I’m getting bits and pieces of the dreadful coordinated terror attacks in Paris while socializing at a meeting — I don’t have much to say, and the news sources I’ve checked all seem to reflect a state of chaos: at least 100 dead, at least 6 simultaneous attacks, France has closed their borders, and who knows where this is going to lead.
Talk among yourselves. I’m going to be checking the news at every break myself.
Horrific as this is, my first reaction was “only 100? What a low number! I’m pretty sure the U.S. has had more deaths from mass shootings alone this year.” (And I was apparently right; The Gun Violence Archive says 288 right now, with a month and a half to go.) So, is it more appalling that I am desensitized to this degree, or that the U.S. is so filled with guns that major disasters in other countries would barely be noticeable here? I’m torn.
Death toll at 149 as of right now. CNN reports the number will continue to climb as new info comes in. One appears to be a suicide bombing and ISIS, although not claiming responsibility, has lauded the attacks.
Jesus Christ.
What a terrible, terrible tragedy. Sending thoughts of peace and solidarity to those in France. Proud to see people opening their homes to strangers, cabs offering free rides and people mobilizing to help other people in the face of this attack.
The only thing going through my mind at this is “Well so much for Europe accepting Syrian refugees now”. And the non-stop right wing bullshit about this being ALL MOOSLEEMS and shit and I just can’t anymore.
This is going to turn into a new rallying cry by racists for even more hard-right movement against any and all Islamic countries or people. Or those who look like it.
Which is exactly what the fuckers who orchestrated this while massacre want.
I’m just going to curl up somewhere, Watch Hercules Poirot on Netflix, and ignore the world for the rest of the year.
The Republicans, naturally, are leaping on this as a chance to sell more guns, and advocate more horrific policies for forcing Syrians to continue living in terror of ISIS. (Who may not be responsible … )
Fuck.
I was just talking about Paris in a thread of Mano’s and how nice I found the people there. Terrorism shouldn’t have to be denounced, so I feel conflicted about making a gratuitous statement of denunciation, but I have so little to offer, knowing so few people in the area, and being out of contact with those I do know for so long.
I feel gross.
A few horrible facts:
This may be the first time suicide bombers have been used in Paris for a terrorist attack: two suicide bombers outside the soccer game, and at least one suicide bomber inside the concert hall (Bataclan theater). The greatest number of casualties was inside the Bataclan Theater, where an American band was playing.
Brian Williams on MSBC is in contact with Laura Haim of Canal Plus.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-live
Well, at least I can post links to information.
Here’s the Beeb.
For the live feed from the Beeb, try this link.
Saw Brian Williams interview a woman who has been studying extremism in France. She made the point that the rightwing politicians have been pumping hate speech into an already volatile situation. The far right politicians now have about 25% of the population behind them.
New immigrants, and second generation immigrants, still do not feel like they are part of France. Those populations have been subjected to hate crimes.
The economy in Europe is not great. Young people have a hard time getting a job.
For info and because this may matter to someone who is planning to travel – the French press is reporting that France hasn’t closed its borders: the Elysee put out a correction that France TV put out twenty minutes or so ago. It’s just reinstated border controls (i.e. in effect they have suspended Schengen so they’re not allowing just anyone to access without papers). It’s pretty common these days. Sweden suspended Schengen yesterday. Absolutely everything will be closed in Paris tomorrow – almost complete lockdown, with the odd exemption of wedding facilities for some reason.
It’s around 160 dead at the moment but the hostage situation in the theatre has been resolved. It could’ve been a lot bloodier – the Bataclan theatre takes 1500. Five terrorists ‘neutralised’ so far.
By the way 160 is a very high number by French standards. Hollande says ‘unprecedented’.
On behalf of Lynna, because I know eventually someone uncharitable will come into the thread:
Lynna is not saying that murder is justified by economics and/or employment and/or past hate crimes against someone with whom you share the experience of being an immigrant.
Lynna is saying that we know empirically that when these factors come together that murder is more common. I believe that Lynna is asserting this in order to bolster a claim of recklessness by the rightwing politicians who engage in hate speech (i.e. “they should have know it was a tinder keg into which they tossed their fiery words).
i think when put baldly like that, Lynna would probably also like it clarified that such hate speech also does not justify murder.
I think what’s being articulated is that even if the murders are unjustifiable, the speech was hurtful, stupid, and unwise.
Having done all that to defend Lynna, I will say, however, that I’m with Ophelia Benson on the general principle that discussing bad speech in the aftermath of these attacks carries the appearance of victim blaming and may tend to shut down free speech. The principle has limits, of course, but maybe we could save analysis of stupid shit for a later thread?
From Twitter:
I (literally) can’t imagine how letting people with concealed weapons into rock or rap concerts would seem anything other than insane.
@greenspine 13
Thats because you can think rationally about reality and cause-and-effect
I was just thinking, this morning, how good our police & intelligence agencies seem to be getting at dealing with terrorism. Apparently there were several arrests of suspected terrorists around the UK this week. I think I remember them mentioning arrests around Europe as well. I wonder if they were related to this?
Tashiliciously Shriked
Which really fucking sucks. Especially because the refugees are trying to escape death and destruction. They ain’t trying to bring it with them. Nor would it make sense for them to engage in terrorist actions, given that they’re seeking refuge.
@Tony
Yes, I would be incredibly surprised if *any* refugee’s would be involved.
Terrorists have things like passports and fake identities. They don’t need to pretend to be a refugee.
Well, anyway, a refugee who came to Europe with the goal of blowing up civilians.
The right-wing racist and xenophobic atmosphere in Europe may have changed that.
The Vicar (via Freethoughtblogs) @1,
288 deaths spread out over 11 months has a far different and far more dissipated or diluted emotional impact than 150 deaths all at once. Both awful in their own right but really two different kettles of fish.
“The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
– Plato
“Apathy is the glove in which evil slips its hand.”
– Anonymous
“Apathy is one of the characteristic responses of any living organism when it is subjected to stimuli too intense or too complicated to cope with. The cure for apathy is comprehension.”
– John Dos Passos
My best hopes for France. No words are adequate.
So, our local wingnut Geert Wilders has already called for closing the borders after this attack, apparently oblivious to the fact that so far, France’s terror attacks have mostly come from within their borders.
Meanwhile, my local village is having about one hundred refugees over next week, for about three days, to be camped in our local gym hall. I’m happy to report that despite objections by some townspeople (which all boil down to fear) we’ve got more volunteers than we require. I’ve taken a day off from work to help, and I intend to shake hands a lot and make people feel we’re not all bigots.
We have no clue as of yet where these people will originate from but I’m hoping we’ll see some children, as we have family-rich area with child-centered facilities – like the local schools and kindergartens, who, apparently, have enthusiastically offered a place for refugee children, to keep them occupied with activities them during their short stay.
This includes my son’s school, which means it’s time we start explaining him a thing or two about this world. I wish we didn’t have to, because frankly, I can’t give him the rationale behind it all and he’ll demand it.
@Crip Dyke: Engaging charitable mode. Backspace key ahoy. As one with family members affected by this,… once the situation is under control and facts such as identity are made public there might be more to analyse?
That said, I leave the positive news that the rock band members apparently survived. Although not all crew are yet accounted for, sadly.
At a time when people in many Muslim countries, especially, but not limited to Syria, need to flee extremist terrorism for their lives, it is terrifying to see people respond to terrorism by blaming these refugees, demanding borders be closed, and (in the USA only so far) trying to sell guns.
Aside – why the feck do media outlets regard death toll as if we’re tallying up highscores for a game? It’s sickening. “Sixty! A hundred! No! 150! No, back to 140 again! Maybe 120! Oooh, 150 it is!”
I want the old days back, when we had daily newspapers and reporters had plenty of time to fact-check and report only once.
Oh, and I would press for obituaries on the victims. We need the world to know what we have [i]really[/i] lost.
Reminder to self: forum tags don’t work on WordPress.
Fuck. Fuckety fuck. My heart goes out to all those suffering and grief-stricken, and all my hopes for all the Horde folks in France. If there is any thing, any way I can help, any thing I can offer, please say. It isn’t enough to say I’m sorry, it isn’t enough to say I wish this hadn’t happened.
Sorry, Poirot abroad isn’t entirely escapist. This isn’t an attack on Christie, but there are…racist/imperialist issues, especially with regard to the Middle East. It’s amazing,* given that she’s the bestselling novelist of all time, how little analysis there’s been of questions related to her writing and reception in terms of imperialism, or anything else.
*Eh, not so much, her being a woman and all.
Duckbilled Platypus @ 25:
You just need to switch to html from bbcode, or the pointy brackets work! <i>really</i> gets you there, really.
@tentacularnobody
of course! But I suspect from past experience that there will be multiple threads on this topic and some will be more targeted towards analyzing France’s brand of racism than others.
I’m terribly sorry your family members are affected by this. It’s inadequate, but there it is.
piling on the anti-newt derail.
Newt is just echoing the dog whistle that “gun free zones are tempting targets for psychos”. (that letting guns in scot free will deter being targeted, not saying the good guys with guns will take out the psychos, their presence will be deterrent).
aarrgghh
horrific, news is on at the moment, Paris seems to be dealing with it better than Boston did after that Marathon incident. X-(
Crip Dyke @12,
*sets charitable mode to level 10*
Unfortunately it’s not just the RW politicians. Let’s not forget about RW media, talking heads and pundits as well. Traditionally it has been print, television and radio but now there’s also bloggers and Twitterers and YouTubers and such who pander to the same kind of audience.
Of course hate speech doesn’t justify or excuse murder or violence in any way shape or form. Not in the least. And it’s offensive and gross (to borrow your word @6) that anyone would seriously suggest otherwise.
No, the charitable interpretation is that Lynna is merely pointing out that it might be one among many contributing factors that led up to this happening while also reiterating that even if that were true it still wouldn’t justify or excuse it in any way.
As much as Ophelia is profoundly wrong about trans issues she does have a really good point here. Choosing to focus on bad speech at these times may carry the appearance of victim blaming and may be taken as an argument that free speech should be curtailed to appease violent murderers and terrorists. You were right to jump in and clarify because there is no doubt some will come to that very intepretation.
Though isn’t there a significant difference between free speech (protected?) and hate speech (not protected?) which kind of renders Ophelia’s point moot on some level? Sure there is an argument to be had as to what consitutes hate speech and who decides that and on what basis but is it really fair to conflate that with shutting down free speech?
Also is it really fair to imply it’s stupid to discuss possible causes and contributing factors? Isn’t that essential to understanding why and how these things keep happening and what to do about it?
I usually just lurk. But I would like to confess something.
I was reading about this online in public, looked up, and saw a Muslim woman in a head scarf. I felt such a visceral rejection of her, her person and her culture, that I was taken aback at myself. From my ethnicity, I (a brown person) could also be taken for muslim, although I am the furthest thing from it. I am also atheist and very liberal, even revolutionary. Yet in my shock and anger at what happened in Paris I was able to displace my frustration on a total stranger. No I did not say or do anything. Now a few hours later, I am still very very angry and wish we could simply erase radical religious elements from the earth. Their existence is akin to a deadly virus against which there is no innoculation.
What is scary to me is if I can react this primitively, what about those who never consider nuances? I can foresee a sustained violent western backlash that just plays right into Daesh’s recruitment goals.
@#28, Caine
Hey, you could also be doing a text chat on Skype while simultaneously editing HTML and posting on a BBCode-enabled forum. _Then_ you [i]start[/i] to <i>lose</i> your mind switching [b]back[/b] and <b>forth</b> between different *styles*.
@#31, We are Plethora, Protectors of the Orb of Tranquility ~+~ Seated on the Throne of Fantasia
I don’t think people are going to imply that that’s stupid so much as imply that it’s weak and unmanly and wrong. What we really need to do, according to the sort of person who does not want to discuss causes and contributing factors, is use violence early and often against anyone who even looks like they might be an attacker. ‘Cause, you know, that has worked so well so far. The attitude is pure contempt — ultimately, these people assume that anyone who isn’t Just Like Them (meaning white and Christian, usually) is not really human but some kind of inferior, mindless sub-creature. I remember, during the runup to the invasion of Iraq, arguing with someone who was absolutely sure that invading would go just fine because the Iraqis would welcome us. I asked him whether there were any circumstances at all under which he would welcome an invasion of the U.S., and he said no. But that’s different, because Americans are real people.
Ugh. There’s probably going to be a heartwarming display of sympathy and assistance to the French over the next few days. If only it were possible to somehow adjust newsfeeds to show that while not showing the predictable right-wing frenzy.
expatriarchy @32,
I understand where you’re coming from. I’m a little bit stunned at my own level of anger right now.
@We Are Plethora:
Me:
You:
Oh, Fahrvergnügen.
What I was trying to say was not that the analysis was stupid (or might be stupid), but that the hate speech of politicians under discussion was stupid. I realize you’re implying I implied, not stating that I stated, but I’m very sad I came across as even implying that.
Let me be perfectly clear: politicians’ hate speech is not only hateful, but for the reasons I articulated earlier, it’s also just a stupid thing to do.
Analysis of how we got to a place where terrorism seems like a good option to some people? A very good idea (though, sure it might sometimes be implemented badly) and a necessary endeavor and NOT stupid to attempt.
Vive la France!
Sadly it’s not just the RWNJs going on about how evil “the mooslims” are. I saw the comment section on alternet and there were a few Atheists out there ready to condemn all muslims for the actions of a few. One even said we should imitate Vlad the Impaler.
And of course, the local fascists are giddy: seeing the attack as the perfect excuse to demand the disenfranchisement everyone of arabic descent and the establishment of a dictatorship to “protect the security of the good law abiding people”
I heard a bunch of leaders uttering the usual platitudes that “our thoughts and prayers are with the victim”. But not a word about what they can do to prevent proliferation of guns. I was silently screaming once again at the TV screen “PUT A STOP TO YOUR FUCKING ARMS DEALING”. Very frustrating to see so much harm done to so many innocent lives. I am very saddened.
Dont ruin my quaint and charming belgian detective meandering through pompous edwardian high society drawing room mysteries >(
But yes i know its really full of dated racist imperialistic crap, but it also did oft poke fun and critique that society.
@Alverant, #37:
Well, okay, they were atheists. But how do you know they weren’t RWNJs?
I have only just woken up and found out about this, and it is utterly horrifying, and being a Brit it is happening in just the next country over from my perspective. Simultaneous attacks like this on a major city certainly looks like it might be ISIS related, but it is still too early to say who is really behind this.
Obviously my heart goes out to the victims and their families and friends, but like many of the other commenters on the thread I am also concerned that the atrocity itself will only be half of the tragedy here – with European politics being the way it is, we will inevitably see a feeding frenzy within the political Right and the Right wing media over the coming days, both within France and beyond it, that will try to use this horror as a rallying cry for reactionary racist bigots and a premise to persecute immigrant communities entirely innocent of any involvement in these attacks.
Sadly, it is all too human a reaction to respond to monstrous evil like this by compounding it with scapegoating and witch hunts, and the likes of Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, and Nigel Farage will doubtless be nauseatingly quick to capitalise on that, as will the usual suspects in the US media and political spheres.
…anyone heard from blf? :/
There was already so much tension over Syrian refugees. Things are going to get very ugly now not just in Europe but all around the world.
Good point, Azkyroth: I’ll be on the lookout.
Okay, I’m trying my utmost to remain calm and rational here: I’ve lived for four years two blocks away from the Bataclan: it’s my former neighborhood that’s been slaughtered here. So I’ll start reading all the posts and try to post a long answer them without punching my keyboard.
Not only that, but I’m fairly certain that causing such an attack less than one month before elections was very deliberate: the fundies have for years tried to attract people of Muslim descent by claiming that only religious tribalism and circling the wagons can protect Muslims from the takeover by fascists who long for the “good old days” when non-Christian-Whites were treated like beasts of burden and the occasional fucktoy.
The more vote the far-right gets, the stronger their argument become
***
It’s not a suspension: Schengen rules allow temporary reestablishment of controls in case of crisis.
***
That’s because you’re not pandering to gun fondlers who masturbate while fantasying that they would transform into a badass John McClane-like if they found themselves in such a situation.
***
European polices are rather competent in anti-terrorism: the problem is that even if you arrest over 99% of those willing to act upon their revanchist fantasies, sooner or later someone will get through the net.
***
And the fascists know that: they’ll keep lying about it because it serves their interest.
***
You’re right, but the problem is that heinous speeches are not confined to the events that predated the attack: as soon as the news spread, the local far-right as well as a good chunk of the so-called “moderate” right have started beating the demagogue drum: claiming that France’s left-wing government is complicit to the terrorists because Hollande & cie refused to implement discriminatory policies. (Which is disgustingly wrong on so many level that I’m feeling nauseous just from mentioning it)
***
Because Atheists can’t be right wing nutjobs with genocidal fantasies?
Hitchens was elated when the twin tower collapsed because this event finally gave him an excuse to freely express his bloodlust: he wasn’t an isolated outlier.
I found out only about a week back that a relative of mine, from another European country, is being deployed to Libya.
We keep contributing to wars and pretending they don’t concern us at the same time, that they can’t really touch us. Refugees were the first to put a dent in this little delusion, so we don’t want them. Now the death is here too.
My heart goes out to all the wounded, to the family and friends of all the victims.
My heart goes out to all the innocent people who will die as a result of this – in the sea still escaping this and worse in their home countries, in our streets when blamed for atrocities they are as scared of as their attackers are, in those far away countries where we will go to bomb them because…. because.
I don’t even have to wait for hate-mongers.
I just have to go to a local caffee with my colleagues from work and I know someone will go from “Did you hear what happened in Paris” and “Oh my God!” to “And then we’ll take in all those people“.
Hate mongers did their jobs well, in advance. The seed of doubt and fear has been growing for months, this will just be the thing that they use to push the undecided, to worsen the already bad situation and bring it to extremes.
And that’s exactly what the terrorists want. The killings aren’t just to scare “old” Europeans, but to scare all the newcomers and all those yet to come here. See? You thought you would be safe there.
Some people are searching for their loved ones using twitter hashtags about the event. It’s heartbreaking to see.
(addendum to my #47. I’m not French, the royal we in my comments is Europe in general, particularly EU)
@Duckbilled Platypus: Do you live in my village? We’re east of a place that smells like chocolate; if that’s you too, hi. If not, I guess two Dutch villages are doing this thing next week; solidarity. (I missed getting a volunteering slot and will be doing logistical support like laundry and clothing repairs.)
I’m french. I was at the concert yesterday. I still have a hard time realizing what happened. It is just … senseless.
I was there with my girlfriend, and another friend. All three of us got out unharmed. But many others weren’t so lucky.
Right know, I can’t think of the consequences of the politics. I don’t have anything interesting to contribute to the discussion. I just needed to say what happened.
adrien,
If unsolicited internet *hugs* are ok, you have those. In any case, my sympathy for the horrible experience you and your friends went through.
Someone I love just lost her husband to a sudden illness, and her life was blown out from under her, her sense of order and purpose in the universe gone, her days a blur of dealing with pain, suicidal ideas, and endless irritating details that must be dealt with. I’ve been watching first hand how a death destroys much more than just the life in question, the dead person is the tip of an iceberg of pain. Terrorism is especially evil because it weaponizes that spread of pain – for the victims of the attack, it was bad enough, but their families, friends, lovers, children, everyone they touched closely, are left to go from “WTF?” to “WHY!?” Some of that pain and confusion will also turn to hatred, and other evil people are standing by to further magnify that anger for their own purposes.
It’s a shit sandwich of hate.
I’ve eaten at one of those restaurants a couple times (Le Carillon) in the course of hiking around Paris; a lovely happy city full of rich experiences and great art. That will remain as long as there are rich experiences and great art; violence can only destroy and has no power to create. That’s why it must be resisted: violence never leaves anything good behind it. It does not create, its transformations are always for the worse.
Je suis Parisien.
adrien,
I’m sure everyone here feels for you, and everyone else who were targeted by the terrorists, above all those killed or injured and their friends and families. Sorry to have nothing more useful to say.
I will be in Paris in a month’s time, demonstrating against the inadequate climate change agreement, or the failure to reach one at all*. I just hope we don’t get idiots or agents provocateurs smashing windows or attacking the police at a time like this.
*Or celebrating the agreement on radical measures to cut emissions, and watching the squadrons of pigs doing aerobatics around the Eifel Tower.
I’m really trying to fight the cynicism I am feeling. This isn’t the world I want for my children.
Nous sommes tous les Francais aujourd’hui.
@51 adrien: *offers cyberhugs* I’m so sorry to hear about what you went through. Do what you need to to process it; there’s no wrong way to handle this kind of thing.
On the broader issue… Well, I’ll save that for another thread. For now, I’ll just send my sympathies to anyone else reading this who experienced these events or was affected by them in some way.
In these terrible situations we always see the best of humanity alongside the worst. There will be stories of courage, compassion, solidarity, and love.
I know that this is still very much an emerging situation and for many people it is only the start of the nightmare. I don’t offer this opinion lightly but instead hopefully, and directed towards the response of powerfull people. I think it is best to remember that these are hundreds of personal tragedies, and not just an event. At the end of things, this was an attack against people. There will be too much talk of the attack on ideals, nations, and ways of life, and too much of that talk will precede calls for more killing. Unrestrained anger or despair will be no sort of fitting tribute.
I can only offer my thoughts and synpathies to those affected.
Bernard Bumner,
very good points.
adrien
My deeply felt sympathies for you, your gf and friends and all the people of France.
+++
So, fuck. I live half the distance to Paris than I live to Berlin. So yeah, this hits close to home. We created a world full of war and now we have to live in it.
+++
Of course the right wingers all across Europe are sharpening their knives* against refugees, the very people who are fleeing these terrorists. No, my reaction to seeing a woman in a hijab this morning wasn’t revulsion. It was “I hope you are safe.”
*quite often literally. This week teenagers attacked amn 8 months pregnant Somali refugee on the street.
.. and you got it almost word for word, Bernard:
French speakers are welcome to correct my translation:
What happened in Paris and Saint-Denis yesterday was an act of war, and when confronted with war, a country needs to make the right decisions. An act by a terrorist army of Daesh, against what we are, a free country speaking to the whole planet. An act of war prepared and planned from abroad, with foreign accomplices who we will be discover in the investigation. An act of absolute barbarity
in addition to saying that France will have no mercy in acting against these barbarians.
(source )
The anger is understandable. The rhetoric is painful. France was already at war with IS.
I hope that people will be allowed to treat the wounds, bury the dead and to mourn, and to discover what happened to their loved ones, without cynical inerference from politicians.
Speaking of war, there’s Daesh’s “official proclamation”. The fuckers claim that they very carefully choose their targets for their “symbolic value“, which sounds less craven than “our agents lacked the firepower to attack the ministries or any other strategically relevant targets, so we decided to target places where we could kill as many civilians as possible instead“.
Too late for that
I’m going to Paris next week. My wife and I are taking our niece on a 4 week end-of-school trip to Europe.
I’m not actually too worried about how the security situation will be by then, but some of our families are shitting bricks.
Giliell:
I know, most (99.9% for all I know) refugees are good people fleeing from a bad situation. But there are nevertheless fanatics among them, and there is no way of telling them apart.
I’m not even sure if it matters any more as many of todays extremists are children of moderates and has been raised in Europe from childhood, in many ways these terrorists must be considered “home grown”. So what the hell do we do?
The biggest problem seems to be the stupid “war on terrorism”, as if terror was the end goal. It’s not, it’s just a means to an end. We’re not fighting terror, were fighting for our values and way of life. And I cannot see any effective strategy that’s compatible with that goal.
Three weeks ago, returning to Calais after a holiday in Germany, I drove past a refugee camp set up in a field so close to the port you could see the upper decks of the ferries. It was probably the most depressing thing I’ve ever seen – tiny canvas tents with pairs of tattered shoes lined up outside, makeshift plastic shelters for those who didn’t even have tents, mounds of rubbish, and a few dispirited people staring at coachloads of tourists on their way back to their nice homes in Britain. I haven’t been able to get that image out of my mind since. My first thought on hearing about the Paris attacks was that, in addition to their other problems, these poor sods will now have something else to worry about – a violent anti-Muslim/anti-refugee campaign whipped up by an energized RW.
What bothered me about myself is that I had more of a reaction to the events in Paris than the Syrian refugee crisis. Both deserve attention and anger about the situation. The Syrian refugee crisis is ongoing, so I have become inured to the anger and sadness about it. But both are caused by people who think violence is the answer to their problems. This includes the US invading Iraq and using drones
Not only that, but many homegrown Jihadists do not hail from Muslim families: many were raised by Christian or Atheist parents and jumped from the ham sandwich to international Jihad following radicalization processes very similar to the one followed by Anders Breivik.
As the islamologist Rachid Benzine noted, the jihad’s appeal is similar to the appeal once exerted by far-left messianic movements like the Red Army Faction or the french Action Directe: “Society is oppressed by the corrupt Capitalist/Miscreants, all those who go through their daily lives without openly opposing the oppressors are their accomplice and deserve to be punished“: that the regimes which denounce the oppression done by the Evil Capitalists/Depraved Crusaders happen to be way more oppressive that the objects of their denunciation is either ignored, denied, or rationalized.
Beirut also suffered suicide bombings on Thursday night, not that the US mainstream media noticed with all the Republican circus to cover. Al Jazeera:
Earlier article:
Erland Meyer
You mean they are, kind of, like all other people?
Over the last months, Germany has seen a wave of right wing terrorism which is constantly being downplayed*. I still hope that people will not shy away from me just because I’m speaking German. Since nobody seems to have a problem separating the concepts of “right wing anti immigrant terrorist” and “German person”, seperating “fanatic islamist terrorist” and “muslim person” shouldn’t be a problem either.
*If you can believe it, state atorneys claim that somebody who disables the smoke detectors/fire alarm and then sets fire to an inhabited refugee home because he hates foreigners is neither a right wing extremist nor to be charged with attempted murder.
laurentweppe
This.
The leader of the most infamous German “Sauerland Gruppe” whose terror plansw ere fortunately uncovered shared his first name with my grandpa. Just an ordinary German guy. Until he tried to blow up people.
Funny. The first things that come to mind when someone says this are, in order to just how bloody insane more guns actually is are:
1. Deadman switches (it was bombs involved with some of this, so..).
2. Mistaken identity (last shooting in the US the most sane thing the gun toting people on the campus did was “avoid” the shooter, so the cops wouldn’t mistake them for the nutcase doing the shooting).
3. The double idiocy of bad aim (everyone with a gun things they will be a perfect shot, and not hit bystanders, when they pull it), and lack of ability to shoot when needed (funny enough the number one reason rookie cops often fail is the discovery that they can’t pull the trigger, if/when they need to. That some have no problem at all with this, actually scares me a bit…).
So.. Yeah.. not a fan of the insane idea that a bunch of people with guns “improves” things.
Could you give me a few sources?
I mean, for the last few hours, I’ve seen the usual suspects whining their usual “But the white far-rightists aren’t as violent as the eviiiil Moosliiiiims” so a few links to articles bursting that bubble of bullshit would be welcome.
laurentweppe
A German news article (Tagesschau, the most credible German new broadcast) mentions that so far there have been 600 attacks on refugee homes this year. Thankfully, so far there have been no deaths.
Of course the trial against the “NSU”, a fascist terror group that roamed the country for a decade under the eyes of the state intelligence is still going on…
For some reason, I can’t search the #kaltland hashtag at the moment where people post news of attacks.
Azkyroth@43, Hi!
I’m in South France, a 3+ hr train ride from Paris, and obviously Ok, if rather stunned. I was not aware until perhaps an hour ago that something had happened, and so at the present time have neither information nor speculation nor (not that this is the time) a snarky take on incident.
Someone asked (parapharsing) “didn’t the European authorities break up a suspected plot very recently?” Yes, they did. I didn’t pay much attention, but as I recall, it seems to have been a plan for coordinated attacks on certain diplomats in various countries. I have no recollection if there was any connection to extremists who self-identify as “Islamic” (such as daesh).
And a suggestion: I suspect France 24 (which is in English), as well as Al Jazeera English, both of which stream on the Intertubes, will be quite informative.
The Grauniad has a useful synopsis, Paris attacks: what we know so far (“Gun attacks and suicide bombings across city that killed more than 120 people described by French president as ‘act of war’”), and a live blog. The summary is a bit dated (e.g., it still says French borders are closed), and it is not entirely clear how frequently it will be updated.
George Takei posted a brief call for compassion last night, during a break in a performance of Allegiance, a musical about the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. Rawstory, Fbook
By the way 160 is a very high number by French standards. Hollande says ‘unprecedented’.
Well, unprecedented except when it’s the French police doing it to the Parisians.
That’s a message which bears repeating, about every 5 minutes. Thanks for posting that, Pteryxx.
The current Polish government (which, if my memory is correct, is a new-elected set of RWNJs), will no longer accept Syrian refugees and has explicitly linked the decision to the daesh attacks in Paris. The refugees are, of course, among other horrors, fleeing daesh. The refugees are also not-known for carrying weapons or suicide bombing kit.
(Source is The Grauniad’s live blog@76, but due to technical problems I cannot provide a quote/link.)
Daily Kos poster fisknp writing about the myth of redemptive violence and citing David Wong’s Cracked article from January: Kos link: David Wong said this would happen again. And he told us what to do. (Spoilers for Hunger Games in the full essay)
fisknp then excerpts (and cleans up) David Wong’s article: Cracked link: 6 Ways To Keep Terrorists From Ruining The World (Warning for mention of prison rape as a comparison)
One thing that was driving me bonkers was how Fox anchor Shep Smith (who for a Fox anchor isn’t all that bad) kept harping on the fact that this was an “unprecedented” terror attack not seen in the “history of the world”. Did Mumbai and Anders Breivik never happen? Both were coordinated attacks using a mixture of bombings and guns and seemingly with the sole purpose of raising body counts as rapidly as possible. Do attacks only count when they are perpetrated by Muslims in the so-called West?
Judging from everything I’ve read, I’m going to guess the gunmen received a lot of training on their weapons, a pre-requisite of gun ownership that gun nuts seem to loathe. If Republicans were actually interested in encouraging gun ownership for defensive purposes and not as a cynical ploy to separate a bunch of dumbasses from their votes, they’d advocate for all gun owners to receive the same intensive weapons training that the terrorists probably did. Ironically, the terrorists were probably more responsible gun owners than your average gun loon.
There are local elections before the end of the year here in France. I’ve already gotten the first bit of nazi (that is, Le Pen’s FN) propaganda stuffed through my letterbox last week (a few days before the attacks). I didn’t read it, instead tearing it into very small pieces and stuffing into the bottom of a very smelly trashbin (I won’t even recycle that shite!). Not surprisingly, Fears that Front National will exploit Paris attacks for regional elections:
It is the niece who is running in my area, and whose propaganda was stuffed into the letterbox. The FN has been getting just below 25% support locally the last several elections, and the appearance of the propaganda this soon suggests the nazis are making an effect.
The niece, Marion Maréchal, is reported to be as much as, and possibly more than, a hateful bigot as her grandfather. His daughter (and current head of the nazis), Marine, kicked him out of the nazis earlier this year (apparently for good this time), not because she disagreed with him, but because his toxic outbursts kept reminding people just how nasty the FN is.
Another horrible, faith based initiative—and a propaganda bonanza for the European fascists, who are already taking full advantage.
It is more of the West’s (and Russia’s) chickens coming home to roost. Centuries of meddling by big powers has produced the chronically unstable, violent Mideast, Africa and SW Asia. In a kind of tragic payback, the great powers that have forced corrupt, tyrannical governments on the peoples of those regions will have their own governments altered for the worse by the inevitable blowbacks from their imperialism.
Pteryxx, thanks for the Wong excerpt. It’s odd that the most insightful commentary we get these days seem to come from comedians. I wish the MSM would pick up that narrative, but I know they won’t.
Not so much a prerequisite of ownership but of usage, but that is a minor quibble; indeed, making certain training a mandatory requirement for the legal ownership seems very sensible.
Another prerequisite is actually having the bloody things. It may be the case the terrorists did not have everything they wanted, Germany ‘may have foiled plot to supply arms to Paris attackers’:
(The article also mentions the Polish government’s announcement (see @80), and reports they are already starting to backtrack due to the reaction.)
Oops! In @83 I said, “the appearance of the propaganda this soon [last week] suggests the nazis are making an effect.”
I obviously meant “… making an effort” (locally in the upcoming elections).
There’s some bitter irony in the fact that Germany’s minister for interior affairs who earlier this week talked about the “avalanche” of refugees, who claimed that “30 % of Syrian refugees are not Syrian” without any data to support that shit, who claimed that despite 600+ attacks against refugees and their residences we don’t have a problem with right wing extremism, is now cautioning people not to conflate these attacks with refugees and is warning against not just islamist but also right wing terrorists.
I guess I should be grateful…
So far, reactions in Germany seem appropriate, but I’m afraid of what’ll happen in Dresden come Monday.
OH FECK! The following late-breaking report, if confirmed, will play directly into the hands of the anti-refeguee nutters: Syrian who passed through Greece as refugee was ‘one of Paris killers’:
FECK FECK FECK…
blf re the Syrian passport: Other reports I’m seeing/hearing say many Syrian refugees don’t have passports or were forced to flee without them, meaning real passports are basically like currency and sometimes get passed around, traded, or stolen. Whether or not it’s accurate, though, won’t matter to the refugee-phobes.
blf@89,
It’s worth noting that so far, we don’t know that the dead bomber was in fact the Syrian who passed through Leros, although of course that’s the most obvious explanation. Passports can be lost, stolen or sold; and both Daesh and French fascists have motives to stir up further hatred against Syrian refugees.
I don’t think I want to say anything about Paris right now. Everyone I know is safe, the city isn’t of course. I don’t think any Londoner can reasonably be under any illusions that it’s much safer here. Since I live in a very Muslim area in London, I noticed that it was the same as after the Charlie Hebdo attacks. A lot of Muslims stayed home and away from the busier shopping areas today… unless they had to work. One guy who works in the local shop was visibly upset. I have to say that these attacks are probably more successful in putting a strain on people and relationships in diverse communities than anything else at all.
Oh yeah, and since this is an atheist network, I’m going to give way to a small and completely futile gesture of annoyance towards all those people on Twitter and elsewhere who are busily offering up prayers and blessings. That’s not really done in France, it’s socially unacceptable. And for the large number of French people who are actually atheists or agnostics, it’s cruelly inappropriate at a time of grief. Outside of atheist networks, I suppose I’ll take it in the spirit it was intended.
@78:nomaduk
Which happened less than 20 years after Parisians were being slaughtered by the Nazis in the thousands…
Your point being?
Not hard to imagine that the RNC is breathing a sigh of relief that it isn’t the Republican candidates on the debate stage tonight…
I always get annoyed by the “SEND PRAYERS” and “I AM PRAYING FOR YOU” because it always feels like it’s more for the prayer than the prayee. It is literally the least one can do, and often doesn’t carry on to anything further. Except making the religious person feel better because they Asked God For Help.
http://i.imgur.com/FCrrWUd.png
Richard Dawkins can fuck right off as well.
Last night, I was at a gathering honoring Dolores Huerta, who is starting a long series of celebrations of her coming 85th birthday; the Mayor of Santa Cruz designated yesterday “Dance With Dolores Day.” She was wonderful. (As was everyone involved, a marvelous collection of people from all “segments” of our society, in every sense.) She stressed that change comes from the people, that community organizers need to listen, and that voting is also important. And, yes, Paris did come up and there was a moment of silence and reflection. I left filled with hope again. Check out http://doloreshuerta.org for more. Hold the hurt in your hearts and hug each other. We can get through this.
I logged in to post a link to the David Wong piece but Pteryxx beat me to it @81.
My heart goes out to the people of France.
I picked the wrong time to read a biography of T.E. Lawrence. There’s no telling how different world history would be if his map of the middle east had been implemented.
Instead we will get another chorus of politicians singing their standard refrain: ‘Who could have imagined. . .”
– Who could have imagined that a US invasion of the middle east could destabilize the region?
– Who could have imagined that dividing up the middle east along arbitrary borders would lead to sectarian violence?
– Who could have imagined that overthrowing a legitimate democracy and installing the Shah of Iran could lead to an embassy takeover and years of enmity?
– Who could have imagined that deregulating banks would lead to financial panic and world-wide recession?
– Who could have imagined that giving arms to the mujahideen in Afghanistan would lead to 9/11?
– Who could have imagined that reimposing colonial French rule over Indochina could result in the deaths of 55,000 US troops?
We can be sure of a couple of things: US politicians haven’t learned anything from the past, and most of their actions will only make matters worse.
@89: It might have been a terrorist that passed himself as one of refugees. There’s so many of them coming to Europe, passing through countries… If 1 in 1000 was a terrorist passing as a refugee, you would still have hundreds of terrorists entering European countries where there were previously none. It sucks donkey balls. And terrorism is horrible.
Meanwhile and completely unrelated, I like the way this guy handled grief and want to help him but don’t have enough money to do so: http://igg.me/at/GRIEF-the-book-third-edition/x/2859006
Is there going to be any crowdfunding campaigns for refugees or victims of the Paris attacks? I’d like to chip in.
I strongly question this assumption.
Has anyone even done a breakdown of how many IS-sympathizing terrorist attackers actually come from the scary-scary countries instead of the places assumed to be terrorist-free? Plenty of them, maybe even the majority(?) turn out to be radicalized recruits from ‘civilized’ nations, like the French recruits burning their passports and such. That’s not even getting into home-grown Muslim-bashers, arsonists setting fire to refugee shelters and such. Of course THEY don’t get called terrorists.
@101 [blockquote] strongly question this assumption.
Has anyone even done a breakdown of how many IS-sympathizing terrorist attackers actually come from the scary-scary countries instead of the places assumed to be terrorist-free? Plenty of them, maybe even the majority(?) turn out to be radicalized recruits from ‘civilized’ nations, like the French recruits burning their passports and such. That’s not even getting into home-grown Muslim-bashers, arsonists setting fire to refugee shelters and such. Of course THEY don’t get called terrorists.
[/blockquote]
Who said anything about France and IS(IS)? You’re putting the meaning in my (in retrospect, unclear) sentence I didn’t put in there. You do realize that not all of Europe is in EU, do you? And that not all of EU countries are part of NATO or doing war operations?
I’m talking about countries that refugees are passing through such as Turkey, Greece, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary and Austria. Countries in which there were no terrorist attacks and nothing that could be described as such. Countries which, with the exception of Turkey and Bosnia, have very low Muslim populations and, as such, very few potential IS recruits. Are you seriously going to tell me that 1 in 1000 refugees being a potential terrorist is unbelievable, and that is after ISIS actually threatened that they will attack European countries next and bring the fight to them? These are just official statistics of asylum seekers, how many are there illegally and not asking for asylum? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-24636868
To blockquote
Do this
<blockquote>paste copied text here</blockquote>
< >not [ ]
you can also copy-paste the person’s nym in addition to the comment number
103. chigau
To blockquote
Do this
not [ ]
you can also copy-paste the person’s nym in addition to the comment number
Whoops. Sorry about that. Lesson learned. :D
Might be useful to start collecting alternatives to violence. http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/8-ways-defend-terror-nonviolently/
What I would like many pundits to realize, is that the IS has been very successful.
They are not stupid.
Violent reaction, polarization, Islam vs the West, is exactly what they want.
What pissed the IS mostly, what the IS is desperate to avoid, is people welcoming Muslim Syrian refugees in their homes.
This destroys their vision of the West as the Enemy.
The thugs in USAliens!Annihilate!!Annihilhate!!! are starting to say absurd things, related (albeit often very loosely) to the events in Paris, Cruz condemns Obama ‘lunacy’ on Syria as Republicans react to Paris attacks (the article is not just about the Texas racist, despite the title). Somehow, a mere 10K refugees is serious threat (rather like the Jewish refugees pre-WW II). FFS, that is 0.2 people per State, and even if all in one State, is a single small town. And the 1-per-thousand might be a daesh terrorist or potential future recruit horseshite is so idiotic it isn’t even wrong: E.g., the invented statistic could be used for pedophiles, Nobel Prize winners, and tame breeds of pea.
As of today the USA has recorded nearly 11,500 firearm deaths in 2015.
There have been 289 deaths in mass shootings
Guns everywhere do not make you safer
Source Gun Violence Archive
Obviously, in @106, my decimal point is confused, I meant 200 (0.2K) people per State (less than one potential daesh recruit per State, using invented statistics, actual numbers will vary but are very very likely to be much smaller).
@106 blf
It’s actually my worse case hypothetical scenario :D You can invent statistics for a lot of things, but in this case, this was hypothetical scenario, which is clearly indicated by my own words, specifically, the word IF, as in
Sort of like, “If frogs could fly and breathe fire, they might as well be called dragons.” thing. And 1 in 1000 of those refugees could indeed prove to be future Nobel prize winners, who could say? And 1 in 1000 would be extremely conservative estimate for pedophiles, really, at least according to this research.
“Dr. Gene Abel estimates that between 1% and 5% of our population molest children.” http://www.childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf
Hell, there might be more than 1 in 1000. There might be less. We’re talking about lot of people entering a lot of countries, both legally and illegally. I’m willing to bet that at least 1% of Syrian refugees are secretly atheists or non-believers and that would have been considered conservative estimate too. So, why is even hypothetical thought experiment so offensive to you? Or maybe just inconceivable to you? I don’t understand.
Also, what to hell is daesh? I never used that word in my post.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-ways-to-keep-terrorists-from-ruining-world/
@evilrooster:
I like how you do deviceless geo-locating. :) Yes, I was born in that chocolate place. Hi! For the big Internet State we live on, it is kind of unexpected to run into fellow villagers here.
I’m not even sure I will be doing something, or just be a reserve. There are too many hands.
I’m pretty sure more 72-hour refugee locations have been set up across the country, so there must be more active (there appears to be way more solidarity than the media suggest). Great that you’re helping, too, good luck. If you happen to be around on Wednesday and I happen to recognize you from your profile picture, I’ll be sure to say hi (although it would feel weird introducing myself with this nym).
@Caine
Crip Dyke @35,
Gotcha thanks for clarifying. Seems more a case of our inferring rather than your implying in which case please accept our apologies. Sometimes tough to parse the precise meaning especially when emotions are running high as they were at the time.
First of the attackers identified from his fingertip (he blew up his suicide vest after shooting up the concert hall):
http://www.lapresse.ca/international/dossiers/attaques-a-paris/201511/14/01-4920920-omar-ismail-mostefai-lun-des-preneurs-dotages-du-bataclan.php
29 years old. Born in France to an Algerian family. “Known to police” — driving without a license, disturbing the peace, and other such petty offences. Also registered as radicalized (I don’t actually know what that means). May have been to Syria in 2014.
There seems to be a strong Belgian connection in the affair.
That’s law enforcement jargon for “started to display behaviors and express rhetorics specific to murder-justifying extremists“
jo1storm,
How about not inventing leading statistics in a situation that is flammable as it is?
Newspapers and xenophobes everywhere are already doing a happy dance about one of the attackers being identified as someone who crossed the border with refugees.
This 1 in 1000 isn’t just completely made up, it is also completely made up in a way that furthers hatred and prejudice against refugees who are already under threat in the countries they seek refuge in. There have been more than 600 attacks against refugees, their shelters, people who help and support them in Germany this year. That’s right wing terrorism against refugees, so clearly we have a lot of terrorists already.
Furthermore, there are a lot of European citizens currently fighting for Daesh in Syria and Iraq. The number from France alone is estimated to be 4000-5000. That’s just French terrorists actively inflicting harm on the people who are currently seeking refuge in Europe, not to mention the French air strikes.
The guy suspected to be an acomplice who was arrested in Germany last week is from Montenegro. So don’t give me shit about “those refugees bring terrorism to places that were all totally peaceful and terrorism free before they came”
Translated from a local opinion column:
Made up, huh? Hypothetical situation is supposed to be made up, you know. Read my previous post and don’t put into hypothetical situation more thought than I did. We’re talking about almost 700.000 people entering European subcontinent from war-torn regions and a simple math: even IF every thousandth of those refugees were a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer, that would make a few hundreds of them entering Europe. You need less than 10 for a successful attack. Hell, if one in 10.000 was “daesh”, whatever that means, it would still make between 50 and 80 of them. It’s a math (hypothetical math, but nevertheless). Now, are you really ready to claim that, if you were a terrorist scum, you wouldn’t use the commotion that so many people make to sneak into the heart of your sworn enemy and do some damage? I don’t think so.
Of course there were attacks against refugees and shelters. You always have crazy, angry and stupid people. But it cuts both ways. Can you really claim that, among those 700 thousands that entered just this year, there are no crazy, angry and stupid people? I don’t think so. The fact that your first (gut) reaction to even hypothetical but nevertheless true statement that, among that many people, some terrorists are bound to sneak in, is very telling.
True, but those are mostly of Algiers descent and of Islamic faith. Algiers was French colony once, you know. They gave them citizenship. I have never heard about any airstrikes against refugees by France. Now, we can argue about whether France should be part of that war (as a member of NATO, the answer is yes. As a moral cause, the answer is no.), I personally think that it’s none of their business but who asks me? This post is not about it. It is about death of noncombatant, French civilians and trying to change the democratic country by fear and violence, which are not valid means.
“The guy suspected to be an acomplice who was arrested in Germany last week is from Montenegro. So don’t give me shit about “those refugees bring terrorism to places that were all totally peaceful and terrorism free before they came” ”
Straight from the horse’s mouth, proves you wrong: http://www.gov.me/en/News/154376/Montenegro-s-police-Person-arrested-in-Germany-is-Ortodox-not-linked-to-terrorism.html
@jo1storm,
The right time to do thought experiments is when you’re grappling with a difficult academic problem.
The wrong time to do thought experiments is when the results of fear feeding on ignorance and bigotry can be seen in the grim statistics of lives cut short around the world.
“even hypothetical but nevertheless true” – by definition: no.
If what you want to know is whether people would save thousands of Syrians at the cost of a hundred Europeans, then perhaps you should ask that.
If you want to know how many angels could fit on head of a pin, then perhaps you need to think about the value of your question.
If you want to tell us a precise number of angels and expect to be lauded for your skillful determination of their eye colour, then I would suggest that you have overestimated the value of your hypothetical.
“If” – the distance between reality and prejudice may be large or small, but if will not help you to discover which.
@Platypus:
I’m from considerably further away than the place that smells like chocolate, and my accent in Dutch shows it. If you see/hear someone that matches my description, feel free to say hi, either on Wednesday or later.
I’m not a regular commenter here — it’s not my community in many ways — but I thought I’d stick my head in and say hi when I saw your post.
Good luck this coming week; I hope you get a shift.
It’s already been punted about social media that the Terrorists weren’t True Muslims.
And I’m no true Scotsman, because I drink my whisky over ice.
@DLC,
Does “the terrorists were muslims” have any particularly powerful explanatory value? What people mean when they say that these weren’t true muslims is that they aren’t broadly representative of Muslims, which is true.
Broad brush statements are coming from the left, right, and wherever. None of them are ultimately insightful, but I am willing to say that the No True Muslim sentiment is much less harmful than the Muslim Peril stereotyping. This is particularly true because the people saying it are often Muslims and people from minority groups having to make public shows of condemnation in these circumstances.
The “Muslim Peril” stereotype is a lot more harmful for two reasons:
First, because it’s a form of sectarian determinism postulating that “If the killers weren’t Muslims, they wouldn’t have killed”, which is patently foolish given that History shows that people who want to commit mass-murders to punish society for perceived slights always find convenient forms of messianism to rationalize their bloodlust: Daesh has been (rightly) compared to the Khmers Rouges, and the Khmers Rouges didn’t need Abrahamic faiths to justify their slaughters.
And second, because this stereotype more often than not a coded message meant to keep racist and classist sentiments hidden behind a pretense of secularism: many bigots who pontificate about the “Muslim Peril” are in reality thinking about the “Arab Peril”, the “Immigrants Peril”, or the “Plebeian Peril“. It’s especially acute in France: since a majority of french Muslims are blue collars or lower middle class, Islam is still perceived by many as the religion of the underclass (despite the french muslim population slowly but surely getting more gentrified changes on the ground do not easily translate into changes into the collective consciousness), and when french right-wingers or far-rightists talk about fighting islamic extremism, often what they mean, deep down, is “We must beat the uppity plebs into submission“
laurentweppe,
And to strike two birds with one stone, they are using the divide and conquer strategy in beating the plebs into submission by turning white poor against non-white immigrants for supposedly “stealing their jobs” and similar imaginary offenses.
The “they are coming and they are disguising as refugees” horseshit is not just made up, it’s profoundly and extravagantly stupid. It’s just panicked people reaching far-fetched, absurd and IMAGINARY conclussions out of fear and prejudice, that’s all.
I know you think that using numbers like 1000 and 10000 makes it seems like it’s statistically certain, but you are completely and utterly wrong.
Meanwhile people who are fleeing something much, much worse than the terrible tragedy that’s happened in Paris, are going to pay the price for all the fear, prejudice and inumeracy of europeans. Things were already red hot in europe…they are going to get so much fucking worse….and the highest price is going to be paid by the most vulnerable…
Sikh gamer Veerender Yubbal has had his foto shopped to look like Paris terrorist and major news outlets published it without checking even once.
It’s all about ethics in terrorism journalism, I guess…
Since you’re mentioning it, I’ve just heard on the news: the french police has confirmed that the kamikaze found near a refugee passport is NOT its original owner.
Giliell’s link @126 didn’t come through, so here’s Buzzfeed’s report on Vereender Yubbal.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/gamergate-photoshopped-a-canadian-sikh-man-to-make-him-seem?utm_term=.wvJVpOgRl&bftw=world#.ckm2xvoXq
laurentweppe @127
Rest assured, that information will mean nothing in the long run to those determined to close borders to refugees. :(
Beatrice @117
I borrowed that for FB just now. Hope you (and the unknown author) don’t mind (credited it as ‘someone in Croatia’).
@125,119 and 116
Actually, depending where you live, it’s a practical consideration. My cousin volunteers as one of the border doctors and does checkups on those refugees, 500 of them every single day. I myself do my best to help them but my means are limited, I have a day job to do and my free time and cash are very limited in that regard. And there’s always (at least) one guy (and it’s always a guy, I don’t know why, and a different guy every day) who gets so upset at my cousin and threatens to kill him, just because he is wearing a red cross on his doctor coat, as per regulations. Some of them attacked red cross vehicles bringing them supplies, food and clothes, because of that cross. Who could have guessed that symbols were so important?
It’s easy to speak from the ivory tower when the crisis is not really touching you, personally. Btw, where do you people live, what countries? Any of the ones I mentioned in my post @102? Maybe some other country that takes the brunt of the flood? It doesn’t really matter, I guess. It’s enough to me that I actually live in one of them (I’ll let you guess which one).
To quote 71-Hour Ahmed from the Discworld novel Jingo (which I recommend everyone to read): “Be generous, Sir Samuel. Truly treat all men equally. Allow Klatchians the right to be scheming bastards, hmm?” . So, enough bullshit please. Among 700.000 people which entered the European subcontinent this year, there are bound to be some assholes, some cowards and yes, some terrorists. There are also bound to be some saints, who do silent miracles every day, day in and day out, some intellectuals, some artists, some doctors and, yes, a lot of regular people, just like you and me. So, I repeat, cut the crap and hypocritical pearl clutching. Treat all people equally, truly treat all people equally.
@evilrooster: thank you, take care. Let’s make this a good week.
jo1storm, I have no idea what point you’re trying to make – either I’m missing it, or you’re not clearly expressing yourself. I certainly don’t understand what is supposed to constitute hypocritical pearl-clutching.
I will just point out that a number of commenters are French and/or live or have lived in Paris, so it is probably not wise to to start complaining about hypothetical threats in your own country. They have been touched directly by something so very, very terribly real.
For my part, I’m in the UK, but you would do well to consider what my experience might be of being threatened by the bombs and violence of terrorists.
And I think you may have misread Pratchett.
No, the fact that it’s a large number of people does not demand that necessarily some will be terrorists, this is an assertion that is unsupported by evidence.
@133:
Wow… Just wow… You actually agree on assholes and cowards but it’s the word terrorist which ticks you off. In which way is that word different from the others? There’s no way to do a background check of nearly 700.000 people. Why do you find it inconceivable, impossible? Hell, just read this thing: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/migrant-crisis-are-isis-terrorists-infiltrating-refugee-boats-europe-1519962
Quote the article:
How about that? It’s apparently part of (multiple) national security (policies) NOT to disclose how many refugees they refused because of terrorist ties. And a guy actually working with refugees tells you that they found some of them to have terrorist ties, a small number, to be sure, but some. And somehow, writing THAT is freaking controversial. I don’t know why. Maybe so many assholes have used it as an overblown claim that just mentioning honest to goodness fact causes a defensive reflex by association? I don’t know. Can you help me with finding out?
@132 Bernard Bumner
And my condolences go to them. And to you… because that what terrorism does to people. It makes them feel threatened, it makes them feel unsafe and when you feel that way, you’re not acting 100% rational*. It’s the whole point of it, in fact.
And my point is, and I hope this is concise enough, is that one word “terrorism” / “terrorist” ( thanks to all the abuse of the term by false preachers of doom and messed up bigots and general assholes) is causing a gut, reflexive, defensive reaction from you even when it’s freaking fitting to use. And I’m seriously wondering why you can’t see that.
*Well, no person ever acts 100% percent rational, but everyone acts even more irrational when fear gets involved.
jo1storm
Uhm, what? Of course they are different. An asshole might be unpleasant, but does not do anything illegal by being an asshole. I do not even understand what is exactly wrong by being a coward. A terrorist is in fact someone who does something immoral, illegal, and should be locked up.
I see no one saying the word terrorist should not be used for the Paris attackers. You are really fighting some mighty strawmen here.
I’m putting this here because it’s all but certainly related to the Paris attacks. Peterborough, Ontario’s only mosque was firebombed last night. No one was hurt, but 80 grand in damage was caused.
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/2015/11/15/peterborough-mosque-fire-under-investigation
@timgueguen #136
Oh. F. F. S.!
That’s really sad. I mean – horribly efffffin’ ignorant, and criminal, of course – but sad as well. I had some hope that the people of small-town south-eastern Ontario might be above that sort of thing, but apparently it was misplaced.
Meanwhile, the folks who brought you Gamergate have apparently fooled some of the world’s media by photoshopping an image of one of their critics to make him look like a suicide bomber. Freaking hilarious, those people.
The image seems to have been accepted quite uncritically by some outlets.
Yeah, there may be terrorists among the refugees*. There are quite obviously terrorists among my native population. In fact, there are quite some people who share my citizenship who are actively involved in the terror perpetrated in Syria and Iraq. And then they can just cross into Turkey and board a plane, waving their EU passports. And funny enough, being a kid of muslim immigrants is a much worse predicator than not having finished 9th grade.
*It’s not like our authorities seem to be really good at identifying who is and isn’t.
jo1storm,
If you want me to admit that jihadist terrorists may be amongst the people seeking refuge – they may. But they may also be amongst the many people arriving through normal means in Europe, by scheduled flights, etc.
Even more likely is that radicalised citizens will return to their home countries – or perhaps never have left in the first place – to plot terror.
My opinion is that your hypothetical was ill-judged in terms of timing and misconceived because it doesn’t really tell us anything other than that there is a threat. This we knew, and border agencies have been reacting accordingly. Invented statistics have been used by nasty elements of the extreme right wing to increase the fear, and refugees fleeing terror and exuding hardship and horror to reach Europe have suffered again because of it.
@jo1storm:
So there’s one person out of over 500 who loses it and gets threatening. That would be <0.2%. Meh. I've had a larger percentage of patients threaten me on an average day in Philly and with less provocation. But you're right, it is always the guys.
I was in NYC on Sept 11, 2001. It was a bad scene. But I remember at the end of the day the thing that scared me most was wondering how my government was going to respond.
Yes, jo1storm, there may be some terrorists hiding among the refugees. So? What now? I mean, really, what the hell is your point? Why does the matter so much to you? Especially since there are many other ways for terrorists to enter Europe and there are many terrorists (islamist terrorists and others) in Europe already? Because, seriously, this:
is horseshit.
Unfortunately, autocorrect turned my typo of enduring into exuding. I’m sure the sense of what I meant was still there, but the difference is obviously important.
Also, for those people who are uneasy or concerned about the consequences of mass displacement and afraid of terror attacks in Europe – I wonder what they think of France’s military response yesterday.
Personally, I find myself ambivalent about the general principle of using force against IS because I think that they would perpetrate brutal genocide, given the opportunity. However, I am confident that more bombs, more drone strikes, and the pounding of already battered nations will do little to achieve lasting peace. It will certainly increase the misery and suffering of innocent people, driving some to flee, and others to arms.
@134
First off, i focus on the word terrorist because it’s the fucking point of the discussion. I didn’t say i find it inconceivable or impossible, i say it’s undemonstrated (and in my opinion absurd, but not impossible). I’ve seen several such articles so far, there are A LOT of people making that frightened point….i don’t buy it. First, because the evidence so far says that it’s not happening (“suspected Islamists” is not the same as terrorist), and second, because it makes zero fucking sense.
Again, just to get it through your thick skull, i’m not saying it CAN’T happen, i’m saying there is no demonstration whatsoever that it is happening in anywhere near the ridiculous numbers that you are making up. There are indeed many assholes using it as an overblown claim…you are one of them.
Actually I did.
There’s a lot of “we have no cases, there’s no reason terrorists should do this, we cannot disclose numbers for security reasons, no hard evidence, here’s a case of somebody falsely suspected to be a terrorist”. And then there’s a lot of Ukip howling about all those refugees. In short, the article doesn’t make your case.
@jo1storm, #134:
Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia said in #133:
You replied:
You didn’t remotely comprehend what DAN said. DAN said that a large number of people does not guarantee some will be terrorists.
You’re replying that DAN said the possibility of any being terrorists is zero – or as close to as to be “inconceivable”. But, and it’s just so easy I’m going to avoid making the joke, that word is completely inappropriate here. The word you want is not “inconceivable” but “guaranteed”. You originally said that
People aren’t calling you wrong because of a knee jerk reaction to the word “terrorist”. people are calling you wrong because of a completely appropriate reaction to the phrase “bound to be”.
And if that wasn’t wrong enough, that the argument of DAN to which you object doesn’t say what you think it does… the evidence you cite in support of your statements also doesn’t say what you think it does.
To wit:
Suspect/ed is a key word you’re neglecting.
Just look at your misrepresentation:
No. They didn’t find some of them to have terrorist ties. They found some reason to suspect that the person might have terrorist ties. If my half brother is a terrorist, you might reasonably say that I have terrorist ties. If my half brother has the same name as a terrorist, you might reasonably suspect that I have terrorist ties, but you’ve got a long way to go to prove that I have them. So your “residual” rate doesn’t say what you think it does. It doesn’t say these are people found to have terrorist ties. It says even taken all the people merely suspected of having terrorist ties, you still end up with a number so low as to be described as “residual”.
Look, it can be reasonable for a government to have a different standard of evidence for giving someone permission to enter their jurisdiction than to lock up someone for criminal conduct. Separating out who is the actual terrorist with X name from Y city among 10 or 20 or 40 people who have that name would probably require sending officials of your city to investigate. It’s perfectly fine to say your government doesn’t want to spend that money to investigate an asylum or immigration claim. Since we’re talking about “terrorist ties”, when you have 10 or 20 or 40 people with X name from X city, you’ve got several times that number in immediate family members.
In the countries from which such refugees commonly come, larger family sizes are normal, so we’ll use more conservative and less conservative guesstimates of family size to capture different definitions of “immediate family” and different family sizes:
– at the low end you might find 9 *3-5 family members = 27-45 (plus 9 of the original 10 with the actual name, for 36 to 54) to have “suspected terrorist ties” that aren’t actually terrorist ties for every 1 actual terrorist. The chance that someone labeled with “suspected terrorist ties” actually has terrorist ties in this scenario is 10%. Only 33% to 50% of those will be actual terrorists. Thus 3% to 5% of the people that are so hard to find their number is “residual” are actually terrorists, or approximately 1 in 39 to 1 in 59 of those people with suspected terrorist ties are actual terrorists.
… and the number with suspected terrorist ties is very low – we don’t know how low, but it could easily be less than 1 in 1000 from your own source since 1% isn’t what one would normally call “residual”. So taking that 1 in 1000 makes 1 terrorist in 39,000 to 59,000 on average. It makes 1 terrorist 100,000 very likely, even statistically almost certain. But wait, you said “some terrorists”. That’s plural. 2 terrorists in 100,000 people is very possible, but by no means even likely.
…At 700,000 you’re approaching statistical certainty IF you’re solid about that 1 in 1000 number. But we aren’t. It could be 1 in 10,000 for all we know from the article. In that case 1 terrorist only becomes very likely around 500,000 to 1,000,000 (5 hundred thousand to 1 million) applicants for asylum. 2 terrorists in 700,000 does not even rise to “very likely” in this scenario.
– at the high end, you get 39*6-8 family members + the 39 innocent name sharers = 39*7 to 39*9 = 273 to 351. That’s how many people are falsely suspected of having terrorist ties for every 1 terrorist. Add in the 6-8 family members who are, yes, related to a terrorist but aren’t terrorists themselves, and you get 279 – 359 non-terrorists for every 1 terrorist, even when we’re looking only at people identified by government research as having “suspected terrorist ties”. With our high-rate guess for suspicion (1 in 1000 are suspected of terrorist ties) you’re getting 1 terrorist in 279,000 to 359,000 applicants on average. Statistically it’s likely you’ll have 2 in 700,000 people, but it’s by no means certain. At our low rate of suspicion, you get 1 in 10,000 applicants are suspected of terrorist ties and thus 1 terrorist in 2,790,000 to 3,590,000. You’re unlikely to find even a single terrorist in the 700,000 refugees/asylum applicants.
NOW REMEMBER:
Your claim was that there was bound to be multiple terrorists in 700,000 refugees/asylum applicants. Note that you didn’t say, “people suspected of having terrorist ties”. Nor did you say, “people that have actual terrorist ties” which might include the non-violent, non-militant wife, 4 year old child, adult half-sister, or dreamy old granddad of an actual terrorist. You said “terrorists”. Unqualified terrorists. Your own source puts the rate of people suspected of terrorism as “residual” and thus not easy to calculate. They process at least hundreds of claims, so the rate cannot be as high as 1 in 100. We don’t know what the rate of suspicion is, but a reasonable upper bound might be 1 in 500 if and only if that charity assists only a few hundred applicants a year. Reading about them, however, we find their website, where they describe the numbers of clients assisted as 11,596 for 2011 and 10,724 for 2012. Not all of these will have had enough contact and assistance for them to be in the group being discussed, but the number helped isn’t a mere few hundred. Starting our estimates with 1 in 1000 suspected is entirely justified as a maximum suspicion rate. The reasonable lower bound is uncertain, but would have to be lower than 1 in 10,000 since what they mean by “residual” is that there aren’t enough to consistently average 1 a year. 1 in 20,000 or 1 in 30,000 might be a reasonable lower bound, but 1 in 10,000 is also reasonable as an estimate of the actual rate, not an estimate of the lower bound for the rate. As an estimate of the actual rate, it’s useful for our purposes, and it’s favorable to your argument anyway if this is taken as the lower bound and not a reasonable estimate of the rate itself, so you shouldn’t complain.
And yet, having looked up the agency and the number of clients and backed up our estimates as best we are able (governments aren’t telling us how closely related in friendship or occupation or blood someone must be to have a “terrorist tie”) and even using number more representative of immediate family than people that served with you on your mosque’s board of trustees while a fiery anti-US/anti-European preacher was hired and ran the services…
…even with all that in your favor, in only one of four scenarios was it “statistically certain” that you would find multiple terrorists in 700,000 refugees/asylum seekers. Only when the number of people that shared identifying traits with a terrorist were at the low end (9 false terrorists per 1 terrorist) and “ties” were restricted in the most extreme way to a mere 3-5 per suspected terrorist and suspicion rate was estimated to be a mere 1 in 1000 (which looks to be significantly too low), ONLY THEN do you have a statistical certainty of multiple terrorists in 700,000 people.
With relatively few falsely suspected of terrorism and with small numbers of people “tied” to terrorism, when we used our lower rate of suspicion it was unreasonable to expect that there would be 2 terrorists in 700,000 people, and it’s far from certain you’d have 1 terrorist in any given batch of 700,000, though you might average around 1 terrorist in 500,000 people.
With larger false rates, even the high rate of suspicion generates a likelihood you’ll have 2 terrorists, and you’ll average 1 terrorist in 279,000 to 359,000 people over time, but there’s nothing remotely close to statistical certainty that in any given 700,000 people you’ll get 2 or more terrorists. At the lower rate of suspicion, it’s unlikely that you’ll have even 1 terrorist – the rate is below 25%.
===========================
So, what do we have here? We have you guaranteeing us that there will be multiple terrorists in 700,000 people, but your own evidence shows that estimates favorable to your argument to neutral to your argument generate a statistical guarantee of multiple terrorists only in 1 of 4 scenarios – the absolute most favorable conditions we reasonably could concoct. 2 of 4 scenarios found precisely 2 terrorists in 700,000 to be a likely outcome, but 3 or more would be unlikely and even 2 wasn’t anywhere near guaranteed. In one scenario even getting 2 terrorists in 700,000 people would be very unlikely (at best a 1 in 16 chance).
So when people are dissing your argument that 700,000 people guarantees “some terrorists”, it’s not because they can’t think reasonably when the word “terrorist” is mentioned and you can.
it’s that the people here know how to do math, and don’t forget how to do math when the word “terrorist” is mentioned…while you, seemingly, have a case of acalculia which is at best situational. At worst, the only hope for you is a massive program to address your local area’s critically undersharked condition.
The terrible thing is, if you believed your own evidence, you wouldn’t even have to read my fucking long-winded math. The quotes from your article include:
So, far from it being certain, or “bound to be” true, to use your words, there’s little proof it’s happening at all.
Whoops! When you’re insisting “some” is a certainty, “none” is a bit of a problem for your case, though, admittedly, they don’t specify how many have disembarked from migrant boats so you’re still going to have to rely on me for the numbers. Unless someone else in your article has some relevant numbers?
oops. Not only is zero a number, and not only does it work against your cause, but it turns out the groups that are serious about exporting terror to the west have a major point of self-interest that would cause them to avoid refugees’ methods of entry to Europe.
but wait: some terrorists do travel, even if they don’t travel as refugees:
oh, too bad, so sad. It looks like your hypothesis is backward: instead of terrorists being guaranteed to be among the 700,000 immigrants, Europe is exporting terrorists as part of an unknown but much smaller number of emigrants. That’s right. Saying it’s statistically certain that there are multiple terrorists heading to Syria in ever 700,000 folks leaving from Europe is defensible, even though, once again, there’s no evidence of even 1 terrorist in every 700,000 people coming to Europe.
Wait, what, the problem is in Europe?
yep. According to your own evidence, and right before the bit about “residual” rates of suspicion but mysteriously missing from your own quote is the bit where the article you want to use as evidence makes it clear that attacks in Europe are primarily carried out by Europeans and that European Salafists are trying to corrupt the newcomers.
What does all this mean? It means that even those who are suspected of having terrorist ties might very well have had none when leaving Syria but be suspected after entry because they were targeted by European Salafists and security agencies aren’t sure whether or not the person might succumb to the European Salafists’ effort.
This means that even the rate of suspicion we cited earlier as unreasonable to believe is higher than 1 in 1000 and is reasonably subject to a middle of the road guess of 1 in 10,000 actually includes people who didn’t arrive as terrorists, who didn’t arrive suspected of being terrorists, and didn’t even arrive suspected of having terrorist ties…they just met “some terrorists” after European border checks cleared them to come into the country and border officials settled them near European terrorists.
Wow, so does that set the max upper bound at 1 in 2000 – half of suspicious ties arising in Europe after immigration, half at home before? – or is it even worse for you? Inquiring minds want to know.
=============
So math doesn’t support you. Your article doesn’t support you.
You say that “there are bound to be some terrorists” in the 700,000.
DAN replies
This is merely a correct statement that 2 terrorists in 700,000 is not guaranteed and that your assertion is unevidenced.
In reply to this, you accuse DAN of some Vocabulary Derangement Syndrome relating to the word “terrorist”:
Well, it’s concise enough. It’s more concise than I’ll ever be. But it’s also wrong. We don’t fail to know what a terrorist is or use it inappropriately. We just happen to know how to do math and read articles for content.
And we are seriously wondering why you can’t see that. Vocabulary Derangement Syndrome NOS, perhaps?
I wonder if ‘being a kid of muslim immigrants’ is a better or worse predictor than being the kid of Christian, Buddist, Jewish, or Hindu immigrants…
I wonder how those citizens are being radicalised…
Yes. I understand the reaction by some people here to want to discount the role Islam plays in the terrorist’s motivation after an incident like this. We don’t want to paint with too broad a brush, and we don’t want to demonize an entire people for the actions of a few. But we can make a couple basic evidence-based assertions:
(1) Major terrorist incidents are primarily perpetrated by Muslim groups. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2015)
(2) The Islamic State (perpetrator of many of the attacks listed above) is Islamic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
Identifying the source of this madness as Islam – not France’s foreign policy or refugees policy, or any public policy for that matter – allows us to better determine how to react. And this is where I wholeheartedly agree with the following:
http://news.yahoo.com/why-paris-target-isis-massacre-111500791.html
I was wrong. I admit it. I misread and misunderstood your answers so thank you very much for clearing them up for me. I was under wrong impression that it was viable for IS to send actual terrorists among the refugees and that they won either way by doing so. If that terrorist commits a successful attack, there will be greater resentment towards all refugees, people would treat them worse, there will be idiots to attack them, refugees will get disenchanted and hopeless, daesh recruiters will have an easier time to recruit both at home (as in “Where are you going to go? Europe? See how they treated them!”) and abroad (“They treat you like crap. Join us”).
If the terrorist get arrested, the same thing will happen, as in, “See, there really are terrorists among the refugees! Good thing we caught them before they could do some damage! Treat all of them with suspicion.” . I guess that I was wrong about it and that is not the way the IS are thinking at all.
Again, I apologize for sounding trollish. That was not my intention. Thank you very much for your patience in dealing with me.
@148 jo1storm
If the abundance of similar sentiments to what you expressed earlier and has been expressed in multiple newspaper articles, TV programmes, Facebook posts, etc, is something to go by, and it definitely is, it’s been demonstrated that no terrorists among the refugees are necessary, at all, to achieve precissely those goals. Irrational fear and prejudice take care of that on their own.
@146 Crip Dyke
Thank you for putting it far better than i ever could. That was….wow…xD
jo1storm,
As a tactic, I guess that would kinda, sorta make some kind of sense for Daesh, but I think its just too much of a risk and there are many easier ways to stir up anti-refugee sentiment, so why bother. Anyway, even if such a tactic would make some sense and be viable, it doesn’t mean that it would necessarily be implemented (and ‘this tactic makes some sense’ ergo ‘there are definitely, with a 100 % certainty, some terrorists among the many refugees’ is a massive, massive leap). In any case, there isn’t any evidence that it is actually happening at this time.
Anyway, good on you for re-evaluating your own position.
Well, being the kid of Christian parents is apparently associated with lower rates of altruism than being the kid of atheist parents but no different from being the kid of Islamic parents. So extrapolating I’d say it’s most likely about the same. Maybe we should stop letting Christians into the country (whoever “we” are and whatever “the country” is) because they’re dangerous. Have you considered how many acts of terrorism Christians commit in the US? And how few Christian organizations denounce the acts? How often do you hear the Pope denouncing, say, the bombing of abortion clinics? But before we conclude that atheists are the only non-terrorists, I would like to point out gamer gate. If rape and murder threats aren’t meant to cause terror then what is? Best just keep all people out. It’s the only way to be sure.
@148: The thing is, those aren’t the only two possibly outcomes… The journey from Syria as a refugee is really quite difficult and dangerous, and it does Daesh absolutely no good at all if their gunmen and suicide bombers drown in the eastern Mediterranean, or get stuck in a refugee camp on Cyprus. The numbers of people that they can call on to actually mount effective attacks are fairly limited, so I would imagine that they wouldn’t want to take any unnecessary risks whilst trying to get them into position.
Then there’s the small matter that, in order to commit effective terrorist acts, you need weapons. Now, there are various ways you can acquire weapons, or smuggle them in, but “on a leaky boat full of refugees” is not high on the list. So even if your putative terrorist is (for some unfathomable reason) coming in that way, they’re still going to need to co-ordinate their actions with other people (either already in Europe, or coming in via some other means) in order to get armed. And if you can manage that, then why send people in amongst refugees in the first place, when you must already have much more reliable and effective channels available? Why make things more difficult? It makes no sense.
There isn’t any more important job for human beings than reading information that may convince you that you’re wrong, digest it without prejudice, make a new assessment of whether or not you’re right based on the argument and evidence you have in total (which includes the new stuff), and then, when reasonably convinced you’re wrong, own up to it – to yourself at least, to others when both possible and reasonable.
It’s damn hard to follow the chain the whole way. If we don’t follow the chain to the end, we don’t learn and we don’t reward those who teach and humanity as a whole loses the ability to transmit knowledge. Our greatest asset – our ability to communicate and work together – is threatened. No one act undoes all communication and education or course, in many, many ways we teach each other the frustratingly unwise lesson that giving a wrong answer or making a wrong statement is bad.
But the thing is, we were already wrong when the belief was only in our heads. Giving a wrong answer or making a wrong statement is one of only 2 real mechanisms we have to get things right. And if we think we’re right already, then the other mechanism (owning up to not knowing and asking for information) is off the table. We have no reason to admit ignorance if we’re actually in error. And that means that the only way to make possible the fixing of our errors is to make those errors publicly.
It’s a hard thing, but we’re all wrong. You handle it with better grace than most.
I’m sure it has nothing to do with systemic disenfranchisement and virulent racism eliminating all possibilities of fruitful “legitimate” participation in Western society. Nope, couldn’t be.
If ISIS wants to claim responsibility for all these terror attacks, then ISIS is who we need to hold accountable. Not “Muslims,” because the local Mosque full of selective readings of the Quran–similar to how many Christians cherry pick the nice parts of the Bible and leave behind, say, Leviticus–are not complicit in a terror plot, and scapegoating them solves nothing.
Oh how quickly we forget history. The current political climate is not dissimilar to the climate prior to WW2. Fascism needs a boogeyman to justify its existence, and what better than nebulous faceless “terror”? Who will be the next plotters of terror? Native Americans? Black people? The Queers? You can strap terror on to anyone you consider a threat and the fucking fascists will eat it up and call it justice.
I’ll protest the unjust prosecution of random Muslims, despite the risks protesting carries to me as a trans person, because the moment we are complicit in allowing scapegoating, is the moment we allow the fascists to start throwing any and all minorities to fuel the flames.
@Lesbian Catnip –
To be fair, while it does have to do with those things, there does exist a horrible subset of European muslims who espouse their own racial and/or religious and/or cultural supremacy over the dominant race & religion & culture in which they were born or made their home. They wouldn’t get two centimes to rub together if it weren’t for the support from people who would not support them but for exclusion from other communities by white supremacy, Christian supremacy, and European cultural supremacy. That’s true. But they might get some riyadh.
I think the first step towards peace is making sure we’re not being violent assholes ourselves. That means ending white supremacy. That means valuing the lives of persons without regard to citizenship or geography. And that means a wholesale change in US military policies and a wholesale reduction in US military attacks/bombings. If we’re striving for that, I’m sure we’ll see good moves by people who now consider the US an active military enemy.
But unfortunately it really isn’t quite as simple as “don’t lash out with violence or perpetuate oppression and terrorism targeting your group will end”.
Also? Even white supremacists (and i wouldn’t put it past a band called Eagles of Death Metal to be white supremacist, though being artists, and given my ignorance, they could also be anti-racist)… anyway, as I was saying, even white supremacists don’t deserve to be killed by bomb or gun.
@Lesbian Catnip
Well obviously not. I would have thought it might have had something to do with it, at least on some level, but since Penny has identified the cause as not “any public policy,” then, obviously, domestic actions have no effects.
@Penny L
Yes, this particular terrorist group is Islamic. Various terrorist groups, currently and throughout history have been Christian. If there are not already, there will undoubtedly be explicitly atheistic terrorist groups at some point. Identifying their religious umbrella group as the source of the problem is, firstly, demonizing an entire people for the actions of a few, which you already stated we don’t want to do, but secondly, ultimately useless. We need to identify the actual causes is we want to have any hope of tackling the problems. Limiting our understanding of the issue to only one cause, and inflating that to cover a huge group of people, rather than only those who genuinely pose a threat is worse than useless, and will only make matters worse.
Is Islam a factor in all of this? I suppose to an extent, yes, but only in that (a specific interpretation of) Islam happens to be the particular faith used to justify these horrible acts by this particular terrorist organisation. Many muslims and muslim leaders and organisations have already come forward to denounce and condemn the actions of Daesh, however, so obviously islam isn’t THE cause, now is it. Hell, most of Daesh’s victims so far have been muslims!
There have been explicitly atheistic terrorist groups in the past, but to my incomplete knowledge they were all motivated by hard core belief in communism. Their atheism might have been explicit, but it wasn’t motivating. The hashishim might have been “spiritual, but not religious” (and thus possibly atheist) but I’m not sure about that.
=========================================
My bigger problem with Penny L’s assertion:
is that “terrorism” has been so idiosyncratically and self-servingly defined. When you read the FBI’s statement on US terrorism law, you get:
When has the US ever dropped bombs on another country without intending any of the following:
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; or
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction????
Does the US think that we were not violating the laws of the Taliban when we dropped bombs on Afghanistan in 2001/2002? Does it think we’re not violating the laws of Yemen when we launch drone strikes there? What about the laws of Oman? of Sudan? How many of them have a spot in the law books where it says,
1. If the definition of terrorism is applied consistently AND
2. that requires that violent acts in other countries must be judged legal or not according to that country’s laws, not ours AND
3. and violent acts are excluded by declaration of war BUT
4. We don’t actually have any current declarations of war save against North Korea AND
5. we recognize that some of the US’s actions, such as its use of cluster munitions, constitute war crimes, AND
6. we recognize that any illegal violence, even in time of war, is terrorism, (because that’s how the FBI definition reads) so war crimes are in …
THEN
7. The US government is the major perpetrator of terrorism around the world. It’s not religious extremism, it’s the callous, dismissive, gun-worshipping, culturally supremacist, white supremacist ideology held by too many in the US and tolerated by too many others (in the US and elsewhere) that constitutes the major wellspring of terrorism. Not islam. Not even one version or a few versions of Islam that are worse than vile. A version of “American Exceptionalism” which worships “good guys with guns” and sees dealing death as a solution to threats and cares not at all about “collateral damage” so long as we kill them over there so we don’t have to license guns over here. That wellspring of terrorism surpasses all the hellish dreams of the worst terrorist who fervently believes Allah approves of his actions. We’re motivated enough to spend literally trillions on our terrorism. Do they even spend billions on theirs?
Uhm, my previous comment was meant to be addressed to PennyL @147
It’S always amazing how islamophobic westerners and Daesh are totally in agreement on them being the true muslims…
Lesbian Catnip
very informative reading
This particular rise of islamism among youth in Europe is a recent phenomenon. It’s not the variety of faith of their parents. Quite often, when you hear interviews with young men who either left fundamentalist groups or who are still members, they are longing for a world in which they matter. They have been raised with the idea that they should be providers* but all ways to do so have been barred for them except criminal activity.
The rise of Wahabism, Salafism and Islamism is a current phenomenom. It doesn’t make sense to look into 1400 year old texts to find the answer.
*not a particularly muslim idea
But hey, ‘mericans are the good guys! Yep. All articles at rawstory.com
Once again, the terrorists have links with Molenbeek, a poor region of Brussels with a high crime rate. Social workers have been warning about the situation in Molenbeek for ages and indeed some predicted almost 30 years ago that this type of radicalisation would happen. It seems they were right. These days there are almost no social workers in Molenbeek anymore because the flemish government cut funding.
Some links (the second and third link are in dutch I’m afraid):
http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.english/News/1.2497253
http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20151116_01972850?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_term=dso&utm_content=article&utm_campaign=seeding
http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/videozone/programmas/journaal/2.41783?video=1.2497308
@jo1storm – it is good to see someone changing their mind like that. Good job.
Crip Dyke@156, 159,
Eagles of Death Metal don’t look to be white supremacist. Given what they’ve just been through, I think you might have checked this out rather than speculating – it only took a minute.
As for the “hashishim”, if you mean the medieval Assassins or Hashshashin, they were Shi’a Muslims, specifically Nizari Ismailis, who these days are peaceable, and among the most progressive Muslim groups.
Vive la France. Vive la liberté!
Crip Dyke,
What Nick Gotts said: The Eagles of Death Metal are definitely NOT death metal.
Even if they were, death metal is generally not really associated with white supremacy either.
Kudos to jo1storm for taking on-board the criticism and doing a honest yet skeptical reevaluation of the position. That would be true even if the position was not significantly altered.
Canadian assholes strike again. A Kitchener, Ontario Hindu temple had rocks thrown through its windows Sunday night. It’s not clear yet what the motives were, but police aren’t ruling out it being a response to the Paris attacks.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/kitchener-ram-dham-hindu-temple-windows-smashed-by-vandals-1.3320866
Scottish shitheads too, doing just what daesh probably wants them to do.
http://onehallyu.com/topic/246382-muslim-couple-in-scotland-violently-attacked-by-mob-of-15-citing-revenge-for-paris-attacks/
Rawstory – Why accepting Syrian refugees is actually good for national security
Guardian – Isis hates MIddle Eastern civilisation too
@zenlike:
It may not be associated in the sense of being music crafted to advance white supremacy, but Helter Skelter I’ve met too many oblivious, privileged, racist asshats who were Death Metal musicians or fans. The death metal culture to which I’ve been exposed has been completely toxic.
@zenlike & Nick Gotts
Oh! Which is not to say that I don’t accept the correction and all. Of course I do, and thanks.
The Canadian Conservative response to Paris has been depressingly predictable; brainless macho strutting and pants-pissing fear. Inherent contradiction never worries the arseholes, does it?
Trudeau promised to withdraw the Canadian Air Force from the bombing campaign because he reckoned (rightly, IMO) that Canada could contribute more by training regional ground troops. He also promised to get 25,000 refugees into Canada by the end of the year.
Of course, the right wing response is that Paris changed everything (shades of 9/11)! All of a sudden, the coalition needs Canada’s few obsolescent planes, and we need to be more circumspect about allowing refugees in. As though security wasn’t an issue that had been addressed by the government.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit drinking.
Were this true, and is poverty and a general lack of assimilation the cause of this radicalization, then would we not see a different kind of terrorism? Would we not have seen this attack happen in Brussels, for example? Would we not see a secular list of policy demands? Would we not see a unifying economic message?
We don’t see any of this because the terrorists who ruthlessly murdered scores of people in Paris weren’t motivated by economics or poverty or crime. The French aren’t dealing with aTea Party or OWS equivalent. This is a deeply religious movement and I would not be surprised to find that most of not all of the attackers were relatively well off (perhaps I’m wrong and we know this information, I haven’t seen the latest news).
These two sentences are diametrically opposed. Wahabism, Salafism, Islamism are all steeped in a 1400 year old text. Wahabism cannot exist without the Koran – they’re not making stuff up, they’re finding support for their fundamentalist interpretation of the religion from within that book. The fact that lots of people disagree with their interpretation is irrelevant, there is no Pope in Islam, no one figure charged with interpreting the text as it applies today. The closest thing – for Sunnis at least – are the Imams in Saudi Arabia, home to the two great mosques in Mecca and Medina.
Here we go with the apologetics. Who gives a shit if past terrorist groups have been Christian or Jewish or Scientologists? Christians didn’t fly planes into the twin towers and Christians didn’t shout God is Greater while slaughtering scores of people in Paris last weekend. You don’t see a single Christian terrorist group responsible for any of the 2015 terrorist incidents I posted the link to before.
I’m not demonizing an entire religious group and I’m frankly pissed off that I have to keep repeating that. I’m simply listening to what the terrorists say. Did you ever read bin Laden’s messages? Have you ever looked at what ISIS is saying? Have you ever researched their references to the Koran? They are spewing fountains of hate for just about everyone who isn’t Muslim and they’re doing it because they beleive it is what their religion demands of them. And they might not be right, but they’re not wrong – many of them have memorized the entire book and can recite these passages from memory.
Finally – we have identified actual causes. Religion. Fundamentalist Islam. My sense is it would be easy for us to come to this conclusion if the perpetrators were white Southern Baptists, but because we don’t even want to appear a little bit racist (a point which makes no sense as this is a religion) we bend over backwards to try to find the “root causes” of their “disaffection.”
The root cause is staring us right in the face. It’s a book, dictated by a guy named Muhammad.
@Penny L,
Terrorists have consistently cited foreign policy and interventions as the reason for specific attacks – you can’t disentangle terrorism from politics. If you think that bin Laden was simply a fundementails hate preacher, then I would suggest it is you who didn’t listen to his messages.
If Islam alone is sufficient to explain this, why aren’t there 1.6 billion people working to destroy the West? How do you explain the geographical targeting of Islamist attacks?
Penny L, not understanding shit as usually.
A day ending in Y, I think
Nope. Unlike you and your shitty senses, we recognise that there is a lot more to acts of terrotist violence than just mere religious belief. It’s but one part of a constellation of factors.
Oh shit, I’m getting serious 2001 flashbacks.
The French minister of defence has declared us all to be “French” now and France is asking their partners in the EU for support with their military operations in Syria, Iraq and Africa*.
German Sauce
*Apparently a country…
I have read bin Laden’s messages. Many of them are compiled here: http://fas.org/irp/world/para/ubl-fbis.pdf.
Here is one:
You can read through the rest of the message, but you get the idea. The US “occupation” of Saudi Arabia (they US did – and still do, unfortunately – have a close military relationship with the Saudis and are there at their request) is indeed their stated grievance. But why? Because Saudi Arabia is home to Mecca and Medina, and US citizens are “heretics.” bin Laden’s motivation is primarily religious in nature.
Here are the first three lines of that message:
We may not be able to disentangle terrorism from politics, but it is impossible to disentangle religion from either politics or terrorism when talking about funamentalist Muslim fanatics. Read through bin Laden’s other messages, he is a fundamentalist hate preacher with pan-Arab religious and political goals.
Don’t misinterpret my position. I also believe there are a constellation of factors at play, but I believe religion to be the only major factor. Other factors (poverty, unemployment, education, etc.) may contribute but are not decisive. As atheists we should well know that religious woo causes otherwise intelligent people to do or say crazy things. It should come as no surprise, then, that a religion, twisted by its fundamentalist adherents (how far it needs to be twisted is up for debate) can produce the attacks in Paris last weekend or the sheer volume of other terrorist attacks throughout the world in 2015 (including, as it appears now, the destruction of a civilian airliner a week ago, resulting in the murder of hundreds of people).
@ Penny L,
By those standards, Hitler was merely a Catholic German Fabulist, George W Bush was merely a Christian Paternalist.
God features in almost every public address of a President – does that make American politics primarily religiously motivated? Of course not – power and self-interest, coupled to personal circumstance and experience will dictate the public reaction of a politician who wants to remain in office.
The propaganda of bin Laden is certainly drenched in Islamism, but the fundamental al-Qaeda narrative was that of oppression of Muslim by (primarily) the West. That was their primary route to radicalisation.
Where are most of the foot-soldiers of terror drawn from?
That’s because the french military has been active in several African countries.
Besides, France has been under Hollande on the receiving end of a lot of nagging by the austerity fetichists about its supposedly “unsustainable” deficit (they weren’t complaining when Sarko was running a 8% deficit, but 3,8% of deficit under the social democrats is an unforgivable sin against the Sacrosanct Pact Of Holy Stability and Godly Fiscal Frugality): what Le Drian means when he’s talking support from the EU partners is “Stop your bullshitting about France being a spendthrift when you’re so fucking happy to outsource most of the EU’s military tasks to us“.
Penny L.
Religion also does not appear to be decisive given the approximately 1.6 billion Muslims not involved in terrorism.
And it’s also worth considering which of these factors we can change; we can’t stop people being Muslims, but we might be able to stop our own governments from bombing fucking hospitals.
Penny L, I don’t misinterpret your position. Every Islamist terror attack you’ve listed was committed by Islamists.
Congratulations on your insight. While you’re clapping yourself on the back, perhaps you could look at the data from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism which is attempting to document US drone strikes around the world. They themselves only believe that they have a good, consistent record over time for 3 countries. Even there, they caution that the record might not be complete, particularly as their methodology is conservative to prevent a single misattributed attack to compromise trust in all of their well-documented evidence.
For Pakistan, they have a bit of data that might be interesting to you:
Pakistan 2004–2015
CIA Drone Strikes
Most recent strike:
September 1 2015
Total strikes: 421
Obama strikes: 370
Total killed: 2,489-3,989
Civilians killed: 423-965
Children killed: 172-207
Injured: 1,158-1,738
Then there’s
Yemen 2002–2015
US Covert Action
Most recent strike:
September 21 2015
Confirmed drone strikes: 107-127
Total killed: 492-725
Civilians killed: 65-101
Children killed: 8-9
Injured: 92-223
Possible extra drone strikes: 81-97
Total killed: 338-490
Civilians killed: 26-61
Children killed: 6-9
Injured: 78-105
Other covert operations: 15-72
Total killed: 156-365
Civilians killed: 68-99
Children killed: 26-28
Injured: 15-102
Oh, and then there’s Somalia:
Somalia 2007–2015
US Covert Action
Most recent strike:
July 15 2015
Drone strikes: 15-19
Total killed: 25-108
Civilians killed: 0-5
Children killed: 0
Injured: 2-7
Other covert operations: 8-11
Total killed: 40-141
Civilians killed: 7-47
Children killed: 0-2
Injured: 11-21
=========================
It just so happens that every one of those strikes is a US strike. Clearly, we are at war with US nationalism, and only by completely ridding ourselves of the idea that the US is a country that exists, like with a government and everything, can we bring peace to the world.
OBVIOUSLY there are other factors and this is complicated and all, but you can’t deny that the US justifies these attacks by saying that it’s an entity called a “nation” with a “right” to defend borders and citizenry from “threats”.
I won’t go into the long list of detailed reasons why they need to perform any or each of these strikes. I think it’s enough to just examine the language that the US uses in its to press briefings when discussing drone strikes. The first three sentences should be enough, since that’s how much of bin Laden you want to analyze:
There, you see? Now we understand everything we need to know to know that the US must be wiped off the face of the earth. And don’t get me started on the so called “moderates” in the US who never condemn this kind of thing.
Crip – Nice: “Every Islamist terror attack you’ve listed was committed by Islamists.” I hope you understand how disingenuous this is. As you’re fond of lists, perhaps you could make one detailing the number of planes Christian terrorists blew out of the sky in the name of Christianity in 2015? How about listing the people killed in the EU in Buddhist terrorist attacks committed in the name of Buddhism? How many Jewish terrorists shouted Allahu Yahweh during the Charlie Hebdo massacre?
You can try to equivocate or muddy the waters as much as you like, the facts won’t change. Terrorist attacks, in 2015, are almost universally committed by a subset of one specific religious group for expressly religious reasons. Not all 1.6 billion Muslims are responsible for committing these acts of terrorism, and no responsible person is saying they are (so let’s please dispense with that defense, shall we?).
If we want to address what happened in Paris, these facts must be our starting point.
On drone strikes: if you, or the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, have evidence that they are specifically and purposefully, as part of the United States’ overall strategy, targeting civilians in an effort to sow fear and panic into the hearts of the civilian populace, I would be the first to call for Obama’s impeachment and for criminal charges to be brought against him and the rest of the national security apparatus.
CD
Let’S not forget that the US definition of “civilians” and “children” is a pretty generous one. For the US records. IIRC every male over 15 is automatically counted as “combatant”. So, yeah, a kid herding goats will not show up on the “children” side.
Good grief, PennyL, you really have been brainwashed by the tame US corporate media.
You want terrorist attacks by non-Islamists? How about all of the mosques that have been attacked and vandalised in the last few days? I mean, I don’t think we’ve had any deaths yet, but the aim is pretty clearly terror.
Or for more specifically Christian attacks, how about those directed at abortion services in the US?
jefrir
600+ attacks against refugees, their homes, their helpersand allies in Germany this year. Quite unlikely that it was Daesh.
+++
BTW, did anybody notice that Russia suffered a terrorist attack similar to France? By the same people? For the same reason?
Not even close to right. Who burns down refugee housing? Who goes into churches pretending to be interested in joining then shoots everyone they see? Who blows up hospitals and tries to get away with an “oopsie, our bad”? Hint: not predominantly Muslims.
Was the plane that was blown out of the sky over Ukraine this year or last? Oh, but that wasn’t specifically in the name of Christianity, therefore it cannot possibly count.
For the record, muddying the water is when you take steps to obfuscate, so people can’t see the things that you don’t want them to see. Pointing out the things that you don’t want to see is entirely not that.
Also for the record, being willing to comment on the ridiculousness of the fact that you have chosen to obscure all contemporary non-Islamic terrorism from your own mind so you can identify Islam as the only significant factor (which is still demonisation, no matter how much you claim otherwise – just like this will still be a criticism, even if I swear to you that it is not) is not apologetics. Those terrorists are, as far as I’m concerned, just as “real” as Muslims as the Kurdish Muslim community in my home town who condemned extremism in the wake of arrests in the middle of last week, before the Paris attacks. I happen to like one of those groups better than the other, but I cannot say that either has the more accurate interpretation of Islam. What I can say, however, is that treating them both as a threat can only serve to prolong these tensions and support the recruitment efforts of groups like Daesh. Why would any reasonable person want to do that? Why would we want to play directly into their hands like that?
As atheists, we may well be aware of the dangerous influences that religion can have on people, but as skeptics, we should be thinking about what will actually solve the problems we face, rather than sticking with kneejerk conclusions regardless of what impact they might have.
On the backlash against Muslims, here in Kitchener, Ontario (Canada) my daughter was riding a bus yesterday in her niqab (she’s a convert to Islam), when a fellow bus rider told her to “get back to your own country” – deeply ironic as well as stupidly bigoted,, as they were near the Grand River Hospital at the time, where she was born, and where she had both of her children.
The good part is that another bus rider complained to the driver, and the bigot was thrown off the bus, to general applause. This is the same town where a Hindu temple was attacked a few days ago, a few days after the firebombing of a mosque over in Peterborough (200km away). The good news in that one is that although CAD80000 in damage was done to the mosque, the crowdfunder to replace it was cut off after 24 hours at CAD120000.
Our new Prime Minister has also pledged to bring 25000 Syrian refugees here, direct from refugee camps in and near Syria, before the year’s end, if I understand it right.
So not all is bad, in the true north strong and terrified.
Explain to me how I’ve obscured all contemporary non-Islamic terrorism from my mind. Crip was attempting to make a false equivalency between targeted military drone strikes and a civilian terrorist walking into a packed concert hall and opening fire.
Have I not asked fair questions? Is there another religion or subset of a religion in 2015 which is consistently targeting innocent civilians for death and destruction? Are my facts wrong? No one has tried to demostrate that they are. I’m open to having my mind changed on this, but the evidence I see is pretty overwhelming.
At no point have I advocated for treating anyone as a threat. I have said that I wholeheartedly agree with this:
This is, ultimately, a Muslim problem. No religion, as far as I know, has been successfully reformed from the outside. But the West can place more pressure on the Saudis than they have in the past.
Yes, there is. Christians target abortion clinics, mosques, churches they don’t agree with, and the occasional summer camp or school quite as often as Muslims target planes, concert halls, or anything else. There are over a billion Muslims in the world. A few of them are terrorists. They no more represent all of Islam than the KKK represents all of Christianity. And yet there are Christians killing doctors and bombing clinics in 2015 in the name of god. There are Christians shooting churches in the name of god’s plan for white people. Do you deny that these are Christians?
And calling the victims of drone strikes “military targets” doesn’t make them so. It’s just a way of feeling less guilty about your own crimes. And, make no mistake, if you pay taxes in the US you are participating in those crimes.
Penny L
1) According to Interpol reports, the vast majority of terrorist attacks within the EU are committed by right wing nationalist groups. For the period 2009-2010, of the 543 terrorist attacks in Europe, only 4 were committed by muslim terrorists (I don’t have more recent numbers at hand and can’t look for them now. Maybe someone else does?). That’s less than 1%.
2) Most muslims aren’t terrorists.
3) Other religious groups commit terrorist attacks as well, and quite frequently (eg. the attacks on abortion clinics).
So why are you so focussed on treating Islam as THE only major factor to consider, rather than just, at most, one of a multitude of factors at play? It doesn’t make any sense.
And drone strikes aren’t terrorism? Really? Ever read this: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/29/pakistan-family-drone-victim-testimony-congress
Note this passage in particular:
That sure sounds like terrorism to me.
@Penny L:
This is false. What I did was note how congress had defined international terrorism through statute. I asked you if you believed that drone strikes could happen without violation of law. You have not replied on that point, so suffice it to say you clearly concede that the drone strikes violate laws.
After being unlawful violence, the violence must only have 1 of 3 different characteristics – not all 3, not the best 2 out of 3. Just 1.
Of those 3 characteristics, one sufficient to turn illegal violence into terrorism is:
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population
Note that it doesn’t say you have to target the civilians for killing. You can merely target infrastructure, like hospitals, trucks necessary to carry produce and other important products to market, roads themselves, and more. Of course, you can also target actual humans that you assert are guilty of some crime…but if you act violently towards those people you insist are guilty, and if your violent actions are illegal, and if you do so in a particularly terrifying way in part to discourage civilians from providing any aid or comfort to such people then you have committed terrorism according to the US statute.
Moreover, just because we don’t **say** we’re attempting to kill everyone in a geographical area quite indiscriminately does not mean that we aren’t **actually** attempting to kill everyone in a geographical area quite indiscriminately. See, for example, this article: May it educate you somewhat.
So now we have the US government “targeting” every living male over the age of 12, and it is well established that part of the program is to “deter” aid to “militants” – where “militant” is merely a living male over 12 in a part of the world where it’s popular to hate on the USA even if no one from that part of the world has ever committed an attack on the USA.
How is this not illegal violence where at least one motive is to “intimidate or coerce” civilians?
I’m open to argument. I’m not creating a definition of terrorism that includes CIA drone strikes that are designed to invisibly approach homes and launch surprise attacks at everyone inside. The US Congress already did that…unless you have a counterargument that shows how the legal language cannot apply to such strikes. Do you have a counterargument? At all?
If not, then you are engaging in special pleading: the islamists commit terrorism because their actions meet the definition of terrorism. But the USA’s actions which meet the definition of terrorism are not terrorism, because reasons. Mainly those reasons are that the USA isn’t shouting Allahu Akbar! when they launch their – and I’m not making this up – Hellfire missiles.
Oh, but wait, there’s still more. Part of the purpose of the US drone strike program is to convince people that their governments cannot protect them. This is to put pressure on the governments to change their policies and practices with regards to people the US government believes are terrorists. “We will bomb your people until you are sufficiently aggressive towards your people that we feel safe” is the content of the message to the governments of Yemen, Oman, Sudan, and other nations.
Let’s see, what were those next two criteria that could turn illegal violence into terrorism? Oh, right:
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
How is the US not attempting to influence the policy of a government? How is the US not trying to affect the conduct of a government?
Are you saying stealth drone strikes are not intimidating? Are you arguing that bombing a country until its leaders agree to your demands is not coercion?
I have not created a false equivalence. In fact, I don’t know that I would necessarily have drawn the terrorism statute so broadly. However, the statute is there. It’s the official definition of international terrorism for USA purposes.
Tell me now how these drone strikes aren’t terrorism or everyone reading this will know that you do, indeed, concede that you have no argument to make: that according to the official definition these strikes are terrorism and therefore according to the official definition your assertion that only muslims commit terrorism is complete bullshit.
Well, except that they are “running out of” true believers, so roping in people who are just pissed off at things, and, the above sort of thinking is exactly what our own “true believer” idiots will keep using to decide what to do about it (and have all along, which is why they often ignore their own research/investigation assets, in favor of “believing” they know what to do and that said assets don’t know better. Which begs the question of, “Why the F bother to have CIA/NSA/FBI, etc. at all, if you won’t fraking listen to them, or you plan to put idiots in charge, who will not listen to them for you?”)
http://www.thenation.com/article/what-i-discovered-from-interviewing-isis-prisoners/