Regarding the Attacks in Paris:

After Paris, let’s stop blaming Muslims and take a hard look at ourselves
BEN NORTON

... Actual evidence .. shows that less than two percent of terrorist attacks from 2009 to 2013 in the E.U. were religiously motivated. In 2013, just one percent of the 152 terrorist attacks were religious in nature; in 2012, less than three percent of the 219 terrorist attacks were inspired by religion.

The vast majority of terrorist attacks in these years were motivated by ethno-nationalism or separatism. In 2013, 55 percent of terrorist attacks were ethno-nationalist or separatist in nature; in 2012, more than three-quarters (76 percent) of terrorist attacks were inspired by ethno-nationalism or separatism ...

A little-discussed .. fact is that the .. vast majority of the victims of Islamic extremism are themselves Muslim, and live in Muslim-majority countries. A 2012 U.S. National Counterterrorism Center report found that between 82 and 97 percent of the victims of religiously motivated terrorist attacks over the previous five years were Muslims ...

The Paris attacks, as horrific as they are, could be a moment to think critically about what our governments are doing both abroad and here at home. If we do not think critically, if we act capriciously, and violently, the wounds will only continue to fester. The bloodletting will ultimately accelerate ...

http://www.salon.com/2015/11/14/our_terrorism_double_standard_after_paris_lets_stop_blaming_muslims_and_take_a_hard_look_at_ourselves/

Sometimes the weaker one needs to suck it up.

Could be. And if we continue to be challenged on our rights to live as we want then we had better ******* win.

Liberals and pacifists lose this one. Reality has decided..... it is the one who protects themselves and who wins every fight that is picked who wins in this world. We did not chose this fight. They can ether stand down or get creamed.

Islamist terrorists stage another attacks and immediately left-wingers come out of the woodwork to defend Muslims...from what?

Who do we blame Paris on? Hindus? Right-wingers? Insane clowns?

And again the supposedly cogent information that more Muslims die at the hands of Islamists than Westerners. Are we supposed to take solace in this?

What is the relevance? Does this somehow prove that the attackers can't be Muslims because they are killing other Muslims?

This tripe is predicated first on the assumption that the everyone in the West thinks we are at war with every Muslim on the planet, but then it ends with his intended message: Western governments, not Muslims, are to blame for these attacks. We should just take our medicine and quit crying.

Well less then a large jet full of people was killed in this attack and the odds of any one western being killed by a terrorist attack is less then winning a hundred millions dollars lottery.

France and other nations however do need to get control of their Muslims citizens that go abroad to fight in the middle east and then return "home" for example.

We also need to come down on ISIS and such like a hammer of god and even France should have the military power to do so let alone the US and Russia.

We should never allowed them to control territory and should have one hell of a raid on their so call capital of Raqqa, surrounding it and after sealing it off so tightly a mouse could not get out, going in and killing anyone connected to ISIS.

It's very easy to make it a black-or-white issue. I suspect that there's some degree of culpability on both sides. Western hegemony isn't non-existent, nor is Muslim extremism. We need to be rid of both of them, as far as I can tell. Neither trying to coca-colonize the world for profit nor trying to force the whole world to conform to a single religion is going to go well.

Exactly, Hawk.

The issue is one dimension and black and white as far as allowing an outfit of murderers such as ISIS to keep existing or any member of it to remain alive for that matter.

The west have a thousand times the military power needed to go and destroy then given that they are now out in the open holding territory.

The Roman Carthage solution can and should be apply to them.

The argument can be presented as a black-or-white one, but that doesn't mean it's wise to do so. The "overwheming power" response in Iraq didn't turn out so well. The role of the military-industrial complex should be taken into account. I don't see the profit motive to be any more ethical or beneficial to mankind as a whole than the religious one.

Sorry but these people are murderer of men women and children and infants in their mothers arms and they had been nice enough to come out into the open in their seizing of territories where the western military power can wipe them off the planet.

We therefore should do that wiping at once.

Good luck with that. And good luck with the approach of ignoring history.

Well history had shown over and over that force apply in the proper manner and at the proper time had solve many problems such as the problem of Carthage for Rome or the problem of the Japanese Empire for the US or...........

ISIS is now in the open where killing it by applying overwhelming force before it leaders can crawl back into their holes is more then doable.

How about we jump to the very recent past and this region: Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Recent past, so you are claiming that all of history is invalid due to the incorrect and unwise used of force that overthrow Saddam?

Sorry but ISIS is not the nation state of Iraq with Saddam as leader.

They are an ongoing threat to the west that need to be destroy root and branch.

Going back centuries to solve today's problems. Good idea. Because, y'know, nothing changes over time, and there's no such thing as regional or cultural differences. Let's just build a giant wooden horse, put some soldiers inside and give it to ISIS. Or put some smallpox on some blankets and hand them out. Or let's just do Vietnam again. One solution from history is as good as any other, eh? There's no way that yet another new breed of terrorists will arise in the region or the religion, full of resentment towards foreign powers, right?

Generals that fight the last war tend to lose. Gotta keep up with the times.

No human nature does not change one little bit over tens of thousands of years nor does the basic principles of managing conflict change even if the means does over time.



General who do not study and who do not know history and how other men had solve similar military problems over the centuries are fools that will get their men killed by forces that are lead by those who do know history.

That is why at West Point, campaigns that was fought hundreds to thousands of years ago are study in details.

Sure, dood. We'll just keep trying the same thing and expecting different results. Mujahideen > Al-Qaeda > ISIS > ??

Ive been reading the history of the US REvolution and the art of ADAPTIVE WARFARE.
Washington lost most of his battles but used up the Brits resources and staying power.
By the time of Tarletons campaign in the South, the Brits were stumbling all over themselves .

Ah yes they are moral equivalents: The West spreading its fast food joints around the world and jihadists murdering civilians.

BTW - the BBC is now reporting that one of the suicide bombers involved came through to France with refugees in October.