The Paris Attack Debate Thread

[grumbler]

What facts?

The facts that any given religious person* agrees with me that millions upon millions of gods don't exist.  They make an exception for their gods.  I don't.  But we are in fundamental agreement about the non-existence of gods, beyond their quibble.

*Hindus and Sikhs exccepted

[grumbler]

What the fuck are you harping on about? Your posts have been almost impossible to understand lately - you are always making some obscure point (usually based on nitcpiking on minuatiae) that has absolutely zero relevance to the discussion at hand.

No, I will not stop talking over your head.  If you can't keep up, just ignore the bits you can't understand.

[Eddie Teach]

The facts that any given religious person* agrees with me that millions upon millions of gods don't exist.  They make an exception for their gods.  I don't.  But we are in fundamental agreement about the non-existence of gods, beyond their quibble.

*Hindus and Sikhs exccepted

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Guys while I agree that Islamic-inspired terrorists are the #1 suspect, we don't actually know who has done this terrible attack, or why.  Let's wait for facts before we start debating what to do next.

Okay, so now it does look like Islamic, probably even IS-inspired terrorists are responsible.  Would it really have been that terrible to wait until Sunday to start discussing what France/the West's response should be?

Yes.

And no, it served no purpose to wait except being politically correct. Languish has a whole does not care.


Raqqa is still not a smoldering ruin   

it is to be hoped that one of the victims of this attack will be political correctness. It has done more bad than good since the 68-ers control of politics and media.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

On checking the woman is Obama's national security advisor, no idea on who the other Russian male is.

going by the eyebrows, someone from vulcan.
Not that he has anything to do with it but the attack might have some fortuitous effects for Putin. Less so for Ukraine or even the Baltics, long term.

That's kind of a silly hypothetical, don't you think?

ISIS *might* not attack the US if they're busy conquering the rest of the world and the US promises not to interfere, until ISIS has conquered the rest of the world, at which point I would expect ISIS to try and conquer the US.

but that sounds awfully strategic and based on something that isn't purely religion

there's no rule that says you can't use strategy in order to reach religiously mandated goals. jeez.

i just don't think religion matters much,

Maybe in the west it doesn't. In the rest of the world the situation is often very very different.

edit: 4 posts in a row is silly. Might have been 5 (the train syrians and send them back idea was posted on languish some months ago)

[Liep]

https://youtu.be/glxh9ZgP7kc

John Oliver's thoughts on this.

[Razgovory]

The facts that any given religious person* agrees with me that millions upon millions of gods don't exist.  They make an exception for their gods.  I don't.  But we are in fundamental agreement about the non-existence of gods, beyond their quibble.

*Hindus and Sikhs exccepted

It's one of those bizarre statements that  Grumbler makes that he apparently thinks is profound but is in fact meaningless.  I know it's a popular statement amongst the "Bright movement", and Grumbles is childish enough to walk around telling people that he "is Bright".

[grumbler]

The facts that any given religious person* agrees with me that millions upon millions of gods don't exist.  They make an exception for their gods.  I don't.  But we are in fundamental agreement about the non-existence of gods, beyond their quibble.

*Hindus and Sikhs exccepted

(snip)

I am sure that everyone thinks that THEIR religion is the one exception to the general consensus that any given god does not, in fact, exist.  They generally can't respond to this sort of logic other than to post clips saying "there you go again," because there is no intellectual counter-argument to my statement.  "MY god is different because that's what I believe" isn't an intellectual response.

[Solmyr]

What happened to Muslims? They used to be in mathematics and poetry and philosophy and all that good stuff. Nowadays they just blow things up and shoot places up.

Those guys tended to be not very pious Muslims.

[frunk]

By the way, what do you guys think of the idea? The guy is from PiS, so all the liberal and leftist media are making fun of him and saying he is making us into an international laughingstock, but I am not sure if this is such a bad idea - and even if it is a bad idea, it is not outside of the realm of discussion that European politicians engage in.

Presumably most of the refugees are people who didn't want to fight, that's why they are fleeing.  I'm sure some of them do, and it might be possible to train them, but it likely won't be a significant number.  Further, what will this refugee army fight for?  These are refugees from a 4 year Civil War, they aren't likely to have a united position on what factions to support.

[mongers]

So is this the place to discuss ways to defeat ISIS or does it need another thread or for that mater reusing the ISIL one from a while back?

I'd like to focus on the Obama administration, which seems to be in a bit of a corner because to some extent the situation requires decisive action and that runs counter to Pres.Obama natural cautiousness?

[Savonarola]

So is this the place to discuss ways to defeat ISIS or does it need another thread or for that mater reusing the ISIL one from a while back?

I'd like to focus on the Obama administration, which seems to be in a bit of a corner because to some extent the situation requires decisive action and that runs counter to Pres.Obama natural cautiousness?

Barack has been willing to drones or bombers to destroy targets (Libya for example), but has been unwilling (mostly) to put "Boots on the ground."  What decisive action would you like to see?  Anything that would destroy ISIS and prevent another ISIS like group from arising would seem (to me) to require a very long commitment from the west.

[Grey Fox]

I think the problem is Assad.

If NATO troops are on the ground then they will only stop when Assad is ousted. Russia is preventing that.

[Savonarola]

I think the problem is Assad.

If NATO troops are on the ground then they will only stop when Assad is ousted. Russia is preventing that.

Okay, but then what would replace Assad?  I don't think the west is willing to simply replace him with another dictator.  The experiences with democracy in Iraq (or Libya or Egypt) don't leave me with a lot of confidence that the situation would improve with him gone.

[LaCroix]

The Red Army Faction and their ilk were hardly lone rangers.

And in which broken world did the idea of lynching uppity blacks first originate, so that Klansmen, who would otherwise have sung kumbaya endlessly, could be properly proselytized in the La Croix fashion?

that's why i said "mostly correct." broken world only goes so far. it's really whatever conditions exist that force a violent extreme group into existence. things like red army faction and the IRA formed more because there was a group of people who really desired something. the basis can be caused by religion, political ideology, ethnicity, nationalism, or one of many other reasons why people band together. but there has to be something going on for one person to convince others to jump on board. otherwise it's some ranting nut.