Paris: Dozens Killed In Terrorist Attack

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, fuck you, Peter Cetera. That shit's on you.

 

[angelo]

I think what we are looking at here are two sides of the same coin.

The "no go" areas are as some on here have said, ghettos where it's unsafe for outsiders. However, since the people making it unsafe for outsiders are Muslims it also means they are areas where it's unsafe for non-Muslims.

That doesn't follow. This are two entirely different stories: One's the claim that there are places where you shouldn't be too public about paying with a € 200,- bill unless you have backup. That's probably true. But even if it is, and even if it is furthermore true that Muslims are over-represented among those that make it unsafe to do so, that still doesn't make it about religion. Or do you assume the same thugs (for the sake of the argument, a gang of people of Algerian descent in a Parisian suburb) would let an Afghan walk out with his 200,- just for being Muslim? Obviously not.

It just so happens that the unsavory characters happen be mostly Moslems, that's all. [emoji58]

 

[angelo]

View attachment 4788

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims!

 

[Bomb#20]

View attachment 4788

For that analogy to make sense, Justin Beiber would have to be a musician.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims!

Please stop saying things like that. You aren't helping. Some terrorists are not Muslims. Anders Behring, for instance -- speaking of people who aren't helping.

 

[angelo]

For that analogy to make sense, Justin Beiber would have to be a musician. [emoji317]

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims!

Please stop saying things like that. You aren't helping. Some terrorists are not Muslims. Anders Behring, for instance -- speaking of people who aren't helping.

Okay, I should have said "most" terrorists are Moslems.

 

[Jokodo]

That doesn't follow. This are two entirely different stories: One's the claim that there are places where you shouldn't be too public about paying with a € 200,- bill unless you have backup. That's probably true. But even if it is, and even if it is furthermore true that Muslims are over-represented among those that make it unsafe to do so, that still doesn't make it about religion. Or do you assume the same thugs (for the sake of the argument, a gang of people of Algerian descent in a Parisian suburb) would let an Afghan walk out with his 200,- just for being Muslim? Obviously not.

It just so happens that the unsavory characters happen be mostly Moslems, that's all. [emoji58]

That may or may not be true (though you'd have to explain why we should accept such a claim coming from someone on the wrong side of the Indian Ocean), but that's still not what has been claimed.

Obvious goalpost shifting is obvious.

 

[Jokodo]

For that analogy to make sense, Justin Beiber would have to be a musician.

A lot of people would say that the terrorists aren't Muslims, so the analogy makes perfect sense.

 

[Bomb#20]

Okay, I should have said "most" terrorists are Moslems.

You need to understand, this isn't a pedantic quibble over imprecision; this is basic human psychology. There are an awful lot of people whose self-esteem depends on keeping their heads in the sand about how dangerous the situation is that their ideological clones in government have been creating. Consequently, every time you say something that isn't true, they will joyfully seize on it as confirmation of their desperately-clung-to belief that anybody trying to push open their tightly squeezed shut eyes is a paranoid fool. Every time you say something that isn't true they will give themselves an extra helping of permission to keep their heads in the sand. Every time you say something that isn't true you are making it easier for the culture of political correctness to maintain its lock on public policy.

So just don't do it. Every sentence you type, reread it before you post it and make sure you have a good reason to think it's literally correct. I know giving up on "close enough for government work" will be a pain in the ass for someone who revels in the fast & furious posting style; but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. Critical thought takes effort; most people therefore reserve it for ideas they disagree with; so don't imagine for a second that when a guy you're arguing with can't spot his own mistakes, it means he won't spot any you make.

 

[untermensche]

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims!

The biggest acts of terrorism over the last 14 years were the US nation-building effort in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the US invasion of Iraq.

Muslims are minor terrorists conducting minor acts of terrorism, amateurs in the terrorism business, compared to the US.

 

[fast]

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims!

The biggest acts of terrorism over the last 14 years were the US nation-building effort in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the US invasion of Iraq.

Muslims are minor terrorists conducting minor acts of terrorism, amateurs in the terrorism business, compared to the US.

I'm really starting to think you're not a big fan of the US. Gee, a couple minor boo-boo's and you don't like us. So unforgiving!

 

[whichphilosophy]

View attachment 4788

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims!

Not all terrorists are Muslim either though this does not diminish the need to re establish security measures for Europe's borders This is to say our border controls should not be shy to ask people on their return to Europe why the keep going to Syria via Turkey.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/14/are-all-terrorists-muslims-it-s-not-even-close.html

ven after one of the worst terror attacks ever in Europe in 2011, when Anders Breivik slaughtered 77 people in Norway to further his anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant, and pro-“Christian Europe” agenda as he stated in his manifesto, how much press did we see in the United States? Yes, it was covered, but not the way we see when a Muslim terrorist is involved. Plus we didn’t see terrorism experts fill the cable news sphere asking how we can stop future Christian terrorists. In fact, even the suggestion that Breivik was a “Christian terrorist” was met with outrage by many, including Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly.

Have you heard about the Buddhist terrorists? Well, extremist Buddhists have killed many Muslim civilians in Burma, and just a few months ago in Sri Lanka, some went on a violent rampage burning down Muslim homes and businesses and slaughtering four Muslims.

Or what about the (dare I mention them) Jewish terrorists? Per the 2013 State Department’s report on terrorism, there were 399 acts of terror committed by Israeli settlers in what are known as “price tag” attacks. These Jewish terrorists attacked Palestinian civilians causing physical injuries to 93 of them and also vandalized scores of mosques and Christian churches.

Or what about the (dare I mention them) Jewish terrorists? Per the 2013 State Department’s report on terrorism, there were 399 acts of terror committed by Israeli settlers.
Back in the United States, the percentage of terror attacks committed by Muslims is almost as miniscule as in Europe. An FBI study looking at terrorism committed on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 found that 94 percent of the terror attacks were committed by non-Muslims. In actuality, 42 percent of terror attacks were carried out by Latino-related groups, followed by 24 percent perpetrated by extreme left-wing actors.

And as a 2014 study by University of North Carolina found, since the 9/11 attacks, Muslim-linked terrorism has claimed the lives of 37 Americans. In that same time period, more than 190,000 Americans were murdered (PDF).

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I said "you may wish to quibble over the meaning of the no-go euphemism, (but) there is no doubt that there are zones in France where the immigrant population enclaves have created high crime, ethnic loyalty and resistance, and where police enforcement is lax or rare."

And thereby making the implication that this is unusual in an urban society, that this is an indication of a broader problem in France or Europe in particular, and that this is primarily the result (plan?) of Muslim immigrants/refugees and is directly related to the Paris Massacre in some way.

But they're not. The so-called "no-go zones" (which don't actually exist) are areas of poverty. They would still be so even if Muslims were a very small minority of the populations there; the only difference would be the identity of the perpetrators of the various street crimes.

It IS a problem for France. It's just not the problem you're alluding to.

What the hell happened to you, Max? This shit is beneath you.

You are correct about that

So do something about it. If you can.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Okay, I should have said "most" terrorists are Moslems.

You need to understand, this isn't a pedantic quibble over imprecision; this is basic human psychology. There are an awful lot of people whose self-esteem depends on keeping their heads in the sand about how dangerous the situation is that their ideological clones in government have been creating. Consequently, every time you say something that isn't true, they will joyfully seize on it as confirmation of their desperately-clung-to belief that anybody trying to push open their tightly squeezed shut eyes is a paranoid fool. Every time you say something that isn't true they will give themselves an extra helping of permission to keep their heads in the sand. Every time you say something that isn't true you are making it easier for the culture of political correctness to maintain its lock on public policy.

So just don't do it. Every sentence you type, reread it before you post it and make sure you have a good reason to think it's literally correct. I know giving up on "close enough for government work" will be a pain in the ass for someone who revels in the fast & furious posting style; but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. Critical thought takes effort; most people therefore reserve it for ideas they disagree with; so don't imagine for a second that when a guy you're arguing with can't spot his own mistakes, it means he won't spot any you make.

Right back at you, though:
Every time you say something that isn't true (like the nonsense above) you are making it easier for our political enemies to neglect engaging us in rational discussion to point out your mistakes. Perhaps, you and angelo will stop the nonsense someday and we can move on to rational dialogue to try to identify and solve the problems.

I will add that pages ago I asked the question "So what's the solution?" and I will ask again. Hopefully, you and/or angelo can answer without the nonsense like above. Let's try it. So, what's the solution?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) Evidence?

His own fucking admission.

2) The Soviet invasion was because they established a puppet government there and that puppet government then called for help. Thus the invasion was not remotely out of the blue--our taking action against it before it happened would be no surprise.

No, Soviet invasion happened exactly as Brzheziski had hoped, it was a result of US trying to destabilize a country on the border of USSR in order to provoke invasion. Brzezinski admitted it in 1999. He was fucking proud of it, note that it was before 9-11.

You're saying he admitted it but you aren't giving a link--and something besides the Russian propaganda sources you tend to link.

- - - Updated - - -

His own fucking admission.

2) The Soviet invasion was because they established a puppet government there and that puppet government then called for help. Thus the invasion was not remotely out of the blue--our taking action against it before it happened would be no surprise.

No, Soviet invasion happened exactly as Brzheziski had hoped, it was a result of US trying to destabilize a country on the border of USSR in order to provoke invasion. Brzezinski admitted it in 1999. He was fucking proud of it, note that it was before 9-11.

Loren must have forgotten he replied to the post that brought this up recently. Or maybe did not read the start of the article or your posts at the time.
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...es-Don’t-Exist&p=222723&viewfull=1#post222723

I pointed out the problems with that piece of garbage when it was posted.

- - - Updated - - -

View attachment 4788

Why in the world would you blame America? He's Canadian!

- - - Updated - - -

View attachment 4788

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims!

You're forgetting the narcoterrorists.

 

[Bomb#20]

The so-called "no-go zones" (which don't actually exist) are areas of poverty.

"Theorem: Alexander the Great did not exist, and he had an infinite number of limbs.

First we prove a lemma..."

(The rest of the proof.)

 

[angelo]

Okay, I should have said "most" terrorists are Moslems.

You need to understand, this isn't a pedantic quibble over imprecision; this is basic human psychology. There are an awful lot of people whose self-esteem depends on keeping their heads in the sand about how dangerous the situation is that their ideological clones in government have been creating. Consequently, every time you say something that isn't true, they will joyfully seize on it as confirmation of their desperately-clung-to belief that anybody trying to push open their tightly squeezed shut eyes is a paranoid fool. Every time you say something that isn't true they will give themselves an extra helping of permission to keep their heads in the sand. Every time you say something that isn't true you are making it easier for the culture of political correctness to maintain its lock on public policy.

So just don't do it. Every sentence you type, reread it before you post it and make sure you have a good reason to think it's literally correct. I know giving up on "close enough for government work" will be a pain in the ass for someone who revels in the fast & furious posting style; but close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. Critical thought takes effort; most people therefore reserve it for ideas they disagree with; so don't imagine for a second that when a guy you're arguing with can't spot his own mistakes, it means he won't spot any you make.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/the-geography-of-terrorism/382915/
The reason I say that would be obvious to any casual observer.

 

[barbos]

His own fucking admission.

2) The Soviet invasion was because they established a puppet government there and that puppet government then called for help. Thus the invasion was not remotely out of the blue--our taking action against it before it happened would be no surprise.

No, Soviet invasion happened exactly as Brzheziski had hoped, it was a result of US trying to destabilize a country on the border of USSR in order to provoke invasion. Brzezinski admitted it in 1999. He was fucking proud of it, note that it was before 9-11.

You're saying he admitted it but you aren't giving a link--and something besides the Russian propaganda sources you tend to link.

You make no sense. Problems with memory?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The so-called "no-go zones" (which don't actually exist) are areas of poverty.

"Theorem: Alexander the Great did not exist, and he had an infinite number of limbs.

The "no-go zone" is a very SPECIFIC type of fake news meme that basically refers to a portion of a city that has achieved (or allowed to achieve) political autonomy by "Islamist gangs" that enforce all but the letter of Sharia law on the people who live there. It's called "no go" because police cannot enter it and non-Muslims are discouraged from even traveling through it.

The original version of this meme was so counterfactual and so absurd that the major of Paris threatened to sue Fox News for running the story.

So I repeat: Paris does not have "no-go zones." It has ghettos, like any other city.

And Alexander the Great did not have an infinite number of arms. He had two, like any other human.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"Theorem: Alexander the Great did not exist, and he had an infinite number of limbs.

The "no-go zone" is a very SPECIFIC type of fake news meme that basically refers to a portion of a city that has achieved (or allowed to achieve) political autonomy by "Islamist gangs" that enforce all but the letter of Sharia law on the people who live there. It's called "no go" because police cannot enter it and non-Muslims are discouraged from even traveling through it.

The original version of this meme was so counterfactual and so absurd that the major of Paris threatened to sue Fox News for running the story.

So I repeat: Paris does not have "no-go zones." It has ghettos, like any other city.

And Alexander the Great did not have an infinite number of arms. He had two, like any other human.

Ghettos run by Sharia-law people.

And it's not that the police can't enter, but that they can only enter in force.

 

[Bomb#20]

The so-called "no-go zones" (which don't actually exist) are areas of poverty.

"Theorem: Alexander the Great did not exist, and he had an infinite number of limbs.

The "no-go zone" is a very SPECIFIC type of <snip>

Hey man, I was just ragging on you for ascribing a property to something you said doesn't exist.

And Alexander the Great did not have an infinite number of arms. He had two, like any other human.

Dude! The oracle warned him crossing that river meant certain death. Well, fore-warned is four-armed!

The original version of this meme was so counterfactual and so absurd that the major of Paris threatened to sue Fox News for running the story.

What planet do you live on that has a Fox News with that much originality? People were talking about European cities' no-go zones years before Fox ever picked up on it.