accident when the original context was that someone was responsible. People can do reckless or dumbass things that you can try to frame as an accident but they can still be at least partially responsible.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you not read of self-identification being used in peer-reviewed papers?

1. Papers in which field?
2. Let's say yes in the field(s) you're thinking about. How is that relevant to my question?

How is your question (which was not quite self-identification) relevant to self-identification that was being discussed?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

How is your question (which was not quite self-identification) relevant to self-identification that was being discussed?

a. That does not address either of my questions. So, I will ask again.
1. Papers in which field?
2. Let's say yes in the field(s) you're thinking about. How is that relevant to my question?

b. My question was part of my reply to one of Jayjay's posts, and it's relevant because Jayjay said that his point was about epistemological high ground, so I asked why he believed that self-identified Muslims had a higher epistemological high-ground for assessing certain matters. Simply put, it was relevant because I was asking Jayjay to provide evidence of one of his claims.

 

[untermensche]

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015...opean-nationals-according-to-top-eu-official/


The Egyptian passport found was that of a victim.

Well don't all the people trying to make this about Western actions in the Middle East look stupid (even stupider...) now that this is shown to be the work of regular Europeans.

Everyday Belgians pissed off at France because of Napoleon and such.

Almost as stupid as all those Republican governors using this as a reason to reject Syrian refugees.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How is your question (which was not quite self-identification) relevant to self-identification that was being discussed?

a. That does not address either of my questions. So, I will ask again.
1. Papers in which field?

Your question is irrelevant. There are plenty of sociological papers with self-identification used, but again irrelevant.

2. Let's say yes in the field(s) you're thinking about. How is that relevant to my question?

b. My question was part of my reply to one of Jayjay's posts, and it's relevant because Jayjay said that his point was about epistemological high ground, so I asked why he believed that self-identified Muslims had a higher epistemological high-ground for assessing certain matters. Simply put, it was relevant because I was asking Jayjay to provide evidence of one of his claims.

but you mangled the question in such a way that it was not self-identification and which was clear from my question to you. So again,

How is your question (which was not quite self-identification) relevant to self-identification that was being discussed?

You should at this point review your question and understand why it is not using self-identification properly unless you already know which I suspect you do.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015...opean-nationals-according-to-top-eu-official/


The Egyptian passport found was that of a victim.

Well don't all the people trying to make this about Western actions in the Middle East look stupid (even stupider...) now that this is shown to be the work of regular Europeans.

Everyday Belgians pissed off at France because of Napoleon and such.

What is the point of your post?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Your question is irrelevant. There are plenty of sociological papers with self-identification used, but again irrelevant.

My question is about your question. So, it's relevant with regard to understanding what you're saying.
Sure, in sociology, self-identification has been used in plenty of contexts.

but you mangled the question in such a way that it was not self-identification and which was clear from my question to you. So again,

How is your question (which was not quite self-identification) relevant to self-identification that was being discussed?

You should at this point review your question and understand why it is not using self-identification properly unless you already know which I suspect you do.

a. I did not mangle anything.
b. My question was part of my reply to one of Jayjay's posts, and it's relevant because Jayjay said that his point was about epistemological high ground, so I asked why he believed that self-identified Muslims had a higher epistemological high-ground for assessing certain matters. Simply put, it was relevant because I was asking Jayjay to provide evidence of one of his claims.
c. You claim that my question does is not "using self-identification properly", and further suggests that I'm being dishonest and I know that. But of course, I cannot know that because it is false. My question is pretty relevant. A self-identified Sunni Muslim is, in particular, a self-identified Muslim. And self-identified former Muslims and atheists are not self-identified Muslims.

My third question was:

3. With regard to the epistemological high ground, I'm not sure how that works: why would a self-identified Sunni Muslim be in a better epistemological position than a self-identified former Muslim, or a self-identified atheist who has studied philosophy of religion, history of Islam and the Quran, to assess whether a Shia Muslim is a Muslim, or whether the Quran entails that thieves deserve to have a hand (or both) cut off, or some other thing you're thinking about?

Now, you asked:

Have you not read of self-identification being used in peer-reviewed papers?

I will ask again: how is the matter of whether I read of self-identification being used in peer reviewed papers (in sociology, as you say now) relevant to my question?

But I was trying to talk to Jayjay. I had no interest in talking to you. Why are you attacking me?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My question is about your question. So, it's relevant with regard to understanding what you're saying.
Sure, in sociology, self-identification has been used in plenty of contexts.

And JJ isn't really using it all that differently, but you were and not only took him out of context but also introduced a mangled question over it.

but you mangled the question in such a way that it was not self-identification and which was clear from my question to you. So again,

How is your question (which was not quite self-identification) relevant to self-identification that was being discussed?

You should at this point review your question and understand why it is not using self-identification properly unless you already know which I suspect you do.

a. I did not mangle anything.

Of course you did.

b. My question was part of my reply to one of Jayjay's posts, and it's relevant because Jayjay said that his point was about epistemological high ground, so I asked why he believed that self-identified Muslims had a higher epistemological high-ground for assessing certain matters. Simply put, it was relevant because I was asking Jayjay to provide evidence of one of his claims.
c. You claim that my question does is not "using self-identification properly", and further suggests that I'm being dishonest and I know that. But of course, I cannot know that because it is false. My question is pretty relevant. A self-identified Sunni Muslim is, in particular, a self-identified Muslim. And self-identified former Muslims and atheists are not self-identified Muslims.

My third question was:

3. With regard to the epistemological high ground, I'm not sure how that works: why would a self-identified Sunni Muslim be in a better epistemological position than a self-identified former Muslim, or a self-identified atheist who has studied philosophy of religion, history of Islam and the Quran, to assess whether a Shia Muslim is a Muslim, or whether the Quran entails that thieves deserve to have a hand (or both) cut off, or some other thing you're thinking about?

Now, you asked:

Have you not read of self-identification being used in peer-reviewed papers?

I will ask again: how is the matter of whether I read of self-identification being used in peer reviewed papers (in sociology, as you say now) relevant to my question?

What the heck are you talking about? Your question makes no sense in context and I am point out that the person you were responding to is using self-identification properly. Your question back to him made no sense.

But I was trying to talk to Jayjay. I had no interest in talking to you.

This is an internet forum. What you write gets reviewed by others and they can respond. When what you write makes no sense, expect someone to call you on it.

Why are you attacking me?

I am not attacking you. Don't get so defensive. I am pointing out that your question is mangled. It literally makes no sense in context.

An individual [Sunni or other] Muslim is using self-identification to say that they themselves are a Muslim. An observer is using the fact that a Muslim has used self-identification as an unbiased way to measure the observation.

People should know that self-identification is an accepted way to mitigate some bias. It is at least a way for atheists (like us) to detach ourselves from our own internal biases and use an objective measure. Jayjay already explained this to you.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Of course you did.

Of course I did not. You accuse me falsely, and without justification.

What the heck are you talking about? Your question makes no sense in context and I am point out that the person you were responding to is using self-identification properly. Your question back to him made no sense.

Of course, my question makes perfect sense in context.
And I'm talking about exactly what I'm saying. If you do not understand, that's your problem. Well, and it's also mine, because you accuse me for no good reason.

This is an internet forum. What you write gets reviewed by others and they can respond. When what you write makes no sense, expect someone to call you on it.

What I wrote of course makes perfect sense. But that's not the point. I'm asking what your motivation for attacking me is. If it's because you falsely and without justification believe that what I said makes no sense, and you want to call me on what you believe makes no sense, you didn't need to attack me. You only had to make your case, in a civil manner. Not that you had a case, but whatever case for whatever reason you thought you had.

I am not attacking you. Don't get so defensive. I am pointing out that your question is mangled. It literally makes no sense in context.

Sure you are. You even suggested that I'm lying. But of course, what I said makes sense literally, and also there is no figurative way in which it does not make sense.

An individual [Sunni or other] Muslim is using self-identification to say that they themselves are a Muslim. An observer is using the fact that a Muslim has used self-identification as an unbiased way to measure the observation.

People should know that self-identification is an accepted way to mitigate some bias. It is at least a way for atheists (like us) to detach ourselves from our own internal biases and use an objective measure. Jayjay already explained this to you.

That has more than one problem, but an obvious one is that it's unrelated to the question at hand. You don't seem to have understood my exchange with Jayjay. He claimed that self-identified Muslims had an "epistemological high ground" (i.e., they were in an epistemically better position) when it comes to ascertaining what Islam says and/or who is a Muslim.
The question you're questioning is:

3. With regard to the epistemological high ground, I'm not sure how that works: why would a self-identified Sunni Muslim be in a better epistemological position than a self-identified former Muslim, or a self-identified atheist who has studied philosophy of religion, history of Islam and the Quran, to assess whether a Shia Muslim is a Muslim, or whether the Quran entails that thieves deserve to have a hand (or both) cut off, or some other thing you're thinking about?

Your objection simply is not related to the matter at hand.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But religion is the motivating factor in their actions. You don't have Belgians and Syrians giving a shit that Americans bombed and tortured a bunch of Iraqis, you have Muslims giving a shit that Americans bombed and tortured a bunch of Muslims. They're doing these things in order to join in on a holy war, so the holy part of it can't be brushed aside.

While it's true that without religion, you'd still have other people killing other groups of people for other reasons, we're talking about these specific people who did these specific killing for these specific reasons. Those reasons are centered around their religion.

Muslim extremists kill more Muslims than westerners. How indignant was the west when the approx same number of people were killed by IS suicide bombers in Turkey? Or the 43 dead in Lebanon? Or the 131 killed by the Saudis bombing a wedding in Yemen? Boko Haram massacred 2000 people in January.

Why should Muslims care more about western dead than their own? We don't.

Turkey? They're part of the problem.

Lebanon? Also basically controlled by the Islamists.

You do have a better case about Boko Haram but the government is part of the problem.

France, however, isn't funding the terrorists.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Muslim extremists kill more Muslims than westerners. How indignant was the west when the approx same number of people were killed by IS suicide bombers in Turkey? Or the 43 dead in Lebanon? Or the 131 killed by the Saudis bombing a wedding in Yemen? Boko Haram massacred 2000 people in January.

Why should Muslims care more about western dead than their own? We don't.

Turkey? They're part of the problem.

Lebanon? Also basically controlled by the Islamists.

You do have a better case about Boko Haram but the government is part of the problem.

France, however, isn't funding the terrorists.

Turkey, the US and NATO are all pouring petrol onto the flames. Until a few hundred years ago it was the Christians.