Paris: Dozens Killed In Terrorist Attack

[Nice Squirrel]

IMO, the ME will continue to be a hellhole until there is a successful liberal democracy that the people can believe in.

Why a successful liberal democracy?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Not thinking of body/missile ratio.

http://www.newsweek.com/november-dr...en-children-reportedly-killed-pakistan-288448

In the six attempts it took to kill Qari Hussain, for example, 128 people were killed, including 13 children.

They were trying to kill a terrorist, and how many of these 128 were terrorists, just with different from "Qari Hussain" name?

Yeah. An awful lot of the ones we kill that weren't the targets were bodyguards of the target.

How many?

- - - Updated - - -

Not thinking of body/missile ratio.

http://www.newsweek.com/november-dr...en-children-reportedly-killed-pakistan-288448

In the six attempts it took to kill Qari Hussain, for example, 128 people were killed, including 13 children.

They were trying to kill a terrorist, and how many of these 128 were terrorists, just with different from "Qari Hussain" name?

How many were innocent?

128 minus terrorists.

A logically null statement.

 

[laughing dog]

Worked in Vietnam...

...ummm...

...nevermind.

The objective is not to kill an idea. Nor is it to kill all muslims. It is to kill those people likely to act on the idea, before they act. If it takes killing several thousand or 10s of thousand of ISIS in Syria to mitigate terrorism in Europe, I am all for it. How about you?

Well, when you have the terroristdar perfected so that we know who is really likely to act, I will take your response seriously. At this point in time, we don't. So we are likely to get several thousand or 10s of thousands of people who are not ISIS and perhaps drive 1000s of people to become terrorists through our actions.

This is not some Chuck Norris or Charles Bronson movie where the enemy is well-defined and easily spotted. This is the real world, where people need to think about the potential blowback and repurcussions of acting like Chuck Norris or Charles Bronson

 

[whichphilosophy]

It is the fault of the US and the mechanics of this is very simple. Get Rid of Saddam and radicals will fill the void and it happened. Then Add Libya and Syria. Trace the current events to the point where this started. In Gaddafi's case the lynch mob started on each other as his corpse was still warm.

Their is plenty of blame in the ME. Yes the Iraq invasion was a disaster. But to ignore all the other factors, people, and history is very naïve. The ME starting falling behind the world in the 1400s. European redrawing of the map after WW1 was a disaster. We could go back and forth forever. IMO, the ME will continue to be a hellhole until there is a successful liberal democracy that the people can believe in.

It's much simpler than that. Once we removed the targeted ruthless leaders, the fanatics whom they held in place ran amuck and the rest is history. So the root of this was America and its allies cock ups by missing the obvious.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The objective is not to kill an idea. Nor is it to kill all muslims. It is to kill those people likely to act on the idea, before they act. If it takes killing several thousand or 10s of thousand of ISIS in Syria to mitigate terrorism in Europe, I am all for it. How about you?

Well, when you have the terroristdar perfected so that we know who is really likely to act, I will take your response seriously. At this point in time, we don't. So we are likely to get several thousand or 10s of thousands of people who are not ISIS and perhaps drive 1000s of people to become terrorists through our actions.

This is not some Chuck Norris or Charles Bronson movie where the enemy is well-defined and easily spotted. This is the real world, where people need to think about the potential blowback and repurcussions of acting like Chuck Norris or Charles Bronson

Then you're into hearts and minds, which is the road to weeniedom.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To get away from the partisan bitch fest for a moment...

I was thinking earlier that the last time someone decided to piss off Western Europe and Russia, they ended up killing themselves about 4 years later and their side was crushed as well, in as many years.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The objective is not to kill an idea. Nor is it to kill all muslims. It is to kill those people likely to act on the idea, before they act. If it takes killing several thousand or 10s of thousand of ISIS in Syria to mitigate terrorism in Europe, I am all for it. How about you?

Well, when you have the terroristdar perfected so that we know who is really likely to act, I will take your response seriously. At this point in time, we don't. So we are likely to get several thousand or 10s of thousands of people who are not ISIS and perhaps drive 1000s of people to become terrorists through our actions.

This is not some Chuck Norris or Charles Bronson movie where the enemy is well-defined and easily spotted. This is the real world, where people need to think about the potential blowback and repurcussions of acting like Chuck Norris or Charles Bronson

I suppose we could have Assad perform a Census and get people to declare whether they are or aren't terrorists.

 

[Jingi walla]

The question is; How many Muslims are terrorists because of harm done to them or people they care about by the US or some other Western power?

Do you know any?

The Charlie Hebdo shooters for example were disenfranchised French muslims, who were never harmed by the US. The terrorists do have pasts, but usually it's that of being brainwashed than being victim of US aggression in Middle East.

Are they being brainwashed and feeling solidarity with people who were harmed by the US though. Could that be relevant?

 

[Jingi walla]

The question is; How many Muslims are terrorists because of harm done to them or people they care about by the US or some other Western power?

The terrorist has a religion.

But more importantly they have a past.

Question: How many million times are you going to repeat this same bogus claim?

Islam has been on the warpath for it's whole existence.

The same could be said of the USA. In fact I think we could say the USA has been on the warpath far more than.Islam. couldn't we?

 

[Harry Bosch]

IMO, the ME will continue to be a hellhole until there is a successful liberal democracy that the people can believe in.

Why a successful liberal democracy?

IMO, the real issue here is that the Sunni moderates will not fight the Sunni Jihadists. I think that a liberal democracy would lead to a better economy, more jobs, and a stronger middle class. That would give the Arab moderates something to fight for.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why a successful liberal democracy?

IMO, the real issue here is that the Sunni moderates will not fight the Sunni Jihadists. I think that a liberal democracy would lead to a better economy, more jobs, and a stronger middle class. That would give the Arab moderates something to fight for.

Is there a difference between a jihadist and a terrorist?

 

[J842P]

Question: How many million times are you going to repeat this same bogus claim?

Islam has been on the warpath for it's whole existence.

The same could be said of the USA. In fact I think we could say the USA has been on the warpath far more than.Islam. couldn't we?

Well, Islam certainly has been on the warpath for longer. But the United States has essentially been at war its entire existence.

 

[laughing dog]

The same could be said of the USA. In fact I think we could say the USA has been on the warpath far more than.Islam. couldn't we?

Well, Islam certainly has been on the warpath for longer. But the United States has essentially been at war its entire existence.

But but we are the good guys!

 

[Harry Bosch]

IMO, the real issue here is that the Sunni moderates will not fight the Sunni Jihadists. I think that a liberal democracy would lead to a better economy, more jobs, and a stronger middle class. That would give the Arab moderates something to fight for.

Is there a difference between a jihadist and a terrorist?

Of course there is. This should probably be a separate thread. But to me, a jihadist is a Muslim who uses violence to promote and spread his religion. A terrorist is a person who targets civilians with violence in order to promote a theology or political goal.

 

[TSwizzle]

The same could be said of the USA. In fact I think we could say the USA has been on the warpath far more than.Islam. couldn't we?

LOL ! No "we" couldn't say that. That's just silly. And displays a fundamental ignorance of the history of teh islam.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The same could be said of the USA. In fact I think we could say the USA has been on the warpath far more than.Islam. couldn't we?

LOL ! No "we" couldn't say that. That's just silly. And displays a fundamental ignorance of the history of teh islam.

You're a project. We need to work with you.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there a difference between a jihadist and a terrorist?

Of course there is. This should probably be a separate thread. But to me, a jihadist is a Muslim who uses violence to promote and spread his religion. A terrorist is a person who targets civilians with violence in order to promote a theology or political goal.

So the difference is between violence directed against civilians and violence directed against...?

 

[arkirk]

IMO, the ME will continue to be a hellhole until there is a successful liberal democracy that the people can believe in.

Why a successful liberal democracy?

Because those are the words on the talking point card. Actually the ME is plagued by the Muslim Religion, the Christian Religion, the Jewish Religion and all presenting in varying flavors of fanatacism. We must understand that like everywhere else they also have some atheists who probably are afraid for their lives every day. All this sectarianism in the ME has been used to facilitate foreign exploitation of oil countries and the like. So when these countries attempt to become independent, those for independece are attempting to use the same type of religious biases to support their political positions. Hence, all of the nations in the area are heavily influenced by the predominant religion (including sub sects), so we have Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria and the like and each of these governments has a sub sect flavor and label. The only way you can have peace between this type of government is for them to exist in a kind of equilibrium (balance of power) as their religions all condemn non followers to hell or something like it and label non followers fair game for exploitation, killing, torture, etc. That is about how it is. In this twisted mass of opposing sects and religious fruitcakes there exist (to quote Nixon) a silent majority, powerless, and pretty much living without hope for a decent future. I believe the majority of people in the world would accept some compromise on their religious values for the sake of peace. This is especially true for the vast majority of refugees from the ME.

Paris was attacked by a well supplied and funded group fanatics who have a very specific agenda...to terrorize the French who have been militarily active in Africa and the ME. I think the problem the terrorists have is that they simply are turning up the heat on themselves with these acts and creating a far more difficult environment for those seeking peace to operate in. It is actually a lose lose proposition for them. It only fosters a militant solidarity between the people and their government in targeted countries (this case being France). I try to avoid using the word terrorist because that has become a code word for anybody certain political animals wishes to call a terrorist. There were EIGHT TERRORISTS for sure involved in Paris and also obviously some more people who bought the guns, bullets and other equipment needed. These groups are always usually only a small number of people...who make the implication that every person from their native country is like them when that is not at all true.

 

[Harry Bosch]

LOL ! No "we" couldn't say that. That's just silly. And displays a fundamental ignorance of the history of teh islam.

You're a project. We need to work with you.

- - - Updated - - -

Is there a difference between a jihadist and a terrorist?

Of course there is. This should probably be a separate thread. But to me, a jihadist is a Muslim who uses violence to promote and spread his religion. A terrorist is a person who targets civilians with violence in order to promote a theology or political goal.

So the difference is between violence directed against civilians and violence directed against...?

Sometimes. There are some Muslims who interpret "Jihad" as an armed physical attack against "unbelievers". There are others who interpret Jihad as "the spiritual struggle within oneself against sin".

 

[Harry Bosch]

Why a successful liberal democracy?

Because those are the words on the talking point card. Actually the ME is plagued by the Muslim Religion, the Christian Religion, the Jewish Religion and all presenting in varying flavors of fanatacism. We must understand that like everywhere else they also have some atheists who probably are afraid for their lives every day. All this sectarianism in the ME has been used to facilitate foreign exploitation of oil countries and the like. So when these countries attempt to become independent, those for independece are attempting to use the same type of religious biases to support their political positions. Hence, all of the nations in the area are heavily influenced by the predominant religion (including sub sects), so we have Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria and the like and each of these governments has a sub sect flavor and label. The only way you can have peace between this type of government is for them to exist in a kind of equilibrium (balance of power) as their religions all condemn non followers to hell or something like it and label non followers fair game for exploitation, killing, torture, etc. That is about how it is. In this twisted mass of opposing sects and religious fruitcakes there exist (to quote Nixon) a silent majority, powerless, and pretty much living without hope for a decent future. I believe the majority of people in the world would accept some compromise on their religious values for the sake of peace. This is especially true for the vast majority of refugees from the ME.

Paris was attacked by a well supplied and funded group fanatics who have a very specific agenda...to terrorize the French who have been militarily active in Africa and the ME. I think the problem the terrorists have is that they simply are turning up the heat on themselves with these acts and creating a far more difficult environment for those seeking peace to operate in. It is actually a lose lose proposition for them. It only fosters a militant solidarity between the people and their government in targeted countries (this case being France). I try to avoid using the word terrorist because that has become a code word for anybody certain political animals wishes to call a terrorist. There were EIGHT TERRORISTS for sure involved in Paris and also obviously some more people who bought the guns, bullets and other equipment needed. These groups are always usually only a small number of people...who make the implication that every person from their native country is like them when that is not at all true.

Good Heavens! Are you actually laying some blame on the terrorists?? What the hell is going on? You're not getting soft on blaming the west for everything are you??!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This was a terrible tragedy. So what's the solution?