World Politics

[VeloCity]

Re: Re:

why france ?

in the anti- isil military 'front' the french have played a truly secondary if not a minor role...

Because France is a western country that allows gay and jewish people to live normal lives, allows little girls to get an education, allows its women to wear what they want, allows free speech, allows people born into "muslim families" to convert to other religions etc.

You are trying to rationalize the behavior of fascistic sociopaths who want to destroy all life and believe they will get rewarded for causing suffering, as some sort of militaristic response to foreign policy.

Why do they behead gay people, stone women for adultery and throw acid at 5 year old girls? Is that a response to western foreign policy too?

There are military operations people that don't like the US take. Going into a hall and massacring everyone within sight then calling it a miracle, is not that.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22356306

It's really those radical Buddhists we really need to keep a closer eye on.

There's no rationalization for terrorism but you can't just gloss over history, either. France did some pretty bad things in Syria, Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, and I have no doubt that France is a preferred target of ISIS in no small part as a means of "avenging" France's past involvement in Syria especially, but also elsewhere in the Arabic world. Historical grievances and simmering resentment and a sense of injustice are powerful things, even generations later, then throw in radicalization as a result of the Iraq war, the Syrian conflict, Chechnya, Palestine, etc, and voila, you have a terrorist raring to go. Terrorism is really just the means for the small and powerless to strike back/gain a measure of revenge against the big and powerful, has little to do with religion - religion just provides a further veneer of rationalization, you're doing god's work so it's ok. The IRA used to invoke that sort of propaganda to recruit people all the time.

Personally I'd be just fine with ridding the planet of all religions, but it wouldn't end terrorism.

 

[phanatic]

Re: Re:

Frankly that particular sickness seems almost exclusively the domain of white males who feel they've been disenfranchised in one way or another.

It only seems that way to people who never remember contradictory evidence.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Re: Re:

What about Geert Wilders

The truth is: islam does not belong to us. Brings violence and danger everywhere. We need to deislamize and close our borders.

As long as our so called leaders Obama, Cameron, Merkel and Rutte deny that islam and terror are the same, we will have terror attacks.

Why am I not surprised?

**** Wilders. I have nothing but the greatest contempt for Islamophobe fascists.

Why isnt there a like button on this forum?

Fanatics are like that moron who spat at Froome at the Tour.

Breivik? Shootings in the US every year on schools?

Education is the key.

Perhaps that was too left wing for here. My apologies.

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

why france ?

in the anti- isil military 'front' the french have played a truly secondary if not a minor role...

Because France is a western country that allows gay and jewish people to live normal lives, allows little girls to get an education, allows its women to wear what they want, allows free speech, allows people born into "muslim families" to convert to other religions etc.

You are trying to rationalize the behavior of fascistic sociopaths who want to destroy all life and believe they will get rewarded for causing suffering, as some sort of militaristic response to foreign policy.

Why do they behead gay people, stone women for adultery and throw acid at 5 year old girls? Is that a response to western foreign policy too?

There are military operations people that don't like the US take. Going into a hall and massacring everyone within sight then calling it a miracle, is not that.

Spot on Hitch.

And as for the generalization that Wilders and Le Pen do, they're not right, but not completely wrong either.

Are there any legit studies about the association between differences between religion and violence/terrorism during the last sayyy 30 years? There's tonnes of claims everywhere, but if you don't do any legit analysis the validity will always be doubtful and you'll never reach the right conclusions. Correlations and associations might be a step too high for the general public and mainstream media though

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

What about Geert Wilders

The truth is: islam does not belong to us. Brings violence and danger everywhere. We need to deislamize and close our borders.

As long as our so called leaders Obama, Cameron, Merkel and Rutte deny that islam and terror are the same, we will have terror attacks.

Why am I not surprised?

**** Wilders. I have nothing but the greatest contempt for Islamophobe fascists.

Why isnt there a like button on this forum?

Fanatics are like that moron who spat at Froome at the Tour.

Breivik? Shootings in the US every year on schools?

Education is the key.

Perhaps that was too left wing for here. My apologies.

Yeah I mean because that "ma-Roone" who spat at Afaroone is pretty much the same as terrorist at a concert.

Has anyone seen if the Methodist are the ones claiming responsibility and victory? Maybe they are celebrating the killings on social media - I have not checked into that yet.

 

[rhubroma]

One thing is for certain, Marie Le Pen has gained another million votes at the voting booths.

Of all the possible "revolutions" one could have hoped for after the Cold War, the recrudesence of fascism, of all sorts, has been the least fortuitous.

This isn't just an issue of religion, but one of arms and neither will ever bring about anything but the disaster we currently live with.

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

why france ?

in the anti- isil military 'front' the french have played a truly secondary if not a minor role...

Because France is a western country that allows gay and jewish people to live normal lives, allows little girls to get an education, allows its women to wear what they want, allows free speech, allows people born into "muslim families" to convert to other religions etc.

You are trying to rationalize the behavior of fascistic sociopaths who want to destroy all life and believe they will get rewarded for causing suffering, as some sort of militaristic response to foreign policy.

Why do they behead gay people, stone women for adultery and throw acid at 5 year old girls? Is that a response to western foreign policy too?

There are military operations people that don't like the US take. Going into a hall and massacring everyone within sight then calling it a miracle, is not that.

Spot on Hitch.

And as for the generalization that Wilders and Le Pen do, they're not right, but not completely wrong either.

Are there any legit studies about the association between differences between religion and violence/terrorism during the last sayyy 30 years? There's tonnes of claims everywhere, but if you don't do any legit analysis the validity will always be doubtful and you'll never reach the right conclusions. Correlations and associations might be a step too high for the general public and mainstream media though

When Le Pen says such Muslims are not being good French citizens, there is nothing to dispute.

The problem is all the rest.

 

[Amsterhammer]

From the always intelligent and rational Andrew Bacevich.

In this conflict, the West generally appears to enjoy the advantage of clear-cut military superiority. By almost any measure, we are stronger than our adversaries. Our arsenals are bigger, our weapons more sophisticated, our generals better educated in the art of war, our fighters better trained at waging it.

Yet most of this has proven to be irrelevant. Time and again the actual employment of that ostensibly superior military might has produced results other than those intended or anticipated. Even where armed intervention has achieved a semblance of tactical success — the ousting of some unsavory dictator, for example — it has yielded neither reconciliation nor willing submission nor even sullen compliance. Instead, intervention typically serves to aggravate, inciting further resistance. Rather than putting out the fires of radicalism, we end up feeding them.

In proposing to pour yet more fuel on that fire, Hollande demonstrates a crippling absence of imagination, one that has characterized recent Western statesmanship more generally when it comes to the Islamic world. There, simply trying harder won’t suffice as a basis of policy.

It’s past time for the West, and above all for the United States as the West’s primary military power, to consider trying something different.

Rather than assuming an offensive posture, the West should revert to a defensive one. Instead of attempting to impose its will on the Greater Middle East, it should erect barriers to protect itself from the violence emanating from that quarter. Such barriers will necessarily be imperfect, but they will produce greater security at a more affordable cost than is gained by engaging in futile, open-ended armed conflicts. Rather than vainly attempting to police or control, this revised strategy should seek to contain.

Such an approach posits that, confronted with the responsibility to do so, the peoples of the Greater Middle East will prove better equipped to solve their problems than are policy makers back in Washington, London, or Paris. It rejects as presumptuous any claim that the West can untangle problems of vast historical and religious complexity to which Western folly contributed. It rests on this core principle: Do no (further) harm.

more here - http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/11/14/paris-attacks-andrew-bacevich-war-west-cannot-win/UVlV0AsL8ddnE8L5gJaTXO/story.html?event=event25

 

[Amsterhammer]

Re:

One thing is for certain, Marie Le Pen has gained another million votes at the voting booths.

Of all the possible "revolutions" one could have hoped for after the Cold War, the recrudesence of fascism, of all sorts, has been the least fortuitous.

This isn't just an issue of religion, but one of arms and neither will ever bring about anything but the disaster we currently live with.

Sad and tragically true words, my friend.

 

[rhubroma]

Re:

From the always intelligent and rational Andrew Bacevich.

In this conflict, the West generally appears to enjoy the advantage of clear-cut military superiority. By almost any measure, we are stronger than our adversaries. Our arsenals are bigger, our weapons more sophisticated, our generals better educated in the art of war, our fighters better trained at waging it.

Yet most of this has proven to be irrelevant. Time and again the actual employment of that ostensibly superior military might has produced results other than those intended or anticipated. Even where armed intervention has achieved a semblance of tactical success — the ousting of some unsavory dictator, for example — it has yielded neither reconciliation nor willing submission nor even sullen compliance. Instead, intervention typically serves to aggravate, inciting further resistance. Rather than putting out the fires of radicalism, we end up feeding them.

In proposing to pour yet more fuel on that fire, Hollande demonstrates a crippling absence of imagination, one that has characterized recent Western statesmanship more generally when it comes to the Islamic world. There, simply trying harder won’t suffice as a basis of policy.

It’s past time for the West, and above all for the United States as the West’s primary military power, to consider trying something different.

Rather than assuming an offensive posture, the West should revert to a defensive one. Instead of attempting to impose its will on the Greater Middle East, it should erect barriers to protect itself from the violence emanating from that quarter. Such barriers will necessarily be imperfect, but they will produce greater security at a more affordable cost than is gained by engaging in futile, open-ended armed conflicts. Rather than vainly attempting to police or control, this revised strategy should seek to contain.

Such an approach posits that, confronted with the responsibility to do so, the peoples of the Greater Middle East will prove better equipped to solve their problems than are policy makers back in Washington, London, or Paris. It rejects as presumptuous any claim that the West can untangle problems of vast historical and religious complexity to which Western folly contributed. It rests on this core principle: Do no (further) harm.

more here - http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/11/14/paris-attacks-andrew-bacevich-war-west-cannot-win/UVlV0AsL8ddnE8L5gJaTXO/story.html?event=event25

The problem is that it's perhaps too late to errect barriers. How do you prevent a French born Muslim from becoming a terrorist? This is the great historical irony the West must face.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

It very well might be. But 9/11 was pre war in Iraq. So some of these mad men are pissed about more than just Iraq. Not saying you are wrong 100%. The Merikah trying to bring our government to the middle east is probably the stupidest idea's ever. As said here by Python - cant go around trying to take out these leaders of the countries.

I think you and I are of like mind on the question of divorcing Islam from this horrific attack but I can't get past your linking 9/11 to Iraq. It had NOTHING to do with Iraq. I know you're not trying to link them in the traditional sense, but we can't really say them in the same sentence given what's happened. This lie we were fed is the genesis of the Iraq war, and the seed of our complicity in all that followed. I cannot let it pass.

It's well past time to stop linking the two events. If nothing else, let's learn that.

But yeah. They've been attacking us since the first Iraq war. One which I supported at the time, but have to wonder now what it was all in aid of.

That said, I do long for a James Baker at this time. He was a force we could use right now.

I understand that. I should not have written those statements the way I did. I KNOW that 9/11 had 0 to do with Iraq. Yes we were fed some lies no doubt. That I also agree on.

I should try to say or wanted to say that 9/11 was done because we had had troops in Saudi or at least that one of the reasons. I believe that Al-queda wanted us to leave the region alone and to stop meddling in the Muslim world.

I was at Desert Shield / Storm and obvious as it is now the reasons were the same - try to prop up Kuwait so the oil would flow. It got us involved in the region in a way as never before. We are collecting the consequences of that now.

True but let's remember that this has been going on for sometime. I was in Paris in September 1986 when Hezbollah bombed a post office killing a person and injuring a bunch more. This animosity predates both Iraq conflicts by quite a while.

 

[python]

...here's something verrry interesting to ponder over - one of the paris terrorists appears to have been registered as a syrian refugee.

that's right. the utmost subconscious fear of many europeans and the scare symbol of the ultra-right anti-immigrant politicians seems to have pan out...

at first, i came across the news via an rss headliner on debkafile. since i take that site with a lot of salt, i continued looking...of all the current main stream sources only the nbcnews seems to offer the following link confirming the suspicion.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-terror-attacks/passport-found-attack-site-came-through-greece-official-says-n463526

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

It very well might be. But 9/11 was pre war in Iraq. So some of these mad men are pissed about more than just Iraq. Not saying you are wrong 100%. The Merikah trying to bring our government to the middle east is probably the stupidest idea's ever. As said here by Python - cant go around trying to take out these leaders of the countries.

I think you and I are of like mind on the question of divorcing Islam from this horrific attack but I can't get past your linking 9/11 to Iraq. It had NOTHING to do with Iraq. I know you're not trying to link them in the traditional sense, but we can't really say them in the same sentence given what's happened. This lie we were fed is the genesis of the Iraq war, and the seed of our complicity in all that followed. I cannot let it pass.

It's well past time to stop linking the two events. If nothing else, let's learn that.

But yeah. They've been attacking us since the first Iraq war. One which I supported at the time, but have to wonder now what it was all in aid of.

That said, I do long for a James Baker at this time. He was a force we could use right now.

I understand that. I should not have written those statements the way I did. I KNOW that 9/11 had 0 to do with Iraq. Yes we were fed some lies no doubt. That I also agree on.

I should try to say or wanted to say that 9/11 was done because we had had troops in Saudi or at least that one of the reasons. I believe that Al-queda wanted us to leave the region alone and to stop meddling in the Muslim world.

I was at Desert Shield / Storm and obvious as it is now the reasons were the same - try to prop up Kuwait so the oil would flow. It got us involved in the region in a way as never before. We are collecting the consequences of that now.

True but let's remember that this has been going on for sometime. I was in Paris in September 1986 when Hezbollah bombed a post office killing a person and injuring a bunch more. This animosity predates both Iraq conflicts by quite a while.

You do realize that today's terrorists don't care about Palestine. That Israel should be a lay state doesn't seem to be much of a problem in the West, though. This is at least ironic.

In the 80's there were more people being killed by black and red terrorism than Islam, probably because we were arming the latter against the Soviets in Afghanistan.

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

why france ?

in the anti- isil military 'front' the french have played a truly secondary if not a minor role...

Because France is a western country that allows gay and jewish people to live normal lives, allows little girls to get an education, allows its women to wear what they want, allows free speech, allows people born into "muslim families" to convert to other religions etc.

You are trying to rationalize the behavior of fascistic sociopaths who want to destroy all life and believe they will get rewarded for causing suffering, as some sort of militaristic response to foreign policy.

Why do they behead gay people, stone women for adultery and throw acid at 5 year old girls? Is that a response to western foreign policy too?

There are military operations people that don't like the US take. Going into a hall and massacring everyone within sight then calling it a miracle, is not that.

Spot on Hitch.

And as for the generalization that Wilders and Le Pen do, they're not right, but not completely wrong either.

Are there any legit studies about the association between differences between religion and violence/terrorism during the last sayyy 30 years? There's tonnes of claims everywhere, but if you don't do any legit analysis the validity will always be doubtful and you'll never reach the right conclusions. Correlations and associations might be a step too high for the general public and mainstream media though

When Le Pen says such Muslims are not being good French citizens, there is nothing to dispute.

The problem is all the rest.

Whoops, didnt mean that one. Was referring to them claiming Islam is a source of terrorism.

 

[VeloCity]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/attacker-tried-to-enter-paris-stadium-but-was-turned-away-1447520571

"One of the suicide attackers at France’s national football stadium, the Stade de France, had a ticket and tried to enter with a match under way, the Wall Street Journal reports. The newspaper spoke to a security guard who said the male attacker was discovered wearing an explosives vest at the entrance where he detonated it."

If true, makes more sense that they were trying to get inside the stadium.

 

[blutto]

Re:

...here's something verrry interesting to ponder over - one of the paris terrorists appears to have been registered as a syrian refugee.

that's right. the utmost subconscious fear of many europeans and the scare symbol of the ultra-right anti-immigrant politicians seems to have pan out...

at first, i came across the news via an rss headliner on debkafile. since i take that site with a lot of salt, i continued looking...of all the current main stream sources only the nbcnews seems to offer the following link confirming the suspicion.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-terror-attacks/passport-found-attack-site-came-through-greece-official-says-n463526

....the following from The Guardian....

""The Guardian"- The holder of a Syrian passport found near the body of one of the gunmen who died in Friday night’s attacks in Paris passed though Greece in October, a Greek minister told Reuters.

....and...

"While this heavily implies that one of the gunman came into Europe along with refugees, Syrian passports are known to be valuable currency amongst those trying to enter Europe, and it is not yet confirmed whether the holder of the passport is indeed the perpetrator."

...but the headline reads....

"Syrian Passport Found on Paris Attacker's Body Belonged To Refugee"

....and that is what seems to be reverberating thruout the echo chamber....

Cheers

 

[gooner]

Re:

One thing is for certain, Marie Le Pen has gained another million votes at the voting booths.

Of all the possible "revolutions" one could have hoped for after the Cold War, the recrudesence of fascism, of all sorts, has been the least fortuitous.

This isn't just an issue of religion, but one of arms and neither will ever bring about anything but the disaster we currently live with.

That's what Tim Marshall says here in his analysis of what may happen in the aftermath.

After Paris the Front Nationale will gain support. This happened in January after the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Marine Le Pen kept quiet then, and still saw support grow. After Paris President Hollande’s popularity will go even lower. He had a slight gain in January, but the public will feel his measures have failed. The attacks come 5 days after France announced the aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle would return to the Gulf to assist in air strikes against IS – France is likely to deepen its military commitment.

After Paris the British government will assess the public and political mood in the UK and judge if they should table a vote on the RAF bombing in Syria as well as Iraq. PM Cameron wants to do this, and would have already held a vote but the maths was against him. If that changes – there will be a vote on standing ‘shoulder to shoulder with our NATO ally France’.

After Paris the battle to keep the UK in the European Union will become more difficult, especially if any of the attackers are found to have arrived in France recently, or have been given asylum. News late on Saturday suggests that the holder of Syrian passport found at scene of one of the attacks passed through the Greek island of Leros on Oct 3 according to a Greek official. The emotion of ‘secure borders’ will vie with the argument about economic logic ahead of the referendum.

After Paris the spirit of Schengen may shrivel and die. It had already taken some hammer blows due to the refugee/migrant crisis. It will become the norm to suspend the agreement.

After Paris Poland has already announced it cannot accept EU quotas for asylum seekers. The PM designate, Beata Szydlo, is linking the attacks to the refugee/migrant crisis. Elsewhere on the international stage Putin will use the atrocity to leverage his argument that ‘we’ are all fighting terror. This will begin at the G20 in Turkey.

After Paris race relations in France, already poor, may worsen. About 8% of the French population are Muslims. This morning Muslims all over Europe woke up and thought ‘Not again’. They know the actions of a few, will be blamed by some, on the many. That is what the terrorists want – division and hatred.

and sadly, there will now be a debate with one faction saying ‘Yes, but, brought on itself, foreign policy, oppression’ etc ad nauseum which knowingly or, (if we are generous) idiot unknowingly, helps the cause of the mass murderers.

http://www.thewhatandthewhy.com/apres-paris/

 

[blutto]

....here is a thought....

"It's not like this is any kind of secret. In 2010, thanks to WikiLeaks, we learned that the State Department, under the direction of then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, knew full well where the money for foreign terrorism came from. It came from countries and not from a faith. It came from sovereign states and not from an organized religion. It came from politicians and dictators, not from clerics, at least not directly. It was paid to maintain a political and social order, not to promulgate a religious revival or to launch a religious war. Religion was the fuel, the ammonium nitrate and the diesel fuel. Authoritarian oligarchy built the bomb. As long as people are dying in Paris, nobody important is dying in Doha or Riyadh.

...

It's time for this to stop. It's time to be pitiless against the bankers and against the people who invest in murder to assure their own survival in power. Assets from these states should be frozen, all over the west. Money trails should be followed, wherever they lead. People should go to jail, in every country in the world. It should be done state-to-state. Stop funding the murder of our citizens and you can have your money back. Maybe. If we're satisfied that you'll stop doing it. And, it goes without saying, but we'll say it anyway – not another bullet will be sold to you, let alone advanced warplanes, until this act gets cleaned up to our satisfaction. If that endangers your political position back home, that's your problem, not ours. You are no longer trusted allies. Complain, and your diplomats will be going home. Complain more loudly, and your diplomats will be investigated and, if necessary, detained. Retaliate, and you do not want to know what will happen, but it will done with cold, reasoned and, yes, pitiless calculation. It will not be a blind punch. You will not see it coming. It will not be an attack on your faith. It will be an attack on how you conduct your business as sovereign states in a world full of sovereign states."

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a39727/paris-attacks-middle-eastern-oligarchies/

....and another...

"By now it's a patently *** argument that "if we don't fight them over there, we'll have to fight
them in our precious Homeland" ... Like this ^ is some kind of sensible solution to end the bloodshed
and violence that threatens to engulf more people every day.

It's not the solution, it's the ******* problem."

....unless of course if you are in the anti-terrorism business...in which case its more like bring it on...

Cheers

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

why france ?

in the anti- isil military 'front' the french have played a truly secondary if not a minor role...

Because France is a western country that allows gay and jewish people to live normal lives, allows little girls to get an education, allows its women to wear what they want, allows free speech, allows people born into "muslim families" to convert to other religions etc.

You are trying to rationalize the behavior of fascistic sociopaths who want to destroy all life and believe they will get rewarded for causing suffering, as some sort of militaristic response to foreign policy.

Why do they behead gay people, stone women for adultery and throw acid at 5 year old girls? Is that a response to western foreign policy too?

There are military operations people that don't like the US take. Going into a hall and massacring everyone within sight then calling it a miracle, is not that.

. Terrorism is really just the means for the small and powerless to strike back/gain a measure of revenge against the big and powerful, has little to do with religion

Perhaps you can explain why they throw acid at little girls or why they targeted Jews in the January attack, or why there is a fatwah on Salman Rushdie.

Is that also because they feel "small and powerless"?

Was Pablo Escobar also oppressed and powerless when he left bombs in the streets. He used the same tactics. Maybe that was a noble fight against the big bad west too?

What about the kkk? Which had pretty much indistinguishable ideology.

I bet you won't you justify their actions in the same way

 

[rhubroma]

Re: Re:

why france ?

in the anti- isil military 'front' the french have played a truly secondary if not a minor role...

Because France is a western country that allows gay and jewish people to live normal lives, allows little girls to get an education, allows its women to wear what they want, allows free speech, allows people born into "muslim families" to convert to other religions etc.

You are trying to rationalize the behavior of fascistic sociopaths who want to destroy all life and believe they will get rewarded for causing suffering, as some sort of militaristic response to foreign policy.

Why do they behead gay people, stone women for adultery and throw acid at 5 year old girls? Is that a response to western foreign policy too?

There are military operations people that don't like the US take. Going into a hall and massacring everyone within sight then calling it a miracle, is not that.

. Terrorism is really just the means for the small and powerless to strike back/gain a measure of revenge against the big and powerful, has little to do with religion

Perhaps you can explain why they throw acid at little girls or why they targeted Jews in the January attack, or why there is a fatwah on Salman Rushdie.

Is that also because they feel "small and powerless"?

Was Pablo Escobar also oppressed and powerless when he left bombs in the streets. He used the same tactics. Maybe that was a noble fight against the big bad west too?

What about the kkk? Which had pretty much indistinguishable ideology.

I bet you won't you justify their actions in the same way

Nobody denies that Islam has major issues, which it does. If you read Velo's posts again he did also make it clear that if he had the chance he'd ban all religion.

It's difficult to blame Islam, though, for Bush's private war against Saddam (and the 100,000+ Muslims killed in it that the Western media couldn't have cared less about at the time), or Israel's illegal occupation of Muslim land, or the West's cynical post-colonial use-and-abuse game of regime change in the Mideast.

These, in part, though, go far in explaining why otherwise useless idiots would take access to an equally idiotic religious doctrine to become the useful assassins of someone's vendetta against the West.

The only result of all of all of this will be the further radicalization of both sides, which isn't surprising. Netanyahu, for instance, will be viewed with greater simpathy and Israel's way of dealing with the Palestinians will be seen with much greater comprehension in Europe. Europe thus risks becoming a similar battle gound of mutal hate and disgust.

 

[VeloCity]

Re: Re:

why france ?

in the anti- isil military 'front' the french have played a truly secondary if not a minor role...

Because France is a western country that allows gay and jewish people to live normal lives, allows little girls to get an education, allows its women to wear what they want, allows free speech, allows people born into "muslim families" to convert to other religions etc.

You are trying to rationalize the behavior of fascistic sociopaths who want to destroy all life and believe they will get rewarded for causing suffering, as some sort of militaristic response to foreign policy.

Why do they behead gay people, stone women for adultery and throw acid at 5 year old girls? Is that a response to western foreign policy too?

There are military operations people that don't like the US take. Going into a hall and massacring everyone within sight then calling it a miracle, is not that.

. Terrorism is really just the means for the small and powerless to strike back/gain a measure of revenge against the big and powerful, has little to do with religion

Perhaps you can explain why they throw acid at little girls or why they targeted Jews in the January attack, or why there is a fatwah on Salman Rushdie.

Is that also because they feel "small and powerless"?

Was Pablo Escobar also oppressed and powerless when he left bombs in the streets. He used the same tactics. Maybe that was a noble fight against the big bad west too?

What about the kkk? Which had pretty much indistinguishable ideology.

I bet you won't you justify their actions in the same way

um, the question was "why France?", dude. That's why France. Ignoring history and historical context is as dumb as claiming its motivated solely by religion.

The rest of your post is just kind of bizarre.

 

[the delgados]

Re: Re:

...here's something verrry interesting to ponder over - one of the paris terrorists appears to have been registered as a syrian refugee.

that's right. the utmost subconscious fear of many europeans and the scare symbol of the ultra-right anti-immigrant politicians seems to have pan out...

at first, i came across the news via an rss headliner on debkafile. since i take that site with a lot of salt, i continued looking...of all the current main stream sources only the nbcnews seems to offer the following link confirming the suspicion.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-terror-attacks/passport-found-attack-site-came-through-greece-official-says-n463526

....the following from The Guardian....

""The Guardian"- The holder of a Syrian passport found near the body of one of the gunmen who died in Friday night’s attacks in Paris passed though Greece in October, a Greek minister told Reuters.

....and...

"While this heavily implies that one of the gunman came into Europe along with refugees, Syrian passports are known to be valuable currency amongst those trying to enter Europe, and it is not yet confirmed whether the holder of the passport is indeed the perpetrator."

...but the headline reads....

"Syrian Passport Found on Paris Attacker's Body Belonged To Refugee"

....and that is what seems to be reverberating thruout the echo chamber....

Cheers

Reminds me of 9/11, when the media reported as fact that the passport of one of the hi-jackers was found amongst the wreckage.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

why france ?

in the anti- isil military 'front' the french have played a truly secondary if not a minor role...

Because France is a western country that allows gay and jewish people to live normal lives, allows little girls to get an education, allows its women to wear what they want, allows free speech, allows people born into "muslim families" to convert to other religions etc.

You are trying to rationalize the behavior of fascistic sociopaths who want to destroy all life and believe they will get rewarded for causing suffering, as some sort of militaristic response to foreign policy.

Why do they behead gay people, stone women for adultery and throw acid at 5 year old girls? Is that a response to western foreign policy too?

There are military operations people that don't like the US take. Going into a hall and massacring everyone within sight then calling it a miracle, is not that.

. Terrorism is really just the means for the small and powerless to strike back/gain a measure of revenge against the big and powerful, has little to do with religion

Perhaps you can explain why they throw acid at little girls or why they targeted Jews in the January attack, or why there is a fatwah on Salman Rushdie.

Is that also because they feel "small and powerless"?

Was Pablo Escobar also oppressed and powerless when he left bombs in the streets. He used the same tactics. Maybe that was a noble fight against the big bad west too?

What about the kkk? Which had pretty much indistinguishable ideology.

I bet you won't you justify their actions in the same way

um, the question was "why France?", dude. That's why France. Ignoring history and historical context is as dumb as claiming its motivated solely by religion.

The rest of your post is just kind of bizarre.

That's a weak and desperate attempt to run away from a discussion you are scared of.

You said

Terrorism is really just the means for the small and powerless to strike back/gain a measure of revenge against the big and powerful, has little to do with religion

Which I'd a bunch of terrorist apologist nonesense as any brief examination into the history of terror and violence or into the minds of these unstable sociopaths, will show.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re: Re:

...here's something verrry interesting to ponder over - one of the paris terrorists appears to have been registered as a syrian refugee.

that's right. the utmost subconscious fear of many europeans and the scare symbol of the ultra-right anti-immigrant politicians seems to have pan out...

at first, i came across the news via an rss headliner on debkafile. since i take that site with a lot of salt, i continued looking...of all the current main stream sources only the nbcnews seems to offer the following link confirming the suspicion.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/paris-terror-attacks/passport-found-attack-site-came-through-greece-official-says-n463526

....the following from The Guardian....

""The Guardian"- The holder of a Syrian passport found near the body of one of the gunmen who died in Friday night’s attacks in Paris passed though Greece in October, a Greek minister told Reuters.

....and...

"While this heavily implies that one of the gunman came into Europe along with refugees, Syrian passports are known to be valuable currency amongst those trying to enter Europe, and it is not yet confirmed whether the holder of the passport is indeed the perpetrator."

...but the headline reads....

"Syrian Passport Found on Paris Attacker's Body Belonged To Refugee"

....and that is what seems to be reverberating thruout the echo chamber....

Cheers

Reminds me of 9/11, when the media reported as fact that the passport of one of the hi-jackers was found amongst the wreckage.

Do you think none of the 'refugees' are ISIS members who see a way to get into Europe? Even at .1 of 1%, it is 500 or so people. How many carried out the attack in Paris? How many in Bagdad or Lebanon?

They can come into Europe, disappear only to re-emerge with explosives around their waist and an AK-47 in their hands. Anybody who thinks none of these 'refugees' are ISIS is kidding themselves. Anybody who thinks there aren't already ISIS sleeper cells in Europe right now, even before the refugee crisis, is kidding themselves.

Until it is recognized for what it is, essentially an invasion, this will happen again..

 

[blutto]

....kinda ironic that France who supplied the rebels in Syria with weapons and cut large deals for weapons with the rebel's sponsors would have had to suffer those horrific attacks....

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43419.htm

....and a look ( all-be-it well off the MSN path ) at the "intel failure" that BK alluded to up thread....

http://www.activistpost.com/2015/11/confirmed-french-government-knew-extremists-before-attack.html

Cheers

....