At least 43 dead in multiple coordinated attacks. Pres. Hollande closes borders. No one in or out. (CNN report)

Views: 752

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Unseen- So I take it you have no problem with what ISIS did in Paris on Friday and don't think they should be punished for what they did? Afterall you can't prove that the alternative to them murdering over a hundred people would have been any better...... Hell using your logic do you think it is possible ISIS are heroes for what they did as you can't prove that the alternative to what they did would not have been 10x worse?

Are you starting to see the problem I have with your so called fallacy that seems to exist nowhere else except for within your own head? Namely that it can be used to excuse any atrocity what so ever , including terrorism, murder and genocide , because it is impossible to prove the alternative was any better.

It'd be difficult to make that case Rocky...because the UN Security Council bought into it as well.

Besides which, Iraq had broken the treaties that had ended the prior war (WMD or not); at which point the US did not even need permission to attack, and the WMD issue simply did not matter.

I'm saddened by the backlash against the refugees from this region. These terrorists are who the refugees are fleeing from. I'd flee too.


1) At least one attacker may be a Syrian refugee. "The holder of the passport passed through the island of Leros on Oct. 3, 2015, where he was identified according to EU rules," said Greece's deputy minister in charge of police, Nikos Toskas, in a statement.

2) US presidential candidate Ted Cruz wants to bomb them back to the S... "We must immediately recognize that our enemy is not ‘violent extremism.’ It is the radical Islamism that has declared jihad against the west. It will not be appeased by outreach or declarations of tolerance. It will not be deterred by targeted airstrikes with zero tolerance for civilian casualties, when the terrorists have such utter disregard for innocent life."

Just heard that France has bombed Raqqa, the ISIS stronghold in Syria. No more details yet.

Experts were discussing the difference between Europe's Muslims and North America's Muslims on CNN this morning trying to understand why European Muslims, especially young men, are so hostile to life in Europe.

It turns out that Europe is more oppressive than North America (which means the US and Canada because Mexico harbors almost no Muslims). For example, France has been very hard on Muslim headgear. Perhaps the banning of the full face covering is understandable to almost anyone, but to ban even wearing a head scarf in some situations? 

Worse than that, unemployment among Muslim men is higher than the general population in Europe whereas in the US the unemployment rate for young men is about the same as for the general public (though there are more Muslim men seeking employment than the percentage in the general population). 

There is also the proximity of Europe to the Middle East along with the idea that perhaps Europe has been accepting a different demographic than the demographic of North American Muslims, who are presumably better educated and thus on the whole more cosmopolitan. They also tend to mix more with the general population in North America rather than living in Muslim enclaves (ghettos?). 

As an aside, Hindus are the demographic with the highest income in the US.

Demographics of Muslim-Americans.

Tactics change.  If the passport found WASN'T a plant, they might BE using the refugee route to get terrorists in.

Of course, as the overall objective is to start a war, Islam (their version) vs the rest of the world, just far enough to "rally the faithful" the concept to try to fan any flames possible woul be tempting, and, expected.

Infiltrate the trainees, so inside jobs mean the trainers treat everyone with less respect/trust, and sow bad feelings...and the us vs them mentality....etc.

MAKE the rest of the world start to treat ALL muslims as terrorists, and, the ostracizing and predudice will erode normally accepted people's feeling's of belonging...and make them "accept that they will never be accepted".

The muslims who are now against the terrorists and hijacking of Islam, will find that overtime, everyone treats them as thought they were terrorists..and they gradually stop fighting it.

They start to get a little rush when the terrorists score, as it makes them feel better about the way they were treated at work or school, etc.

And good people are thrown to the wolves....and we make the pack stronger.

It is SO hard for many to separate extremists from the rest...many can't even tell you the difference between sunni and sheite or ISIS, etc...they're all sand n to difference.

Many say, just nuke the sandbox and be done with it.

Its frighteningly over simplified to a deadly and damaging predudice.

So, no organized religion is a good idea, but organized religions with armies and propaganda departments and suicide volunteers, are even worse IMHO.

I just don't think innocent people need to be murdered because a bunch of ignorant rednecks can't tell them from the bad guys.  They typically figure they'll kill them all, and let god sort it they are not really humans to them.

The problem is that Muslims all read from the same hymn sheet - the koran. Islam itself is the root problem and unless it's reformed, these kinds of attacks will continue. There was a good quote that went something like "if you think your religion's fundamentalists are a problem, maybe the problem is the fundamentals of your religion". 

No, its the interpretations, as always, not the books themselves.

Not all muslims read the koran, and strap bombs to themselves and their children...only a teeny minority do.

Most can't even read, its read to them, and, then, they are told what it means.

So, while the koran and other bibles are all rediculous works of fiction...its what the reader takes from it that's the primary problem.

MOST take from it about what most christians get from their bible...and some radicals, just as with some christian radicals do, read it and see political impetus/violence and a call to arms.

Add the illiteracy rates and overall skewed view of the world held by your average middle eastern dwelling citizen of concern, and you have a combination of intelligent opportunists and easily mislead followers.

High Schoolers in Muslim countries are tought in school that, for example, the Jews killed millions of innocent germans in WWII, caused the black plaugue, and so forth.  Christians had the crusades, and, in the US for example, most people are of the impresison that the crusades were 1) The right thing to do  and 2) So long ago, no one cares

In the middle east, its a big deal...and, getting even for it is STILL a driving ideological principle.

ALL religions are fundimentally flawed, in that they are wrong about everything to do with how the world works and how we came to be, etc.  ALL are interpreted by the followers, and, that's where the problems for OTHER religions/lack thereof, commence.

The extermination of religion is not practical.  Too many would be 1) Unable to grasp why its a great idea 2) Conditioned to fight to the death in its name

Suppression of extremism IS more practical.  Religious people are fear driven.  Threats are more threatening, etc.  If they think they are dying for a cause...and getting somewhere better, its less threatening to blow themselves up than to allow the belief that they will not "die" to be threatened.

The wedge to drive in, must make it more threatening to be a terrorist than to not be one.

That's the practical solution.

The people who are against the violence would need to threaten those practicing it enough to have them afraid to practice it.

Unfortunetely, the two groups are in the wrong roles, and the terrorists are Taylor Made for threatening others into what THEY consider proper behaviour...and everyone else sucks at it in comparison.

So those who are more secular need to rise up en masse and actively eradicate those who would impose violence on society via fundimentalism.

This WOULD become the religious war that the bad guys WANT though.  If you are a muslim, it would be harder to fight other muslims...especially as the non-muslims ostracized you and acted as though you were already ON the otherside anyway.

It would take charactoristics the non-religious are ill equipped for, historically.  

"The pen is mightier than the sword" has a context, and its NOT in a one on one fight to the death.

You cannot reason with a zealot.  You'd have to kill or imprison them to stop their threat to humanity.

That's a lot of work, and, the side that is most vested in the outcome tends to win.

In the US, the threat is distal not proximal in most people's experience.  The enemy is a vaugue concept, not a wolf at the door...your specific door.

So, if everyone opposed to terrorism were to simply gather up and go after the terrorists, a week or so would be all it takes to end the problem.

That will not happen though.  

The same way a guy with 6 bullets can hold a mob of hundreds at bay, because no one wants one of those first 6 bullets in THEM...terrorists can control large populations becasue they ARE ruthless, and the populace knows it...and no one want to be a victim of it.

IE: The first 6 would need to be willing to die for the cause.

Not all muslims read the koran, and strap bombs to themselves and their children...only a teeny minority do.

Someone pointed out once that, as with Christians, the relatively harmless ones are the ones who aren't particularly familiar with their holy book. The radical ones can all quote chapter and verse. What does that say about The Holy Bible and Q'Ran?

Not in my experience at least.

The ability to quote passages is typically limited to those passages that support their worldview...and the ardent theists who I might debate with tend to not know what their bibles actually say, just what they were told they say.

And, yes, they are all full of bronze age BS....but that's another issue.

Its alot like Nostradamous's predictions.  People read them, and then say what they mean or even more typically, meant using 20/20 hindsight adjusted to maximize confirmation bias.

Two people can read the same passage, and come away with differing interpretations.

When only ONE of them can read, he can tell 1,000 others what it says.

If the one is the local Imam, well, as far as the listeners know, that's what the koran says, and, therefore, its what they believe.

So if that Imam says "And, on November 20, 2015, all the faithfull will rise up and crush the infidels with explosive vests and RPGs...", that's what they believe.

The christians who will tell me how its a sin to be homosexual or that the bible is the source of objective morals, etc...tend to have not really absorbed the actual words...they don't know about the bashing of babies heads on rocks, or the passages in conflict with other passages.

They claim to know it all, but, never do...yet, they are passionate that its god's word, and, that THEREFORE its all true, etc.

Europeans, get ready to say good-bye to borderless Europe.

It's not such a big deal: You need a passport to travel between Canada and the United States, and we haven't been in a military conflict since The War of 1812, which Canada won, by the way. 


© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service