Paris: Dozens Killed In Terrorist Attack

[Tom Sawyer]

No.

You did mean this as a rhetorical question, right?

No.

It is meant to show the double standard we have towards terrorism and innocent victims of it.

But you were aware of the answer before you asked the question and only asked it for the sake of making a point, correct?

I don't get how you don't consider that to be a rhetorical question.

 

[angelo]

You disagree that quite a lot of muslims will be cheering from the sidelines ?

I'll take this as your admission that you don't have any real evidence of these "many" celebrations you claimed exist.

Obviously there are going to be nutters out of a group of 1.5 billion, but only a bigoted asshole would choose to focus on them instead of the vastly greater number who are repulsed by this sort of violence against innocents.

https://www.google.com.au/url?q=ht...&usg=AFQjCNFpbwOmgt2cKgX9pG--m72mSuE6cQ

 

[untermensche]

No.

It is meant to show the double standard we have towards terrorism and innocent victims of it.

But you were aware of the answer before you asked the question and only asked it for the sake of making a point, correct?

I don't get how you don't consider that to be a rhetorical question.

But perhaps there were some who never thought about it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But you were aware of the answer before you asked the question and only asked it for the sake of making a point, correct?

I don't get how you don't consider that to be a rhetorical question.

But perhaps there were some who never thought about it.

So you asked it the form of a question in order to make a point. That's what a rhetorical question is.

 

[untermensche]

But perhaps there were some who never thought about it.

So you asked it the form of a question in order to make a point. That's what a rhetorical question is.

If people trying to answer it makes a point, so be it, but any hard numbers would be great.

 

[tupac chopra]

CNN is reporting French airstrikes against IS targets in Syria.

Like I said before, I'd hate to be targeted by pissed off Frenchies. The body odor alone could be devastating.

The real battle just went on in Kuweires, though it's not in the press much
Grandmaster Putin Beats Uncle Sam at His Own Game

On Tuesday, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard Corps (IRGC), and fighters from the feared Lebanese national militia, Hezbollah, recaptured the strategic Kuweires military airbase in North Syria killing hundreds of ISIS terrorists and liberating 250 Syrian soldiers who had been holding out at the base for more than two and a half years. The battle was downplayed in the western media mainly because it represents a critical turning point in the conflict. The Russian-led coalition is now the drivers seat while the “US-backed” jihadis are on the run. The war’s momentum has totally shifted in Putin’s favor which means that Putin’s going to win and Obama’s going to lose.

Kuweires is Syria’s Stalingrad, the famous WW 2 siege which lasted from August 1942 to February 1943 when the German Wehrmacht was repelled by the ferocious Red Army in the largest and bloodiest
battle in the history of warfare. While the scale of Kuweires is smaller by many orders of magnitude, it’s importance can’t be overstated. It wasn’t ISIS that was defeated at Kuweires; it was US foreign policy, a policy which has reduced a large swathe of the planet, extending from North Africa, across the Middle East and into Central Asia, into smoldering rubble. Kuweires was a key node in Washington’s plan to topple Assad and plunge Syria in failed-state anarchy. That strategy has now been rolled back, not by people waving signs in the streets or politicians appealing for peace and sanity, or diplomats at the UN “talking shop” who have become the de facto rubber stamp for US aggression. No. US policy was rolled back by Russian warplanes, heavy artillery, armored vehicles and highly-motivated, stiff-neck fighting grunts who put their country before their own personal safety. Get the picture?

 

[untermensche]

The war’s momentum has totally shifted in Putin’s favor which means that Putin’s going to win and Obama’s going to lose.

To reduce it to this is insanity.

 

[TSwizzle]

You disagree that quite a lot of muslims will be cheering from the sidelines ?

It may come as a surprise to you but Muslims are human beings, many of which can empathize with innocent who are attacked for no reason they can comprehend. This attack was truly a senseless attack even to the average Muslim opponent of the West in the ME. Beheaders and violent torturers and murderers are an aberration in their culture too. You don't seem to understand that.

And you don't seem to be watching the news. This was not an anomaly.

 

[angelo]

The real battle just went on in Kuweires, though it's not in the press much
Grandmaster Putin Beats Uncle Sam at His Own Game

On Tuesday, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard Corps (IRGC), and fighters from the feared Lebanese national militia, Hezbollah, recaptured the strategic Kuweires military airbase in North Syria killing hundreds of ISIS terrorists and liberating 250 Syrian soldiers who had been holding out at the base for more than two and a half years. The battle was downplayed in the western media mainly because it represents a critical turning point in the conflict. The Russian-led coalition is now the drivers seat while the “US-backed” jihadis are on the run. The war’s momentum has totally shifted in Putin’s favor which means that Putin’s going to win and Obama’s going to lose.

Kuweires is Syria’s Stalingrad, the famous WW 2 siege which lasted from August 1942 to February 1943 when the German Wehrmacht was repelled by the ferocious Red Army in the largest and bloodiest
battle in the history of warfare. While the scale of Kuweires is smaller by many orders of magnitude, it’s importance can’t be overstated. It wasn’t ISIS that was defeated at Kuweires; it was US foreign policy, a policy which has reduced a large swathe of the planet, extending from North Africa, across the Middle East and into Central Asia, into smoldering rubble. Kuweires was a key node in Washington’s plan to topple Assad and plunge Syria in failed-state anarchy. That strategy has now been rolled back, not by people waving signs in the streets or politicians appealing for peace and sanity, or diplomats at the UN “talking shop” who have become the de facto rubber stamp for US aggression. No. US policy was rolled back by Russian warplanes, heavy artillery, armored vehicles and highly-motivated, stiff-neck fighting grunts who put their country before their own personal safety. Get the picture?

Three cheers for Putin!

 

[tupac chopra]

It may come as a surprise to you but Muslims are human beings, many of which can empathize with innocent who are attacked for no reason they can comprehend. This attack was truly a senseless attack even to the average Muslim opponent of the West in the ME. Beheaders and violent torturers and murderers are an aberration in their culture too. You don't seem to understand that.

And you don't seem to be watching the news. This was not an anomaly.

I know. Though in this case I'm not aware of reports of the terrorists laughing as they shot people.
[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9tju_EmJ60[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Bomb#20]

I love how the very people who are so against "political correctness" get so easily offended by opposing viewpoints regarding foreign policy, to the point where they believe the other side is the enemy.

Can you give an example of somebody so offended by opposing viewpoints regarding foreign policy that he believes the other side is the enemy?

In case you're talking about me, on what planet does "opposing viewpoint regarding foreign policy" qualify as a reasonable description of "Yes, god forbid the West ever pay for it's crimes."? The guy blatantly expressed the view that the Paris massacre was deserved! That's not a foreign policy opinion; that's a morally bankrupt moral judgment. He condoned the mass murder of innocent bystanders based on their nationality. Of course he's my enemy. If he isn't your enemy too, why the hell not?

 

[barbos]

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.

Even? you used word "even"? Your word choice implies that there is some kind of democratic political process and and ISIS needs to get a majority before it can start their murderous rampage.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I love how the very people who are so against "political correctness" get so easily offended by opposing viewpoints regarding foreign policy, to the point where they believe the other side is the enemy.

Can you give an example of somebody so offended by opposing viewpoints regarding foreign policy that he believes the other side is the enemy?

In case you're talking about me, on what planet does "opposing viewpoint regarding foreign policy" qualify as a reasonable description of "Yes, god forbid the West ever pay for it's crimes."? The guy blatantly expressed the view that the Paris massacre was deserved! That's not a foreign policy opinion; that's a morally bankrupt moral judgment. He condoned the mass murder of innocent bystanders based on their nationality. Of course he's my enemy. If he isn't your enemy too, why the hell not?

You're so excited (and justifiably so, mind you) that you start off implying no one said it and then you name yourself correctly as the one who didn't say it, but then you just say it again.

Come on now, untermensche is not your enemy and it actually is a foreign policy opinion.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Do people here disagree with this

Yes, of course. In the first place, the U.S. attack was on the Iraqi military and the Iraqi government, not the Iraqi people. Of course civilians always die in war, but that's not enough to make all wars attacks on the people; and there are an awful lot of Iraqi civilians alive today who Saddam would have killed if the U.S. hadn't attacked. In the second place, it wasn't a terrorist attack since we were attacking military targets. (And that's not a justification for Bush lying us into a stupid war, simply an explanation for why untermensche is wrong.) In the third place, conquering Iraq wasn't the thing the U.S. did that helped ISIS mutate into its current level of deadliness. (And neither was "terrorizing the population", to whatever extent some of our out-of-control soldiers did that.) The disastrous mistake happened after the attack was over, when the U.S. government idiotically disbanded the Iraqi army.

In any event, ISIS is the consequence of Mohamed Bouazizi setting himself on fire in Tunisia and accidentally burning down half the Arab world. If the U.S. hadn't accidentally delivered thousands of unemployed skilled military men to ISIS and thereby turned it into its current deadly form, then some other ISIS-like organization would have risen to the top of the jihadi food chain after springing up to take advantage of the chaos in Syria, chaos that was the inevitable result of the inevitable clash between on the one side millions of Syrians inspired to hope by the Arab Spring after decades of oppression, and on the other side Assad's determination to stay in power no matter the cost.

 

[Derec]

Stay classy Twitter ...

 

[Horatio Parker]

Accidentally?

Oops I slipped and dissolved the Iraqi army?

Idiotic.

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

 

[Derec]

Silly Horatio, you should not have carried that giant flask filled with sulfuric acid around then ....

 

[Bomb#20]

You're so excited (and justifiably so, mind you) that you start off implying no one said it and then you name yourself correctly as the one who didn't say it, but then you just say it again.

You appear to have a reading comprehension problem. I didn't imply no one said it; I implied that GenesisNemesis's claim about what it was that people who said it were offended by was not correct.

Come on now, untermensche is not your enemy and it actually is a foreign policy opinion.

Everyone who sides with the murder of innocent people is my enemy. Calling "Yes, god forbid the West ever pay for it's crimes." a foreign policy opinion no more makes it one than calling a tail a leg makes it one.

 

[angelo]

Here's Sam Harris take on the Paris atrocity.
https://m.soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/still-sleepwalking-01

 

[Bomb#20]

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.