32
   

Attacks in Paris Stadium, concert hall

 
 
puzzledperson
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 04:02 am
@layman,
You seem unable to distinguish between 2003 and 2004. The incident where four Americans (Blackwater military contractors) were killed, set on fire, and hung from a bridge, occurred in March of 2004.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Fallujah_ambush

Whereas the shootings of protesters by the U.S.Army which triggered the insurgency in Iraq occurred on April 28 and 30, 2003.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#2003:_Beginnings_of_insurgency
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 04:14 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
No, you got the wrong one. I'm talking of the one that's OUTSIDE of your arse.


what do you mean? Isn't Isis created by the west?????????????????????

come on, don't believe that please.
0 Replies
 
puzzledperson
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 04:27 am
@roger,
No idea what you're talking about, Roger. The media was all over the map about who was responsible for the Charlie Hebdo attack, for reasons of conflicting claims. Some said ISIS, some said al Qaeda, and some claimed it represented a new era of cooperation between the two, despite the fact that the two organizations are arch enemies.

You can click on the link I provided, or just Google "charlie hebdo isis qaeda" to get a large number of conflicting links.

Incidentally, I find it interesting to note just how wildly both the ratings of my comments here, and the tone of the replies to my comments -- not to mention the functionality of the device I'm using to access the Internet -- fluctuates while also covarying with my internal states. Fascinating, as Mr. Spock would say.
layman
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 04:51 am
@puzzledperson,
So, what's a year or two, eh? OK, I see you're right now. US troops slaughtered a big-ass crowd of what they called "protesters" (but who were probably just grateful muslim women trying to bring them cookies) in May, 2003, then hauled ass out of town to go slaughter civilians elsewhere.

In the meantime, they invited ISIS in so they could retaliate at a later date. Who wouldn't? Seems that was their mistake, though. As of July, 2015, I see this tale:

Quote:
We are caught between the government bombing and the armed groups,” said a Sunni religious leader in Fallujah, referring to the Islamic State militants. Like other residents, he spoke anonymously for security reasons.

Issawi said the local council is attempting to organize a safe exit for civilians, but residents argue that there is no way out. Other officials said Islamic State fighters have cut off exits from Fallujah.

“There’s a state of terror,” a 29-year-old resident said. “We know there will be an assault, we want to leave, but Islamic State doesn’t let anyone leave. They want to use us as human shields. Local officials say about 50,000 civilians remain.


Now, 11-12 years after draggin US corpses around the city and letting Zarqawi behead a buncha westerners in their conservative town, they're all human shields. Maybe they shouldn't have sent those nice women over with cookies.


0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 04:59 am
@puzzledperson,
You got your facts wrong. ISIS was somewhat involved in the attack on the superkosher shop that happened on the same day as the Charlie Hebdo attack, as Coulibaly was connected to them (indeed weakly). They did not claim responsibility for the Charlie attack, to my knowledge.

I don't think it makes much sense nor serves much purpose to doubt that the Paris attacks were indeed perpetrated by ISIS or people connected to them, in the face of the existing evidence. But of course you are welcome not to make much sense.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 05:00 am
@puzzledperson,
puzzledperson wrote:

No idea what you're talking about, Roger.


Are you sure you aren't just being deliberately obtuse?

As for the ratings, I really suggest you don't let it bother you. I know of several people here who have their own little fan clubs that follow them around and mark them down. If you've gotten into heavy and personal insults, I might have been one of them at one time or another. Otherwise, I don't bother. Those who do it consistently add nothing to my enjoyment and go on the ignore list.

Quote:
not to mention the functionality of the device I'm using to access the Internet -- fluctuates while also covarying with my internal states. Fascinating, as Mr. Spock would say.


As to this, it's my turn. I haven't the slightest idea what you intend, but I don't find it fascinating.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 05:30 am
http://www.davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Untitled-3.jpg
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 05:31 am
http://www.davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Untitled-2.jpg
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 05:33 am
http://www.davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Untitled-65.jpg
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 05:34 am
http://www.davidicke.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/get-attachment-108.jpg
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 07:09 am
http://www.juancole.com/images/2015/11/FT_15.11.17_isis_views.png

Pretty interesting Pakistan has the least unfavorable response.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 07:29 am
@puzzledperson,
If you are a solipsist, I don't understand why you post on message boards. Me think you're not totally convinced of your own philosophical position, or you wouldn't be here.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 08:55 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

http://www.juancole.com/images/2015/11/FT_15.11.17_isis_views.png

Pretty interesting Pakistan has the least unfavorable response.


Pretty interesting that there is no data for the two largest powers in the region, Saudi Arabia and Iran, nor for the country with the largest population, Egypt.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 11:02 am
@hawkeye10,
There aren't any Gulf States in the sample. I doubt researchers would have a lot of joy asking questions in an autocracy that doesn't allow women to drive. People will watch what they say.

As for Egypt, Sisi's coup against Moslem brotherhood president Mohammed Morsi was pretty popular. And asking if Sunni extremists are popular in Shia Iran is a no brainer.

Did you know Iran was Shia?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Dec, 2015 11:16 am
@izzythepush,
Of course you can question the Pew Research Center why they made the survey in those countries. Or why they chose these for the second graphic of that survey:
Quote:
http://i66.tinypic.com/2eoiqs2.jpg
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2015 07:53 am
@puzzledperson,
puzzledperson wrote:
Then why has the number of Islamic terrorism incidents soared since drone strikes began, both in the countries where drone strikes occurred and elsewhere in the world?

I suspect that many of those attacks were carried out by groups that were not being subjected to intensive dronestrikes.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2015 07:54 am
@puzzledperson,
puzzledperson wrote:
I see that I neglected to provide the link to a quote in one of my previous replies to oralloy. I'll rectify that now:

"15 March 2013 – The United States' ongoing drone campaign in Pakistan is a violation of the South Asian nation's sovereignty, as it is being conducted without the consent of its elected representatives or that of the legitimate Government, a United Nations independent expert has warned."

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=44397

I believed you before.

I still don't see the relevance though. Extremists say all sorts of untrue things.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2015 07:56 am
@puzzledperson,
puzzledperson wrote:
The Japanese didn't attack Pearl Harbor (which in any case was a purely military target);

Pearl Harbor would have been a military target if Japan had attacked us after declaring war. However, they attacked Pearl Harbor before declaring war.

They also murdered thousands of American POWs throughout the war.

And if we expand the scope beyond American victims, Japanese soldiers wantonly murdered countless civilians for pure fun.


puzzledperson wrote:
the Japanese military government attacked Pearl Harbor. So how were popular calls to bomb the Japs back to the Stone Age reasonable or moral?

They were moral because they called for the destruction of the nation that had launched the outrageous attack.


puzzledperson wrote:
As for what the Muslims are reacting to (and by "Muslims of today" you presumably refer to groups like al Qaeda which the majority of Muslims regard as impious murderers),

"Muslims of today" refers to your post here:
http://able2know.org/topic/301962-20#post-6076073
where you said "why expect third world Muslims to react any more rationally or morally"

You were comparing today's Muslims to 1941 Americans. But in 1941 the Americans were the victims of the attack. The Muslims of today are not the victims. The victims today are the people who are murdered by the terrorists.

If you want a WWII comparison for innocent Muslims killed in dronestrikes, the best comparison would be to Japanese civilians killed by the A-bombs.

If the majority of Muslims regard al-Qa'ida as impious murderers, I sure wish they would speak out about it more.


puzzledperson wrote:
consider what Osama bin Laden cited in his 1996 "Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans":

"More than six hundred thousand Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine as a result of your unjustifiable and aggressive sanctions imposed on Iraq. and its nation. Iraqi children are our children. You (America), together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children."

UNICEF seems to agree about the numbers and cause:

"Ms. Bellamy noted that if the substantial reduction in child mortality throughout Iraq during the 1980s had continued through the 1990s, there would have been half a million fewer deaths of children under-five in the country as a whole during the eight year period 1991 to 1998. As a partial explanation, she pointed to a March statement of the Security Council Panel on Humanitarian Issues which states: "Even if not all suffering in Iraq can be imputed to external factors, especially sanctions, the Iraqi people would not be undergoing such deprivations in the absence of the prolonged measures imposed by the Security Council and the effects of war." "

http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm

Something had to be done to keep Saddam under control. The only alternative to the sanctions was the invasion that took place in 2003.

All blame for the suffering in Iraq should be directed at Saddam Hussein.


puzzledperson wrote:
Now of course, to this it should be added that two wrongs don't make a right, that you can't do good by doing evil, that there are several important distinctions between sanctions targeting the regime of Saddam Hussein and the actions of (for example) the 9/11 attackers. One might also question the sincerity of this concern as expressed by bin Laden.

I do not accept that there are two wrongs here. The sanctions on Iraq were necessary because of Saddam's behavior. They are not a wrong.


puzzledperson wrote:
But there are several important observations to be had from all this.
First, blanket references to the sins of "Muslims" are just as morally undiscriminating as references to the sins of "Americans".

Which blanket references are these?


puzzledperson wrote:
Second, the willingness to blithely dismiss the deaths of civilians as acceptable "collateral damage" of military operations (that are largely cosmetic anyway) is disturbingly similar to the arguments used by terrorists in attacking civilians as military targets as the Paris attackers did (much like the British in the Second World War in their use of terror bombing to undermine German morale). Bombs are bombs, and dead civilians are just as dead either way.

There is no similarity whatsoever. The terrorists are deliberately targeting civilians. The West is doing their very best to avoid striking civilians.


puzzledperson wrote:
Third, at some point it becomes more important to break the cycle of violence than to argue about who started it.

The only way to do that is to eradicate the terrorists.


puzzledperson wrote:
I would hate to have to argue against Native American terrorists attempting to regain their land and arguing that Europeans started it.

If they are actually terrorists (meaning they intentionally target civilians), they can be condemned for their intentional targeting of civilians.

If they do not intentionally target civilians, then they are not terrorists, and moral condemnation might be difficult.


puzzledperson wrote:
Terrorist incidents have skyrocketed since the so-called war on terror was declared and since the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Now you and others like you are talking about invading Syria, and Iraq again too.

As long as U.S. military actions are seen through the prism of geopolitics or war game strategies, and as long as all those civilian casualties are written off as statistics on a collateral damage chart, I don't see how this is possible.

The cycle of violence will break when we've eradicated the groups that are attacking us.


puzzledperson wrote:
Somebody has to break the cycle of violence by being BETTER than the other side. If the United States can't see its way to being better for moral reasons, it might at least do so for practical reasons.

This term "better" presumes some sort of superiority in not defending ourselves when people try to murder us. I do not accept such a superiority.

I also question the practicality of not defending oneself from a murder attempt.


puzzledperson wrote:
But I'm afraid that the habit of demonizing entire peoples in response to the actions of their governments or of groups unilaterally claiming to act for them, is not a habit of Muslims alone. We often speak of the Judeo-Christian tradition, though it's difficult to imagine Jesus approving of the callously inflicted deaths of innocents carried out in the name of a civilization representing this tradition. One also wonders whether those who bombed the King David Hotel that killed 91 were acting within this tradition. Among the psalms popularly attributed to King David, there is one that shocks the modern reader:

"...happy the one who repays you as you have served us! Happy the one who dashes your little ones against the rocks."

Who is demonizing entire peoples? The dronestrikes are being aimed at the terrorists specifically.


puzzledperson wrote:
Perhaps it is time to try something truly radical now that militarism has failed yet again:

Militarism hasn't failed. Our military is actively defending us from those who seek to harm us.


puzzledperson wrote:
follow the Golden Rule and treat the noncombatant inhabitants of foreign cities as we would be treated.

We already do that. It is the terrorists who intentionally target civilians.


puzzledperson wrote:
Stop trying to minimize, justify, and euphemise reflexive military responses that are known in advance will kill many civilians and are not even effective in accomplishing strategic goals.

There are no such military responses (at least on the part of the West). The only time a strike will be authorized with the knowledge that it will kill many civilians is if that strike will accomplish a huge strategic goal.


puzzledperson wrote:
Stop invading other countries, treating their citizens like potential terrorists and little brown monkeys, then asking why anti-American attitudes are so prevalent among them.

Sometimes invasions are necessary.

We don't treat anyone like potential terrorists and little brown monkeys. If we launch a dronestrike at someone, we do so because we are firmly convinced that they really are terrorists.

There is no need to ask why they hate us. If they are a threat to us, then take military action. If not a threat to us, then we can safely leave them alone.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2015 08:36 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
arget if Japan had attacked us after declaring war. However, they attacked Pearl Harbor before declaring war.


You do know that the attack without any warning was the result of slow very slow Japanese cipher clerks do you not?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 2 Dec, 2015 09:03 am
@BillRM,
Yes, but that does not absolve Japan. If they want to pull off a risky stunt like an attack so close to a declaration of war, they have an obligation to ensure that their timing is correct.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/23/2019 at 10:04:40