Paris attacks

[MigL]

It now appears that the perpetrators of several co-ordinated attacks in the French capital were indeed Islamic fundamental terrorists.

My deepest sympathies for the French people.

 

I was almost hoping the violence was due to wacky global warmers ( yes there are some of those ) ahead of the global climate summit in two weeks.

These actions will just ratchet up fear in Europe, and the people who suffer most will be Muslims trying to flee Syria and ISIS.

I can see a lot of borders being shut in Europe at a time when these refugees need help.

 

Charlie is crying again.

[CharonY]

I have not seen confirmation yet, but it appears to be likely. I just hope people will realize that fear is discord is precisely what those terrorists want and deny them their victory.

[iNow]

These actions will just ratchet up fear in Europe, and the people who suffer most will be Muslims trying to flee Syria and ISIS.

I can see a lot of borders being shut in Europe at a time when these refugees need help.

Quite right. From a tweet I saw:

 

To the people who will blame refugees for this attack, do you not realize that those who did this are the exact people from whom the refugees are trying to flee?

[swansont]

It's still early in the reporting cycle. Many facts have not yet come to light, and some details already reported are undoubtedly wrong.

[iNow]

As of now... At least 153 dead, 5 attackers "neutralized," 4 dead, and 3 wearing bomb vests.

[Nouveau]

I think right now there will be billions of people right around the world reading in horror and disgust at what has happened in Paris. It's hard to stay detached or not be affected, but even the anger is less than the emotions of immense sympathy for the families of the victims, can't even begin to imagine the horror of what they are now being faced with.

 

But for France sadly another collective scare, one of far too many for in recent years. I fear also one that will not be so easily overcome or quickly forgotten, but optimism is inspired by the way in which the French people came together in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. A proud nation and if that courage and spirit exhibited then is any indicator we will see them come through this terrible shock without being permanently damaged by it, I also just don't see them holding immigrants and refugees responsible and making them suffer, and that the closing of the borders is only just a short term reactionary measure to the current crisis situation.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Nouveau

[MonDie]

They were watching Eagles of Death Metal, a member of which was involved in Queens of the Stone Age, which I recall hearing of in highschool several years ago. Maybe they wanted to get young people.

[michel123456]

I am afraid the attacks were driven by antisemitism.

« Nous avions un projet d'attentat contre le Bataclan parce que les propriétaires sont juifs »

From this article in French: The Bataclan is a regularly referred target [/size]http://www.lepoint.fr/societe/le-bataclan-une-cible-regulierement-visee-14-11-2015-1981544_23.php[/size]

Edited November 14, 2015 by michel123456

[dimreepr]

This, I fear, will provide propaganda for the right wing jingoists to demonise all Muslims, however peaceful they are, and who knows where that may lead.

[ajb]

This, I fear, will provide propaganda for the right wing jingoists to demonise all Muslims, however peaceful they are, and who knows where that may lead.

That said, our politicians on the back of 'political correctness' have done all they can to separate Islam from Terrorism. This is despite the facts that Islamic symbols, Islamic verses and justification of such acts via the Quran are attached to terrorism. But no, these are criminal terrorists that have nothing to do with 'real Islam'. Of course, people in ISIS would disagree on this point quite strongly!

 

I do not wish to say that all Muslim are the enemy, but this BS of political correctness and the strong desire not to upset any Muslims has not helped the world at all.

Edited November 14, 2015 by ajb

[John Cuthber]

That said, our politicians on the back of 'political correctness' have done all they can to separate Islam from Terrorism.

Really?

Some don't seem to have got that memo.

Bearing in mind that there is not yet any actual evidence of who did these dreadful things or why they did so

 

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/donald-trump-would-absolutely-close-down-mosques-in-order-to-fight-isis/

http://www.alan.com/2015/11/13/jeb-this-is-a-war-being-created-by-islamic-terrorists/#email-modal

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/ben-carson-syrian-refugees-immigration-terrorism/

[dimreepr]

That said, our politicians on the back of 'political correctness' have done all they can to separate Islam from Terrorism. This is despite the facts that Islamic symbols, Islamic verses and justification of such acts via the Quran are attached to terrorism. But no, these are criminal terrorists that have nothing to do with 'real Islam'. Of course, people in ISIS would disagree on this point quite strongly!

 

I do not wish to say that all Muslim are the enemy, but this BS of political correctness and the strong desire not to upset any Muslims has not helped the world at all.

 

 

I don’t think wanting to protect innocents from the consequences of demonising an entire minority, by separating them from those who commit such hateful acts, should be disparaged by using a charged term like political correctness.

[Prometheus]

It's so hard not to let anger get the better of you at times like this.

 

Is it not legitimate to at least ask whether followers of a certain ideology are more inclined to acts of violence? I have not heard reports of mass killings perpetrated in the name of Jainism for instance. It does not seem crazy to speculate that the religion a person follows influences their propensity towards violence. Perhaps the greater part of the rise of Islamic terrorism is socio-political in nature - but is there a contribution from the teachings of Islam?

 

I have heard it said often on this forum that the Christian god is a bronze age war god. Islam follows the same god.

 

The difficult part is identifying what, if anything, in Islam increases propensity to violence without sullying all of Islam and implicating all Muslims. I suspect only other Muslims will be able to perform this task.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Is it not legitimate to at least ask whether followers of a certain ideology are more inclined to acts of violence?

It's legitimate to ask.

and the answer certainly isn't as clear as some would like to pretend

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

 

The Quran, like the bible contradicts itself a lot. So it is easy enough to find bits that support making peace with other faiths or making war with them.

So, the decision doesn't rest with the scripture, but with how it is interpreted.

 

So the question is, how did the warmongers get taken seriously when violence is always seen as the dumb answer?

Could it be that the actions of the West such as unequivocal support for Israel might explain part of the hostility?

 

So, perhaps the ideology that's to blame lies not in the Arab world, but in the West.

[iNow]

I think it's less about what's in their book and more about how it's being taught. While the book clearly has violent passages and instructions, so too does the bible.

 

One must cherry pick which parts to follow and which to ignore when it comes to religion, and most theists do exactly that. Surrounding culture and social group expectations are far more relevant. Following this logic, what we generally see is that it's nearly always the local tribal elders who tend to be the ones "farming those cherry trees" and feeding only the specific fruits which they hand select and choose for their own purposes to "feed" to any hungry kids or desperate teenagers/adults nearby.

 

IMO, that's a more precise "source" or root cause of these issues... Those who manipulate these (clearly flawed and largely ignorant) religious texts for purposes of mass population control. Also, as others have mentioned, it's not yet clear who's responsible.

[Ten oz]

Western countries have mostly taken half messured steps with regards to Syria because neither Assad or ISIS winning the Civil War are desirable outcomes. We fantasize about a third option, a moderate group large enough to take the helm and install democracy, but it is a pipe dream. At least in terms of being a plausible resolution to the current state of emergency in Syria. I hate to say it but I think it might be time to aid Assad. That at least could end the war and establish a modicum of stability in Syria. Yes Assad is bad but ISIS is worse and conditions in Syria are worse than prior to the push for regime change. Once Assad in back in power unconditional aid (food, water, medical supplies) should be poured into the country. Let families catch their breath, stop the bleeding. Perhaps under those conditions some percentage of the refugees may select to return. The world can figure out what to do about Assad later. Re-stabalizing the Syria should be the priority.

[waitforufo]

The Quran, like the bible contradicts itself a lot. So it is easy enough to find bits that support making peace with other faiths or making war with them.

So, the decision doesn't rest with the scripture, but with how it is interpreted.

Mainstream followers of Islam believe that the Quran contains the actual words of god, thus making the Quran divine. Interpretation implies changing the words of god and is strongly discouraged if not forbidden. Mainstream followers of Christianity believe that the Bible was written by divinely inspired individuals and is hence not divine. Bible interpretation is therefore required. Sure there are fringe Christians that also believe the Bible is divine but they are a small minority of Christian believers. Episcopalians, Methodist, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Catholics, and the various Orthodox Christians all believe the Bible requires interpretation.

 

This belief that the Quran is divine has been the main obstacle to having a Islamic reformation similar to the Christian reformation of the 15 and 16 hundreds.

 

Perhaps those rabble rousing individuals in Paris, who just happened to be coincidentally Muslims, were just looking for a safe space.

[CharonY]

I think it's less about what's in their book and more about how it's being taught. While the book clearly has violent passages and instructions, so too does the bible.

 

One must cherry pick which parts to follow and which to ignore when it comes to religion, and most theists do exactly that. Surrounding culture and social group expectations are far more relevant. Following this logic, what we generally see is that it's nearly always the local tribal elders who tend to be the ones "farming those cherry trees" and feeding only the specific fruits which they hand select and choose for their own purposes to "feed" to any hungry kids or desperate teenagers/adults nearby.

 

IMO, that's a more precise "source" or root cause of these issues... Those who manipulate these (clearly flawed and largely ignorant) religious texts for purposes of mass population control. Also, as others have mentioned, it's not yet clear who's responsible.

 

Indeed. It is not coincidence that religious terror attacks are all attached to political conflicts. There is a general issue when a subset of populations is disenfrenchised because they do not feel part of the main population (for various reasons, including being) which makes them susceptible to recruitment to these political conflicts under a common ideological banner (Marxism used to be the rage, now Islam). I suspect psychologically there also may be similar things going on in mass shooters, except the danger is that using ideology or religion as an outlet it makes it easier to make people follow through (as they will be actively encouraged).

For the leaders, they are just disposable tools and as usual I have my doubts whether they are actually in for the ideology or for their own benefit.

Edited November 14, 2015 by CharonY

[Airbrush]

......and the people who suffer most will be Muslims trying to flee Syria and ISIS.

I can see a lot of borders being shut in Europe at a time when these refugees need help

 

Right. So many of the fleeing Syrians will need a job someday right? Let's see what jobs are there for young, military-aged guys? If they are Suni, then perhaps a few of the brave ones might consider joining an ISIS infiltration operation. In the USA we call it "be all you can be in the army". What's wrong with that? They should be trained. Maybe some of the especially pious ones may even be encouraged to be reverse suicide bombers. Only if they want to, of course. Not my plan, but that is what goes on over there. Join ISIS, get their confidence, at a meeting of members detonate. But only if they WANT to, if they have that much religious zeal. If people can be so devoted to their religion that they blow themselves up to show their faith, give them a VALID jihad by blowing up with the real embarassment for Islam, ISIS. I would prefer they simply designate locations for drone strikes. Give these holy warriors an opportunity to show their disgust for ISIS by leading the infiltration.

Edited November 14, 2015 by Airbrush

[hypervalent_iodine]

I think it's less about what's in their book and more about how it's being taught. While the book clearly has violent passages and instructions, so too does the bible.

One must cherry pick which parts to follow and which to ignore when it comes to religion, and most theists do exactly that. Surrounding culture and social group expectations are far more relevant. Following this logic, what we generally see is that it's nearly always the local tribal elders who tend to be the ones "farming those cherry trees" and feeding only the specific fruits which they hand select and choose for their own purposes to "feed" to any hungry kids or desperate teenagers/adults nearby.

IMO, that's a more precise "source" or root cause of these issues... Those who manipulate these (clearly flawed and largely ignorant) religious texts for purposes of mass population control.Also, as others have mentioned, it's not yet clear who's responsible.

Emphasis mine. I think this is an important distinction. Religion seems much more of a scapegoat than a root cause of anything. IMO, these groups a product of mass disenfranchisement of swathes of people in the Middle East following Western involvement. If you've read anything on the sheer level of mismanagement and idiocy that went on during the initial years of the Iraq war, the rise of these terrorist cells, and ISIS in particular, was practically inevitable and had nothing to do with Islam.

 

You also don't need to go back to the Crusades to find examples of horrible things supposedly done in the name of Christianity, either. Africa has plenty and they are ongoing. The Anti-balaka and their ethnic cleansing of Muslim people from Central African Republic are one such example. Again though, I would argue that it had little to do with the religions themselves.

 

It's easy to convince people who are desperate or poor or both that the reasons for their misfortunes are because of the other. It's also about as easy for others to prey on that desperation and inspire hatred and anger.

 

That said, our politicians on the back of 'political correctness' have done all they can to separate Islam from Terrorism. This is despite the facts that Islamic symbols, Islamic verses and justification of such acts via the Quran are attached to terrorism. But no, these are criminal terrorists that have nothing to do with 'real Islam'. Of course, people in ISIS would disagree on this point quite strongly!

 

Ido not wish to say that all Muslim are the enemy, but this BS of political correctness and the strong desire not to upset any Muslims has not helped the world at all.

People do horrible things in the name of alsorts of groups, be they religious or otherwise. That is not to say that the groups themselves are responsible. It would be a great disservice to the majority of people in those groups to take the actions of a minority of them and say that they are the actions of the whole. They are not.

 

You say that you do not want to call all Muslims the enemy, but then what are you trying to say? There are 1.57 billion Muslims in the world. How many of those do you think are terrorists? I doubt it's over 785 million. In which case, why should a group of assholes who do horrendous things get to say what Islam is about when they represent what is likely a very small proportion of people who claim to adhere to the religion?

[John Cuthber]

Mainstream followers of Islam believe that the Quran contains the actual words of god, thus making the Quran divine. Interpretation implies changing the words of god and is strongly discouraged if not forbidden.

In fact, the Quran contradicts itself on the issue of making peace with non believers.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/peace_or_not.html

so there is a necessity for interpretation.

And those in charge can choose to interpret it as pacifists or as warmongers.

 

Did it not occur to you that there are sects within Islam, just as there are within Christianity who differ in their interpretation of the same book?

[MigL]

But that is exactly the point Hyper.

The west was involved in all areas of the world, and not just starting with the overthrow of S Hussein and occupation of Iraq.

Most parts of the third world ( at the time ) were colonised by the west.

This disenfranchisement and desperation are present in various parts of the world where long simmering wars have occurred, and opportunities for young people are absent ( various parts of Africa, Indochina, even South/Central America.

All are the result of the 'colonial' actions of the west during the last several centuries.

Yet none of these other cultures show a propensity for strapping explosives to their chest and martyring themselves in an act of terrorism.

 

It is never the religious leaders who do this though, they 'convince' the young and ignorant to blow themselves up for the cause.

( but I suppose that's no different than our old politicians starting wars and sending young 18 yr olds to fight and die )

 

The solution has to come from Muslims themselves. They need to realise how these acts make things worse not better, and start speaking against these religious leaders. This is not currently happening.

[hypervalent_iodine]

But that is exactly the point Hyper.

The west was involved in all areas of the world, and not just starting with the overthrow of S Hussein and occupation of Iraq.

Most parts of the third world ( at the time ) were colonised by the west.

This disenfranchisement and desperation are present in various parts of the world where long simmering wars have occurred, and opportunities for young people are absent ( various parts of Africa, Indochina, even South/Central America.

All are the result of the 'colonial' actions of the west during the last several centuries.

Yet none of these other cultures show a propensity for strapping explosives to their chest and martyring themselves in an act of terrorism.

I have to disagree here. Firstly, you can hardly compare modern examples of colonialism to those of mid-last century or earlier in this context. The access to technology and avenues to recruit are both vastly different and the ability for these terrorist cells to grow and mobilise is huge as a result. Secondly, you mentioned the example of Africa. There are a number of reasons that this doesn't fit your argument, the first and most obvious one being that there are plenty of terrorist groups very active in Africa and from Africa.

[John Cuthber]

 

The solution has to come from Muslims themselves. They need to realise how these acts make things worse not better, and start speaking against these religious leaders. This is not currently happening.

Guess again.

https://www.facebook.com/Muslims-Against-ISIS-1444672609121662/?fref=ts

[Ten oz]

I do not think it is necessary to parse words about Islam and the Quarn. Religious extremism is a reaction/response to decades of getting the short end of the stick. I see a lot of politicians and pundits saying Muslim moderates need to stand against this that or the other then never elaborate on how they would manage to do so. They also fail to acknowledge how for an era the westernized world propped up and armed dictators in exchange for oil and strategic positioning against communism. For an decades we've said democracy is the goal for the middle east but only if that democracy supports a rather specific list of policies. Democracy that must vote a specific way is not much of democracy. Middle Eastern countries are not free to make alliances, sell goods, build technology, stand up strong militaries, or etc without copious amounts of pressure from the west. In that enviroment ethnocentrism, nationalism, and religious extremism thrives. And we see examples of all three in different parts of the middle east. Demanding that the powerless populations being lorded over by Kings and dictator or murdered by terrorist war lords grab pitch forks and stand against their oppressors is the equivalent of changing nothing and expecting a different result. Blaming religion is also a meaningless exercise as most religions in the world only become more conservative, dogmatic, and extreme when challanged.