Paris

[glorygloryeze]

does that matter, in a major european city, this sort of activity should have been curtailed well before the events that did occur, the french don't have the best reputation as being the most resilient, law enforcing nation, this is just a couple of months after the hobo incident, the french authorities need to have a good look at their operational structure

If the terrorists were walking around with their weapons in full of the public you would have a point. The fact is Terrorists make a point to go totally under the radar (well as much as possible) before they strike....sometimes the best surveillance and intelligence in the world cannot stop a terrorist act (see 7/7, 9/11, Boston etc)

 

[monkeybarry]

can u name examples of terrorists roaming around US cities with bags of weapons seeking to exert terrorism on the native population, i can't think of any.

The majority of college campus and cinema shootings over the past couple of years - sadly, quite a number and not even US intelligence could pick up on all of them

 

[milo]

does that matter, in a major european city, this sort of activity should have been curtailed well before the events that did occur, the french don't have the best reputation as being the most resilient, law enforcing nation, this is just a couple of months after the hobo incident, the french authorities need to have a good look at their operational structure

The French intelligence services are pretty highly respected.

The problem that you have is that even if you pick up chatter, you have to know what is going to happen and who is going to do it. For groups that plan and carry out attacks on their own, that is very difficult.

 

[braineclipse]

Just a general reply to those that say muslims should be doing more... @StephenH @monkeybarry @braineclipse

I would ask what more? Im not saying muslims shouldnt do more im asking what more should they do because:

They have protested Isis
They offer intelligence to the police about potential radicals* (more on this later)
They have quoted scriptures that plainly show that isis is distorting their religion
They get on social media to condemn the attacks
They get on national media (when they have the chance) and condemn the attacks
They offer condolences to victims
They are on the ground fighting isis now!
They are being murdered by isis in their tens of thousands.
Jordon, Saudi, Turkey, Quatar Egypt and others have been involved in anti ISIS airstrikes

So ideas please about what they should do that they are not doing now.

* my friend, an english guy blue eyes blond hair, a posh accent used to work for the police intelligence (kind of) he used to get intelligence from in and arounds mosques about potential radicalisation. When he told me what he used to do, i asked him half joking "what did you do grow a beard and pretend to be a convert" his answer was 'dont be a d##k, they knew who i was and what i was there to do and wanted to help when they could"

Where do you think that most of the intelligence to prevent attacks comes from its not james bond doing it. Its from within the muslim community its self.

Did you notice the point where I explicitly said to Luton: "I don't think it's your responsibility to stop them any more than any other individual... It's a global problem at this time."?

Offend the extremists all you want, hell i will join in with you. What im saying is dont offend those that are not extreme and give the extremists more ammunition to recruit with.

In terms of costs and benifits... we identified potential costs here (increasing the ability of the extremists to recruit) but i fail to see the tangible benifits of what you propose... so enlighten me please.

One of the videos released yesterday(?) described the concert hall event as sinfull/prostitution/something or another. I'm guessing I should stop going to concerts too then? I mean it's getting twisted and used as ammunition by extremists to recruit?

Extremists will find something to insulted by regardless of what their enemies say and do. Adjusting to what they feel insulted by is not how I'm going to live my life. Will I have to spell out the benefits of that approach?

People need to be exposed to contrary beliefs. Humor and satire while very offensive to some can be a very effective way of communicating ideas.

How exactly do you join me in offending the extremists without it being something the exremists can then twist and use to their benefit when convincing those that are close to them in opinion to get even closer? Do you really think you're able to walk that line? You must think highly of yourself if you do.

A lot of harm is happening because some people believe that if their religious beliefs are offended some great injustice has happened. The way out of this is not to try to never offend people that will find ways to get offended regardless.

 

[scaramanga]

...interesting isn't it...and people ask 'why don't moderate Muslims take more action'....well with this "casualties in the West are more valuable" consciousness is it any wonder?

The lives of my family are worth more than that of my neighbour. I would be more concerned about this happening to my neighbour than on the other side of the city. I'd be more concerned if it happened to my city than to Rotherham (no offence to those in Rotherham but I think bombs would improve the place).

The difference is twofold. Firstly, I've spent a lot of time in places like Paris and London and will again . Threats to those places are very real and relevant to me and my family/friends. I'm not going to Beirut any time soon and neither is anyone whose safety I consider a priority to me.

Secondly, ISIS and many other far more moderate Muslims (especially all the "Blair is a war criminal....illegal war....oil conspiracy" halfwits) have defined their borders on religious grounds, not by the real borders that people without imaginary friends recognise. So when these things occur in countries or cities that many in the West (rightly or wrongly) consider to be majority Muslim countries and cities, it's more of a civil war atrocity than one that crosses borders. History will tell you that people are always less concerned about far flung civil wars than they are about what they consider to be cross-border wars.

Obviously only the first applies to me because I don't recognise any religion as anything other than gullible people being conned out of their lives, morals and money.

 

[braineclipse]

Agree money helps. But we need some strong case studies on people who have joint ISIS. Returning Jihadists who are caught need to be studied and then we need to understand their motivations and influences so we can try and root those out in the community.

The prevent system is what the govt has come up with. It's crap but it's premise is ok.

I agree about case studies and research. Not enough is known about how these people are drawn into extremism.

How can you have a ground war against a belief? This extreme form of Islam is not unique to Syria.

If we drove them out of Iraq and Syria, they would just pop up in the next failing state in the Middle East or north Africa.

If we defeat ISIS miliatarily then the likelihood is that it will splinter and form a new group, in the same way that al qaeda became ISIS.

That is not to say that part of the solution should not involve military action, just that it is naïve to believe that it could succeed on its own.

I think continued military success for IS would be a really bad thing. Is there a way of stopping that without something that can be described as a war?

Agreed sadly. This is the problem that poverty creates. Combine it with rampant ignorance and very very loud voices in your ear and on your door, telling you what 'they' aren't doing for you and saying what can be done for you in exchange for support (and, BTW, if you say no you will be treated as 'the enemy' so you have no choice) and it is a hydra which is spreading wildly out of control.

I think the evidence quite clearly points towards poverty being just one of many factors. Isn't it one of the rather baffling things about the situation how people who are not poor, who have the options of comfortable quiet lives choose to go down the extremist path? Not only for Muslim extremists by the way.

Agreed 1000%!!!!!
The biggest issue of all.
Moderate Muslims have been dragged into a battle, and it is a hard one. On the one hand, the west has swathes of idiots who call them 'all terrorists' thus they feel shamed. On the other, the extremists threaten them. We HAVE to help moderates win the fight. And that means NOT collapsing to 'divide and conquer'...it is the only way we can stop the hydra growing, otherwise more will be lost. I actually find religion generally a hopeless thing, but accept that for many it offers comfort and security. Fine if it doesn't hurt people. I think the time has sadly come for Muslims to defend their faith against not just ignorant non-muslims, but ignorant, vile and disgusting extremists, who are hijacking their belief system and twisting it. We are beyond 'they shouldn't have to'...it is our only hope of stopping this IMO.

I have to say I see moderate religion as little more than a stepping stone towards a better solution. Though I obviously agree that calling all Muslims terrorists is about as dumb as dumb can get.

Claims about it not hurting people is part of why I think moderate religion is part of the problem here. It doesn't hurt anyone as long as the people stay moderate. But we have moderate religious people indoctrinating children into the belief that faith is a good thing and that ancient texts are holy and passed to us by a deity. And those texts contain passages that encourage extreme violence, even if there's disagreement about the overall message of these long and complicated texts. Tell enough people this and some of them will actually read the texts and some of them will come to very uncomfortable conclusions. That leads to a whole host of other problems, including, but far from limited to, extremism and violence.

There seems to be a pretty solid inverse correlation between religiosity and a lot of factors I think we agree on as positive. Including education, if you see education as a way out of poverty religion seems to hinder that progress. Another way out of poverty seems to be the empowerement of women, again religion seems to be at the very least a solid stumbling block towards gender equality in many of the areas of the world that need it the most.

I'm not sure if you see these views as "collapsing to divide and conquer". But to me the underlying problems with religion stretch way beyond extremist violence. And trying to "solve" the extremist violence problem without looking at underlying issues quickly becomes futile imo.

 

[braineclipse]

What I am saying is that breaking up countries to move back to historic borders can also create problems. Turkey would be against the creation of a Kurdish state because it would increase pressure for the independence of the Kurdish areas of Turkey. I am not against a Kurdish state but creating problems for our allies in the region would not be without consequences.

The unfortunate thing looking at history is that the way the current borders that can be described as "stable" became that way is through years and years of conflict, war and death.

No doubt in hindsight having colonial powers draw lines on a map to make up countries was a bad idea. Probably even at the time it was obvious to some it was a bad idea.

Are there easy ways to fix the problems that arose as a result? Are there ways to bypass the years and years of war and violence (and genocide) over power and resources before an equilibrium was found that we've seen where borders are now generally accepted and respected?

This is kind of what i was trying to explain to @braineclipse

I've said in the past that Islam hurts Muslims more than anyone else. I think that continues to be true.

The lives of my family are worth more than that of my neighbour. I would be more concerned about this happening to my neighbour than on the other side of the city. I'd be more concerned if it happened to my city than to Rotherham (no offence to those in Rotherham but I think bombs would improve the place).

The difference is twofold. Firstly, I've spent a lot of time in places like Paris and London and will again . Threats to those places are very real and relevant to me and my family/friends. I'm not going to Beirut any time soon and neither is anyone whose safety I consider a priority to me.

Secondly, ISIS and many other far more moderate Muslims (especially all the "Blair is a war criminal....illegal war....oil conspiracy" halfwits) have defined their borders on religious grounds, not by the real borders that people without imaginary friends recognise. So when these things occur in countries or cities that many in the West (rightly or wrongly) consider to be majority Muslim countries and cities, it's more of a civil war atrocity than one that crosses borders. History will tell you that people are always less concerned about far flung civil wars than they are about what they consider to be cross-border wars.

Obviously only the first applies to me because I don't recognise any religion as anything other than gullible people being conned out of their lives, morals and money.

Yeah. It's asking a lot to ask people to stop caring more about those close to them than those far away. It's one of the most basic human behaviours (in the wide sense of the word) around. If that's what's needed for peace and solidarity I really think peace and solidarity has very little hope.

It's not only the "in-group identification" that sparks a reaction though...

I honestly think rationality, peace and democracy has a chance of spreading, and as it does so the world can become a better place for more people. But unfortunately history also tells us that dogma, war and autocracy spreads. If the world is to move in a better direction I do feel that the maintained health of strong democracies like France is vital. At the risk of going all Bush and claiming that they hate us for our democracy, it's part of what's being attacked here. A reaction to that attack is not only expected, it's necessary.

France was one of the key centres of the enlightenment. One of the more uplifting and important periods of human history in my opinion (of course no one can argue that there weren't downsides). The enlightenment ideals have immense value, and France is not only symbolic in the protection of those ideals. Though it's also symbolic.

 

[braineclipse]

The French intelligence services are pretty highly respected.

The problem that you have is that even if you pick up chatter, you have to know what is going to happen and who is going to do it. For groups that plan and carry out attacks on their own, that is very difficult.

Also been pointed out on the news (in Norway anyway) some of the many factors that leads to France having a rather large population of people that the intelligence service would have to keep an eye on to prevent stuff like this from happening.

It might be degrees on incompetence, but I really don't thinkt there's any way of knowing that from the outside. All we know is that attacks have happened, and from where I'm sitting they seem inevitable.

 

[milo]

The unfortunate thing looking at history is that the way the current borders that can be described as "stable" became that way is through years and years of conflict, war and death.

No doubt in hindsight having colonial powers draw lines on a map to make up countries was a bad idea. Probably even at the time it was obvious to some it was a bad idea.

Are there easy ways to fix the problems that arose as a result? Are there ways to bypass the years and years of war and violence (and genocide) over power and resources before an equilibrium was found that we've seen where borders are now generally accepted and respected?

Indeed. Most of these borders were set up in the 1920's after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, mainly I believe, by the French and British.

 

[braineclipse]

Indeed. Most of these borders were set up in the 1920's after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, mainly I believe, by the French and British.

True. At the same time it shouldn't be forgotten that when an empire like the Ottoman falls the result is likely going to be chaotic regardless of who gets involved. Though it's easy to imagine 100 years would have brought us closer to a useful long term solution had the colonial powers not done what they did there's really no way of actually knowing. Problems didn't "start" with the border lines being drawn, it's just one of many factors.

 

[DTA]

One of the videos released yesterday(?) described the concert hall event as sinfull/prostitution/something or another. I'm guessing I should stop going to concerts too then? I mean it's getting twisted and used as ammunition by extremists to recruit?

Extremists will find something to insulted by regardless of what their enemies say and do. Adjusting to what they feel insulted by is not how I'm going to live my life. Will I have to spell out the benefits of that approach?

The extremist will find something to be offended by you are right, but that would a sh#t recruiting tool (which will hardly ever work) but you insulting their prophet.... well that is a very effective recruitment tool.... i dont how to break it down any simpilar.

You make adjustmenst every day by the way. You have the right to randomly call the next woman you see an 'ugly bint' but you probably wont. You have the right to go to a funeral and insult the person that died but again you almost certainly wont.... basically you have the right to be a di#k but it seems you (not you personnaly)only seem it necessary to exercise that right when it comes to religion.... i dont like being a d#ck so i will refrain from offending anyone unless they offend me personally

 

[StephenH]

The extremist will find something to be offended by you are right, but that would a sh#t recruiting tool (which will hardly ever work) but you insulting their prophet.... well that is a very effective recruitment tool.... i dont how to break it down any simpilar

Don't make excuses for them
People insult prophets,religions, countries and many more things in this world. It is not an excuse to commit murder?

Isis is nothing more than a cult. Unfortunately they have harnessed the Internet to attract the young disinfranchised under the banner of (faith) Islam in this case. There have been many others in the past - it's a sham.

 

[DTA]

How exactly do you join me in offending the extremists without it being something the exremists can then twist and use to their benefit when convincing those that are close to them in opinion to get even closer? Do you really think you're able to walk that line? You must think highly of yourself if you do.

Is it really that difficult, how much thought have you put into it?

An example straight off the top of my head if you like cartoon satire, is el bagdadi (or whatever their leader is called) standing giving a sermon (you see this drawn from the behind him elevated and to the left) he says "...and thats what it says in the koran" but when you look at the koran on the lecturn he is using, you see that he has actually got a beano inside it.

Ok im not going to give up my day job, but the fact is that the example i gave would insult Isis belittle them, but would have all the moderates onside.they wouldn't want show it or use it as any kind of tool because it fundamentally exposes their weekness.

 

[DTA]

Don't make excuses for them
People insult prophets,religions, countries and many more things in this world. It is not an excuse to commit murder?

Isis is nothing more than a cult. Unfortunately they have harnessed the Internet to attract the young disinfranchised under the banner of (faith) Islam in this case. There have been many others in the past - it's a sham.

Read what i wrote again. I make no excuses for them at all, they are scum. Im saying there is no benifit from insulting a faith, this will give them more ammunition to recruit.... create more division, make the moderates feel even more isolated and ultimately make things worse @braineclipse on the other hand thinks its a good idea to insult, belittle and degrade.

 

[Baleforce]

how do the moderates react to things like that, I genuinely don't know, I assume that when that Danish magazine published its pictures it was only the militants that demonstrated against it?

 

[Baleforce]

Read what i wrote again. I make no excuses for them at all, they are scum. Im saying there is no benifit from insulting a faith, this will give them more ammunition to recruit.... create more division, make the moderates feel even more isolated and ultimately make things worse @braineclipse on the other hand thinks its a good idea to insult, belittle and degrade.

it's always a good idea to insult belittle and degrade everything, that's how things remain grounded, everything should be challenged and treated for what it is, not what others believe it to be, be that an ancient abrahamic religion or your kids art project

 

[StephenH]

Read what i wrote again. I make no excuses for them at all, they are scum. Im saying there is no benifit from insulting a faith, this will give them more ammunition to recruit.... create more division, make the moderates feel even more isolated and ultimately make things worse @braineclipse on the other hand thinks its a good idea to insult, belittle and degrade.

We must not fall into this trap of trying to appeasing terrorism by minding what we say or write. I may not agree with what many say about many things in this world, but I will defend their right to say it. In saying we are acting as a recruiting tool for Isis because we mock their prophet is shifting the blame on to the wrong people.
People should not mock, but they do. People should not murder, but they do. Two wrongs and all that.
Islam must get more tolerant and modernise, but that can be said about most religions.
I would not take the rise out of peoples religion, but I loathe all mainstream religions and little to do with them or their followers.

 

[braineclipse]

The extremist will find something to be offended by you are right, but that would a sh#t recruiting tool (which will hardly ever work) but you insulting their prophet.... well that is a very effective recruitment tool.... i dont how to break it down any simpilar.

You make adjustmenst every day by the way. You have the right to randomly call the next woman you see an 'ugly bint' but you probably wont. You have the right to go to a funeral and insult the person that died but again you almost certainly wont.... basically you have the right to be a di#k but it seems you (not you personnaly)only seem it necessary to exercise that right when it comes to religion.... i dont like being a d#ck so i will refrain from offending anyone unless they offend me personally

You really do like making definitive statements about what does and doesn't work when extremists are recruiting?

You're not as good at avoiding offense as you think you are. I usually don't lower myself to this, but since you seem unaware - comparing what I'm saying to going to a funeral to insult the person that died is offensive. Doesn't make it wrong of course, just thought you should know in case you care as much about avoiding offense as you claim. I don't know if you've noticed, but whenever I see reports about funerals not being respected it seems to be the religious causing offense and violence, you don't really see that from atheists.

You're arguing against a straw man. I'm not saying going around being a dingdonghead and offensive to all religious people I meet is a good idea. I don't know where you're getting this stuff from, but I don't think it's my actual posts.

I'm not sure quite how offensive you find me? If it's not abundantly clear that I'm talking about selectively aiming offense, contempt and ridicule at parts of religions, religious ideas, some religious leaders and some of it's more absurd followers I think the error is in your interpretation of what I'm writing.

Is it really that difficult, how much thought have you put into it?

An example straight off the top of my head if you like cartoon satire, is el bagdadi (or whatever their leader is called) standing giving a sermon (you see this drawn from the behind him elevated and to the left) he says "...and thats what it says in the koran" but when you look at the koran on the lecturn he is using, you see that he has actually got a beano inside it.

Ok im not going to give up my day job, but the fact is that the example i gave would insult Isis belittle them, but would have all the moderates onside.they wouldn't want show it or use it as any kind of tool because it fundamentally exposes their weekness.

I've put considerable thought into this.

Just to be clear, what you're advocating is not saying anything that could potentially offend people that are in the target group for extremist recruitment?

Do you think a similar approach is warranted for those who potentially could be recruited into violent groups not connected to Islam? Am I supposed to stay away from offending neo-nazis, other right wing extremists, left wing extremists etc for the fear of tipping them over the edge to violence as well? How about the violent biggots that respond to violence against innocent Muslims after a situation like this? Am I supposed to stay away from offending them?

 

[scaramanga]

You make adjustmenst every day by the way. You have the right to randomly call the next woman you see an 'ugly bint' but you probably wont. You have the right to go to a funeral and insult the person that died but again you almost certainly wont.... basically you have the right to be a di#k but it seems you (not you personnaly)only seem it necessary to exercise that right when it comes to religion.... i dont like being a d#ck so i will refrain from offending anyone unless they offend me personally

That's not how the right to ridicule and insult works.

The ugly woman and the dead person aren't that way by choice, so there's no right to ridicule. That's why race, gender, sexuality, etc are out of bounds.

People who choose to believe something ridiculous have chosen to act like cretins, that's why they're open to ridicule.

 

[DTA]

We must not fall into this trap of trying to appeasing terrorism by minding what we say or write. I may not agree with what many say about many things in this world, but I will defend their right to say it. In saying we are acting as a recruiting tool for Isis because we mock their prophet is shifting the blame on to the wrong people.
People should not mock, but they do. People should not murder, but they do. Two wrongs and all that.
Islam must get more tolerant and modernise, but that can be said about most religions.
I would not take the rise out of peoples religion, but I loathe all mainstream religions and little to do with them or their followers.

No one is saying that it justifies anything at all. Im saying its not a great idea to give them more ammunition (to recruit).