The Paris Attack Debate Thread

[PJL]

Okay, but then what happens after ISIS has been overthrown?  Is the United States or any NATO power willing to keep troops in the area and spend money for long term nation building?

You know, I think anarchy would probably be preferable to ISIS.

It's the lack of state authority which caused ISIS to appear in the first place, so that is not the answer. A strong state authority is.

But then, how can that be done without propping up a dictator?

We can't. Propping up a dictator seems to be the only real option we have, or the least worst one we have.

[Savonarola]

But then, how can that be done without propping up a dictator?

We can't. Propping up a dictator seems to be the only real option we have, or the least worst one we have.

I agree, but I don't think that's going to be palatable to the western powers.

[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

(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.

Mainstream archaeologists agree with me on millions of facts (the moon isn't made of cheese, water is composed hydrogen and oxygen etc), so when I look at the pyramids and say "aliens built it", I'm 99.999% in agreement with academics.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

Did you just concede your entire point.

[grumbler]

I'd like to remind you that I am not religious. I just find this argument tedious, as well as sophistries like "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."

Again, this isn't an intellectual response to my argument, but a mere statement that you found my argument "tedious" (yet, strangely, not so tedious that you eschewed investing lifespan in responding to it).  Who cares what you find tedious?  Why do you bother 'sharing" that with us?  If four sentences are too long for your attention span, that says far more about your attention span than my four sentences.  You'd be better off keeping that to yourself.

[Valmy]

I'd like to remind you that I am not religious. I just find this argument tedious, as well as sophistries like "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."

Again, this isn't an intellectual response to my argument, but a mere statement that you found my argument "tedious" (yet, strangely, not so tedious that you eschewed investing lifespan in responding to it).  Who cares what you find tedious?  Why do you bother 'sharing" that with us?  If four sentences are too long for your attention span, that says far more about your attention span than my four sentences.  You'd be better off keeping that to yourself.

Sure there is. Of course it would be a long tedious theological response that would be as pointless as your entire point but there does exist such a response.

[viper37]

   

• 
  Reasonable Muslims at some point have to realize that there is too much about their religion that is fucked up, say to world that some things Mohammed said were retarded, that some of the Koran is bullshit, and either chuck it altogether or pick out some parts that are worth saving and invent a new religion.
  

  There's some pretty fucked up Christians too.
  
  At some point, you have to realize there is a problem: some religions and ideologies are completely opposed to our way of life.
  And then you must act, before the problem becomes serious, before people start blowing themselves up, before they start shooting randomly.  By then, the extremist movement is firmly implanted in the susceptible communities and you can't eradicate it easily.
  
  Or, you use the NRA's attitude: it's the price to pay to live in a free society, and you accept acts of terror as a fatality, so you change nothing.
  
  As for the muslims realizing there are many things fucked up done in the name of their religion, when they speak, we do not listen.  When they tell us Imam X should not be invited for a conference because he preaches hate, we talk to them of freedom of expression.  When they tell us the radicals are poisoning their existence, we talk to them of freedom of religion. They come here as refugees, and they are face to face with the same extremists they fled.  They fear for their life and no one listens.  And when eventually, someone homegrown leaves for jihad and comes back to commit an act of terror, we blame them for not acting.
  
  You cannot simply bomb an ideology, it always comes back.  Israel has been bombing the Palestinian the arab armies and terrorist organizations since 1948 and they're still at each other's throat.
  
  You cannot change the fact that some people will hate us for what we are.  We can not kill them all.  But we can act to curb their enthousiasm.  We can expel the radicals from here and we can certainly make sure that young muslims can grow up in the same environment we do.  You are not born a terrorist, you become one, through radicalization and endoctrination.
  
  You have leaders of the muslim community telling you exactly what I've been saying for long:
  In French, since you can understand it:
  

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/tele/tout-le-monde-en-parle/2015-2016/segments/entrevue/3925/attentats-paris
Europe waited way too long before tackling the problem, and they are suffering the consequences.  Canada and US are on the same page as them, waiting for the inevitable to happen, then blame those who told us what to do years ago.

What we have is this:

   
• Some muslims talk, no one listen to them.  Non muslims who talk are called racist, intolerant, etc.
• The majority of the muslims don't consider the terrorist as the same as them.  The same way a Protestant bombing an abortion clinic in the name of God is not representative of who I am, even if he's Canadian, even if I'm baptized.  Discussing with a muslim about this will often result in such: "He's salafist, I'm not".  To them, it's like a Christian bombing a Church in the name of God, it's not their God, end of story.
• Eventually, by being very lax about we who let him, what we allow them to do, we have extreme right-wing parties appearing on the landscape, their resistance will not be strictly limited to fanatics, they'll consider everyone different to be a problem.
• As a result of the previous point, radical preachers will increase in popularity.
• And we can always count on the useful idiots to ignore the problem, listen to the preachers of #4 instead of the muslims in #1, therefore exacerbating the problem.

Our attitude toward religion must change.  We must recognize that some religions are more than a spiritual thing, they are an ideology akin to nazism.  We must act now.  We must refuse extremism.  That will piss them off.  They will attack us more than others at first, but eventually, they will have much less attraction on the people in our countries and they will need to recruit foreigners, easier to detect than homegrown terrorists.  They won't be able to hide as easily as they do in their communities.

[mongers]

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

why? if you have a religious tenant -> kill all the christians. and you believe you must kill all the christians. if you're a true religious person, then you must kill all the christians and make no compromise. attacks should happen before and after. now, obviously this would almost never happen and strategy is of course used. but that's because people act more on a human basis than a religious one. if god were truly on someone's side, strategy is unnecessary because the outcome is essentially predetermined.

Good God, you now made me want to make sure to let my properties only to atheists to avoid any trouble.

[Malthus]

Sufism isn't really a sect, it's more a set of disciplines and approaches, although there are Sufi "orders".  Sufism crosses sectional divisions, for example the Ayatollah Khomeini studied Sufi texts and wrote Sufi poetry as a student.   It's true that Dash/Al-Qaeda/Salafi/Wahhabbi tendency is anti-Sufi and in its extreme manifestations resorts to violence and extirpation.

Sufism is basically a direct, intuitive, "mystical" approach to Islam. Though of course, many of the Wahabbi types would deny it is even Islamic. 

However, for our purposes, it isn't really material whether its adherents are classified as members of a separate "sect" or not (I'd say that in actual practice most are). The point is that it is dangerous to generalize about the religion as a whole - if you gathered some Muslims of a Sufi persuasion and some Muslims of the Wahabbi sort in one room, the delta of difference between 'em could be pretty wide.  I cannot imagine a Wahabbi writing this:

I have learned so much from God
That I can no longer call myself
a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Jew.

-Hafez

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hafez

[mongers]

It's heading into anti-Semites and Jews, Sufi and fellow travellers are some of the very first ISIS go after when taking over a place, before Christians and other sects.

[Eddie Teach]

Again, this isn't an intellectual response to my argument, but a mere statement that you found my argument "tedious" (yet, strangely, not so tedious that you eschewed investing lifespan in responding to it).  Who cares what you find tedious?  Why do you bother 'sharing" that with us?  If four sentences are too long for your attention span, that says far more about your attention span than my four sentences.  You'd be better off keeping that to yourself.

The arguments about God and derision toward believers has been going on since the beginning of the forum, it wasn't born in this thread. It's not even the first time you've trotted out that particular sophistry.

Let's examine your claim. You don't believe in any god and ridicule those who do. Yet you say you agree with them on the subject of "other gods".

So you don't believe in Allah. You think Muslims are idiots or fools for doing so. And you say this is the same position a Christian would have.

A Christian, however, might look at it differently. They do believe in "Allah" (which is simply Arabic for "God"), they just don't think he ever talked to Mohammed and doesn't care much if you like bacon.

Let's say you're wearing blue shirt. So red-shirt wearing grumbler doesn't exist. Neither does green-shirt wearing grumbler or brown-shirt wearing grumbler, or a thousand other hues. And you only drink beer, so Sprite-drinking grumbler and milk-drinking grumbler don't exist either. It would be rather silly of me to suggest you didn't exist at all, just because an infinite variety of "grumblers" can be imagined.

You're basically equating saying "I think grumbler's shirt is actually red" to saying "I think grumbler's not real."

[crazy canuck]

Again, this isn't an intellectual response to my argument, but a mere statement that you found my argument "tedious" (yet, strangely, not so tedious that you eschewed investing lifespan in responding to it).  Who cares what you find tedious?  Why do you bother 'sharing" that with us?  If four sentences are too long for your attention span, that says far more about your attention span than my four sentences.  You'd be better off keeping that to yourself.

The arguments about God and derision toward believers has been going on since the beginning of the forum, it wasn't born in this thread. It's not even the first time you've trotted out that particular sophistry.

Let's examine your claim. You don't believe in any god and ridicule those who do. Yet you say you agree with them on the subject of "other gods".

So you don't believe in Allah. You think Muslims are idiots or fools for doing so. And you say this is the same position a Christian would have.

A Christian, however, might look at it differently. They do believe in "Allah" (which is simply Arabic for "God"), they just don't think he ever talked to Mohammed and doesn't care much if you like bacon.

Let's say you're wearing blue shirt. So red-shirt wearing grumbler doesn't exist. Neither does green-shirt wearing grumbler or brown-shirt wearing grumbler, or a thousand other hues. And you only drink beer, so Sprite-drinking grumbler and milk-drinking grumbler don't exist either. It would be rather silly of me to suggest you didn't exist at all, just because an infinite variety of "grumblers" can be imagined.

You're basically equating saying "I think grumbler's shirt is actually red" to saying "I think grumbler's not real."

Yeah, Grumbler's argument works better when only considering religious beliefs characterized by Fundamentalist Christians or Wahabbists but does not work so well when attempting the characterize the Sufi belief Malthus posted.

[Savonarola]

We should spread the rumor in the Islamic World that the US Stronghold is actually Compton, not Washington DC; then see how well the terrorist fare there.

Paris attacks: 'France is at war,' Hollande says

Paris (CNN)Declaring that "France is at war," President Francois Hollande on Monday proposed sweeping new laws and more spending on public safety in response to Friday's terror attacks in Paris -- promising to eradicate terrorism, but not at the expense of France's freedom.

At the same time, ISIS threatened the United States that it could be next.

"I swear to God, as we struck France in its stronghold Paris, we will strike America in its stronghold, Washington," an ISIS fighter declared in a video released Monday.

The speech, and ISIS' latest threat, came as police scoured France and Belgium in a hunt for suspects in Friday's brutal attacks, which left at least 129 dead and 352 wounded.

Hollande calls for new laws

In a rare speech to a joint session of parliament, Hollande urged lawmakers to approve a three-month extension of the nation's state of emergency, new laws that would allow authorities to strip the citizenship from French-born terrorists, and provisions making it easier to deport suspected terrorists.


He also proposed adding 5,000 positions to the country's national paramilitary police force and said he would not propose cuts in the nation's defense spending until at least 2019.

He said France would intensify its attacks on ISIS and called for a United Nations Security Council meeting to discuss the worldwide threat posed by the group.

"We are not committed to a war of civilizations, because these assassins don't represent any civilization," Hollande said. "We are in a war against terrorism, jihadism, which threatens the whole world."

"Terrorism will not destroy France, because France will destroy it," Hollande said.

Raids across France

French police carried out raids around the country overnight into Monday, bringing to 150 the number of raids under the country's state of emergency since Friday.

French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said Monday that a rocket launcher and bulletproof vest were among the items seized. He said he had ordered that 104 people be put under house arrest since the attacks.

In Belgium, at least seven people were arrested in weekend raids connected to the Paris attacks, officials said. Those arrested were in contact with the Paris attackers, a senior Belgian counterterrorism source told CNN. No weapons or explosives were found.

While police said seven of the Paris attackers were dead -- either shot by officers or blown up by their own suicide vests -- an international manhunt is underway for one suspect who has already managed to slip through the fingers of authorities at least once.

Suspect at large described as dangerous

The suspect, Salah Abdeslam, is a 26-year-old French citizen who was born in Belgium, French police said in a public request for information, warning that he is dangerous and should not be approached. Belgium has issued an international warrant for his arrest.

Investigators haven't said much about how they believe Abdeslam is tied to the shootings and bombings that targeted people at restaurants, bars, a concert venue and a sports stadium.

The French newspaper Le Monde reported that he rented the black Volkswagen Polo that was found outside the Bataclan concert hall where three attackers massacred at least 89 people before blowing themselves up or being shot by police.

Questioned by police, then let go

Jean-Pascal Thoreau, a spokesman for Belgium's federal prosecutor, said Abdeslam is one of three brothers suspected of involvement in the rampage of violence. One of the brothers was killed in the attacks, and another was arrested by Belgian police, he said.

Salah Abdeslam had been questioned by French police earlier but was not detained, a source close to the investigation into the Paris attacks said.

He was driving in the direction of the Belgian border a few hours after the attacks when officers stopped him, the source said. Now, his whereabouts are unknown.

Le Monde reported that police hadn't yet linked him to the Paris attacks when they stopped him and two other people in a black Volkswagen Golf. When Belgian police stopped the car later Saturday, Abdeslam was no longer in it.

On Monday, police had blocked off two streets in an active standoff in Molenbeek, a suburb of Brussels, Belgium, with a history of links to terrorism plots. Police in balaclavas surrounded a building and were using a megaphone to command someone to come out, a CNN team on the ground reported.

No one was arrested, Thoreau said. Belgian state broadcaster RTBF, citing the country's Federal Justice Department, had previously reported that police made one arrest but had not apprehended Abdeslam.

Car found with weapons inside

Le Monde reported that Salah Abdeslam's older brother Ibrahim was the suicide bomber whose explosives detonated at a cafe on boulevard Voltaire in eastern Paris during the wave of attacks on the city. The Paris prosecutor's office has identified that attacker as a 31-year-old French citizen but hasn't disclosed his name.

According to Le Monde, Ibrahim Abdeslam rented the black Seat car that authorities say was used in the string of deadly attacks on restaurants and bars on Friday. But it's not yet clear whether he was in the vehicle at the time of the attacks, the newspaper said.

Other suspected attackers have been identified, including Ismael Omar Mostefai, a 29-year-old French citizen from the Paris suburbs who authorities say was radicalized in 2010 but wasn't known to be associated with a terrorist group. Mostefai was one of the three terrorists who stormed the Bataclan concert hall, according to officials.

On Monday, the Paris prosecutor's office identified another of the Bataclan attackers as Samy Amimour, a 28-year-old from the Parisian suburb of Drancy.

Amimour was known to have links to terrorists and had been the subject of an international arrest warrant since 2013 after violating the judicial supervision he had been placed under, the prosecutor's office said in a statement.

He was placed under supervision in 2012 after anti-terrorism authorities investigated an aborted attempt to travel to Yemen, the statement said.

Stadium attacker believed to have fought in Syria

Authorities have also released names for two of the suicide bombers who set off their explosives outside the Stade de France, the national stadium where France's soccer team was playing Germany's.

One is Bilal Hadfi, who is reported to have been a 20-year-old French citizen living in Belgium.

Guy van Vlierden, a Belgian terrorism expert, said Hadfi is thought to have fought in Syria, where he went by the names Abu Moudjahid Al-Belgiki and Bilal Al Mouhajir.

Hadfi appears to have traveled to Syria last spring, van Vlierden said, citing analysis of his social media postings and other communications.

At least three of the terrorists involved in Friday's attacks in France have spent time in Syria, a French official told CNN Sunday. The official did not specify who those three attackers were.

On Monday, CNN affiliate BFM reported that French officials believe that six of the people directly involved in the attacks had spent time in Syria.

Syrian passport holder linked to refugee flow

Attention is also heavily focused on a Syrian passport found near the body of another of the three Stade de France bombers.

The first stadium attacker was carrying the passport, a French senator who was briefed by the Interior Ministry told CNN's Christiane Amanpour. French officials have determined that the bomber was among a group of Syrian refugees who arrived on the Greek island of Leros on October 3.

The senator told CNN that the man was carrying the passport and also a registration document for refugee status by Greek authorities. The fingerprints of the passport holder taken by Greek authorities match those of the terrorist who blew himself up at the Stade de France, the senator said.

The Paris prosecutor's office on Monday confirmed the link, saying the passport bearing the name of Ahmad Al Mohammad, a 25-year-old from Idlib, still needs to be verified.

Attack raises concerns internationally

In Britain, authorities said they would increase security for Tuesday's soccer match between England and France. And in Washington, transit police stepped up patrols to safeguard the city's mass transit system.

More patrols, more dogs and random explosives screenings were introduced, along with unseen countermeasures meant to prevent an attack, the Metro Transit Police Department said.

CIA Director John Brennan said he would be surprised if the group doesn't have additional attacks in preparation.

"I would anticipate this is not the only operation they have in the pipeline," he said. "I do believe this is something we will have to deal with for quite some time."

Refugee concerns intensify

The alleged link between one of the Paris attackers and the refugees from the Syrian war flocking to Europe this year has intensified concerns about how to handle the massive influx of people.

"The fear that terrorists are hiding amongst refugees will increase and will be used by anti-immigrant politicians," said Karen Jacobsen, who directs the Refugees and Forced Migration program at Tufts University's Feinstein International Center.

But she said measures like "sealing borders with razor wire and having police on trains requesting papers" won't prevent desperate refugees from reaching Europe.

"The United States and Europe must work together to find reasonable ways to manage the current refugee flow into Europe and to utilize more creative and effective intelligence to monitor terrorist plans," Jacobsen wrote in an opinion article for CNN.

City on edge

On Monday, Parisians tried to return to school and work in a city scarred by its second major terror attack this year. In January, terrorists stormed the offices of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, killing 12.

At one intersection, police who arrived to direct traffic Monday were met by worried pedestrians asking "Is anything happening?" according to CNN's Atika Shubert.

At a Paris school, a father said, "It's difficult to let them go off to school and for us to return to work, for everyone. We're all just going to have to look out for one another."

In a radio address Monday, Prime Minister Manuel Valls said, "Life must carry on, but we are going to live a long time with this terrorist threat, and without doubt we have to prepare for new attacks."

I'm curious, what would extending the state of emergency for such a length of time mean in practical terms?  Also does anyone have an opinion on Hollande's new proposals?

[Valmy]

He also proposed adding 5,000 positions to the country's national paramilitary police force and said he would not propose cuts in the nation's defense spending until at least 2019.

My God! This scale of national mobilization has not been seen since the Levée en masse.

[Admiral Yi]

Stripping citizenship is definitely problematic.