Paris: Dozens Killed In Terrorist Attack

[Tom Sawyer]

The suburb in which police are searching for and clashing with Islamic terrorists right now, St. Denis, is the same suburb which named a street after infamous US cop-killer and black radical Mumia Abu Jamal. So it's not like there weren't warning signs for years - the French just chose to ignore them in the name of political correctness.

Hey, good work. Now find a way to shoehorn the feminazis into the discussion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

ISIS is Islam after a massive foreign terrorist invasion and a decade of terror and torture was unleashed upon a region.

But ISIS doesn't even have the support of al Qaeda, so I think that isn't a particularly accurate statement. ISIS is a weird Islam inspired doomsday cult. They are trying to start the final battle to end the universe. They are fucking nuts. They aren't Islam after Western screwery in the Middle East. However, the screwery is allowing them easier access to trick impressionable people to join their ridiculous cause.

 

[braces_for_impact]

ISIS is Islam after a massive foreign terrorist invasion and a decade of terror and torture was unleashed upon a region.

But ISIS doesn't even have the support of al Qaeda, so I think that isn't a particularly accurate statement. ISIS is a weird Islam inspired doomsday cult. They are trying to start the final battle to end the universe. They are fucking nuts. They aren't Islam after Western screwery in the Middle East. However, the screwery is allowing them easier access to trick impressionable people to join their ridiculous cause.

That's actually what I find so interesting. If all this horrid behavior by Isis and Al-Qaeda and so on is payback to the West for being the great Satan with their foreign policy, disenfranchisement, and all around dick punching behavior, why have so many people from other countries and comfortable lives gone there to fight? They're not all Muslims from French ghettos. Many of these types of people are educated and middle class. What could it be?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But ISIS doesn't even have the support of al Qaeda, so I think that isn't a particularly accurate statement. ISIS is a weird Islam inspired doomsday cult. They are trying to start the final battle to end the universe. They are fucking nuts. They aren't Islam after Western screwery in the Middle East. However, the screwery is allowing them easier access to trick impressionable people to join their ridiculous cause.

That's actually what I find so interesting. If all this horrid behavior by Isis and Al-Qaeda and so on is payback to the West for being the great Satan with their foreign policy, disenfranchisement, and all around dick punching behavior, why have so many people from other countries and comfortable lives gone there to fight? They're not all Muslims from French ghettos. Many of these types of people are educated and middle class. What could it be?

Good propaganda. Impressionable minds. Truthful feelings that the west has dicked around too much in the Middle East being exploited by recruiters. And lets not forget the likes of Ben Carson, brilliant neurosurgeon, otherwise complete idiot.

ISIS is a violent version of Scientology. Both have foundations that would fail under the weight of a duck, but some people just are attracted to it.

 

[barbos]

911 was a singular event. It happened and then the world went back to exactly what it was. Saddam Hussein was a violent dictator and well contained. There were some Al Qaeda in Afghanistan that should have also been contained, had the neocons in Bush's administration not been drooling for an invasion of Iraq for over a decade.

But Iraq was completely destroyed and the world WAS changed and ISIS grew in that new world.

So, how long and/or devastating a series of attacks against Americans would make it justifiable for Americans to go and kill a bunch of ... say Pakistanis?

I mean, I get what you think makes it cool for ISIS to go and kill some French people as payback for American actions, since the French were so supportive of the US war in Iraq that the Congress renamed french fries into freedom fries in their honour, but what would be the level of attack against the US by Arabs which would make it justifiable for some dudes from Alabama to go and gun down a bunch of civilians in Islamabad?

You don't understand, ISIS attacked France because they refused to support US in Iraq invasion which created ISIS, it's all very logical.

 

[Horatio Parker]

911 was a singular event. It happened and then the world went back to exactly what it was. Saddam Hussein was a violent dictator and well contained. There were some Al Qaeda in Afghanistan that should have also been contained, had the neocons in Bush's administration not been drooling for an invasion of Iraq for over a decade.

But Iraq was completely destroyed and the world WAS changed and ISIS grew in that new world.

911 wasn't a singular event. It was part of a AQ strategy to separate the US and Saudis as allies, weakening the House of Saud until AQ could take over. The land of the two mosques is the grand prize.

AQ wanted Saudi Arabia to establish the caliphate - a step IS has skipped.

 

[barbos]

But ISIS doesn't even have the support of al Qaeda, so I think that isn't a particularly accurate statement. ISIS is a weird Islam inspired doomsday cult. They are trying to start the final battle to end the universe. They are fucking nuts. They aren't Islam after Western screwery in the Middle East. However, the screwery is allowing them easier access to trick impressionable people to join their ridiculous cause.

That's actually what I find so interesting. If all this horrid behavior by Isis and Al-Qaeda and so on is payback to the West for being the great Satan with their foreign policy, disenfranchisement, and all around dick punching behavior, why have so many people from other countries and comfortable lives gone there to fight? They're not all Muslims from French ghettos. Many of these types of people are educated and middle class. What could it be?

They are sick (on head) people. ISIS is just a vacation spot for sick people. I mean where else you can rape and murder people without being taken to prison? Islam is just very convenient "platform" for such people.

 

[untermensche]

911 was a singular event. It happened and then the world went back to exactly what it was. Saddam Hussein was a violent dictator and well contained. There were some Al Qaeda in Afghanistan that should have also been contained, had the neocons in Bush's administration not been drooling for an invasion of Iraq for over a decade.

But Iraq was completely destroyed and the world WAS changed and ISIS grew in that new world.

So, how long and/or devastating a series of attacks against Americans would make it justifiable for Americans to go and kill a bunch of ... say Pakistanis?

Attacks by Saudi's?

I mean, I get what you think makes it cool for ISIS to go and kill some French people as payback for American actions....

Never said it.

All that was said was that ISIS is an American creation, an American monster.

I never said ISIS behaved rationally.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

ISIS is islam in it's purest fundamental form. A suicide bomber shouts " allah akabar" on detonation of his/hers bomb, and the turds who were killing those innocents at the concert in Paris also were shouting that phrase.
Those who are trying to divert from this fact by saying ISIS has nothing to do with the islamic religion per se, are only deluding themselves, and their audience.

That's like saying that the crusaders were Christianity at it's purest form.

Which is to say that ISIS and the crusades had little to do with religion or faith and a lot to do with an enormous attempt at a power grab and served to shore up and solidify --and surpress-the faithful 'at home.'

That's a tough turd to shine but a lot of people are working on it. Like Christianity, Islam does not have a notable leader to help cancel out the noise from its own Taliban. Follow the money, I guess. There isn't a lot of money to be made preaching peace with so many sabre rattlers. Einstein emigrated because he said his country had "gone mad. There's got to be hundreds of thousands of middle-easterners thinking the same thing.

 

[untermensche]

911 was a singular event. It happened and then the world went back to exactly what it was. Saddam Hussein was a violent dictator and well contained. There were some Al Qaeda in Afghanistan that should have also been contained, had the neocons in Bush's administration not been drooling for an invasion of Iraq for over a decade.

But Iraq was completely destroyed and the world WAS changed and ISIS grew in that new world.

911 wasn't a singular event. It was part of a AQ strategy to separate the US and Saudis as allies, weakening the House of Saud until AQ could take over. The land of the two mosques is the grand prize.

AQ wanted Saudi Arabia to establish the caliphate - a step IS has skipped.

I mean a singular event in world history.

The US was not forced to invade Iraq because of 911 in other words.

911 did not change the situation in Iraq one bit.

But the blossoming of ISIS from the ashes of Iraq and surrounding nations after the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people DID change the world.

Much for the worst.

Beware of following those who made a bad situation worse with support of the invasion of Iraq (Hillary).

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I mean, I get what you think makes it cool for ISIS to go and kill some French people as payback for American actions....

Never said it.

All that was said was that ISIS is an American creation, an American monster.

I never said ISIS behaved rationally.

But how much responsibility do you feel that ISIS members have for their own actions as opposed to Americans being responsible for their actions?

For instance, when an ISIS member takes out a gun and shoots a Frenchman in his head, on a scale of 0 - 100%, how much responsibility does the ISIS member have for that action?

 

[untermensche]

Never said it.

All that was said was that ISIS is an American creation, an American monster.

I never said ISIS behaved rationally.

But how much responsibility do you feel that ISIS members have for their own actions as opposed to Americans being responsible for their actions?

For instance, when an ISIS member takes out a gun and shoots a Frenchman in his head, on a scale of 0 - 100%, how much responsibility does the ISIS member have for that action?

They have complete responsibility for their actions.

The US is responsible for giving them the power to carry out those actions, an accomplice.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I mean, I get what you think makes it cool for ISIS to go and kill some French people as payback for American actions....

Never said it.

All that was said was that ISIS is an American creation, an American monster.

ISIS is the result of several things, including western intervention in the Middle East dating back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Everything doesn't start and finish with American intervention. It is just W's foray into the Middle East helped ISIS stretch it's arms and go bonkers.

 

[untermensche]

Never said it.

All that was said was that ISIS is an American creation, an American monster.

ISIS is the result of several things, including western intervention in the Middle East dating back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Everything doesn't start and finish with American intervention. It is just W's foray into the Middle East helped ISIS stretch it's arms and go bonkers.

It top military leadership is ex-Iraqi military that were put out of work by the US.

A lot of it's weapons are US.

The religious fanaticism in the region, especially in Iraq, rose to fever pitch after the US invaded and destroyed the society and the protections society provides from the most ruthless gangsters taking control.

There are other accomplices; Saudi, Arabia, Turkey and other US allies in the region that support ISIS.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I mean a singular event in world history.

The US was not forced to invade Iraq because of 911 in other words.

911 did not change the situation in Iraq one bit.

But the blossoming of ISIS from the ashes of Iraq and surrounding nations after the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people DID change the world.

Much for the worst.

Beware of following those who made a bad situation worse with support of the invasion of Iraq (Hillary).

I think you're dancing, but whatever.

The AQ strategy in Afgahnistan was the same as IS; draw us in and defeat us in a holy war.

Strategically, I don't think IS is any more clever than AQ. I think they're refighting the Iraqi insurgency because that's all they understand.

But it's possible that IS may have emerged without our invasion, but probably not without our meddling. How Saddam would've fared with the Arab Spring is hard to say, but certainly we would've contributed all we could to his destabilization. And without fellow Baathist Saddam, Syria would likely be in the same shape its in now. The interesting part is, would an alternative Sunni opposition leadership have been more moderate, courting our help instead of provoking us. The partioning that looks inevitable now might've happened without all this violence. Just thinking out loud...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

ISIS is the result of several things, including western intervention in the Middle East dating back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Everything doesn't start and finish with American intervention. It is just W's foray into the Middle East helped ISIS stretch it's arms and go bonkers.

It top military leadership is ex-Iraqi military that were put out of work by the US.

A lot of it's weapons are US.

The religious fanaticism in the region, especially in Iraq, rose to fever pitch after the US invaded and destroyed the society and the protections society provides from the most ruthless gangsters taking control.

Iraq wasn't utopia prior to the invasion. Yes, a lot of death and displacement after the invasion, but you are grossly overstating some things here. They blew up a Marine's barracks in the 80's in Lebanon.

 

[Will Wiley]

It top military leadership is ex-Iraqi military that were put out of work by the US.

A lot of it's weapons are US.

The religious fanaticism in the region, especially in Iraq, rose to fever pitch after the US invaded and destroyed the society and the protections society provides from the most ruthless gangsters taking control.

Iraq wasn't utopia prior to the invasion. Yes, a lot of death and displacement after the invasion, but you are grossly overstating some things here. They blew up a Marine's barracks in the 80's in Lebanon.

Wasn't that alleged to be an Iranian?

 

[maxparrish]

Waleed Aly is using an old propaganda canard, favored by journalists and opinion shapers because of its appearance of pseudo profundity. Like many superficial tropes, it's nonsense - along the lines that a victim ought to oppose an an action because, it is claimed, that action is what his enemy wants.

What absurdity in this line of so-called reasoning. You see, a targeted society does what is necessary to do to protect its security, whether or not it comports with the enemy's irrational, perverse, or self-defeating wants. ...

What a dreadful waste of words. Your arguments are not improved by all the excess verbiage; quite the reverse. And despite the death of a million pixels to bring us your ramblings, you are completely wrong; your position assumes, incorrectly, that Islam is a monobloc. That fighting ISIS and fighting Muslims are synonymous. But that's not the case.

Well, you have certainly convinced me that they are wasted on you, regardless of how parsimonious or loquacious the gift.

ISIS want to provoke division between non-Muslims and Muslims; which would, if effective, divert us from the actually appropriate response, which is division between non-ISIS and ISIS. Stupid people attacking Muslims are doing the work of ISIS for them. Smart people support attacks on ISIS, and NOT attacks on Muslims as a group.

I assume that you will fail to grasp this fairy obvious point; after all, you missed it when Waleed Aly made it. Or perhaps you just jumped straight to your inane 'gotcha' response without listening to what he actually said?

And you remain immune to what, for you, is not so obvious a point, i.e.; it does not matter what ISIS wants when it comes to the appropriate response. Waleed Aly (and you) don't get it. Whether or not it is wise to attack Muslims is a consideration that is 100 percent independent to what you think ISIS desires. It's wisdom depends on what YOU desire.

It may be stupid to attack all Muslims because, regardless of what ISIS wants, it will create a larger war that the West cannot win. There is nothing inherently stupid about that assertion - what is stupid is to keep whining that faux logic that just because that is what ISIS may want, the West should do the opposite. That is dumber than dirt.

The appropriate response is one that will degrade, if not destroy, ISIS. It is the one that will prevent or remove security threats from the 5th column of the Muslims in Western Europe (and the US). And that begins by severely limiting further Muslim immigration to Europe and the US. And it continues by defeating ISIS and shipping the millions of migrant non-citizen aliens back to their country of origin.

To do otherwise, is prolonged European ethnic, values, and cultural suicide.

If you start from the false premise that 'ISIS' and 'Islam' are synonyms, and you are too busy trying to impress with rhetoric to apply logic, then that would be an easy (but embarrassing) mistake to make.

And if you are blind to the nexus between ISIS, Islam, and migrant Muslim populations you are far too obsessed with denouncing rhetoric that exposes your daffy romantic delusions.

If you insist on living without a division between communities, then by all means tell folks to go along with and/or openly support, ISIS. That should do it.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

What is cultural suicide?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What is cultural suicide?

It's when you throw away everything that makes your culture worthwhile as an overreaction to relatively minor threats due to fearmongering rhetoric.