INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

Paris killings

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Paris killings

#1 Postby Dave B » November 14th, 2015, 1:18 pm

Another massacre carried out by the so-called IS, not because of anti-Islamic cartoons this time but for what IS see as anti-Islamic aggression.

We have yet to see whather the terrorists were "home grown" or recent legal or illegal immigrants. Whichever, events like this could be "recruiting sergeants" for the right wing organisations. If they turn out to be legal immigrants what effect will this have on European policy? French policy in particular.

The word is that the Shengen agreement is already on a rocky footing, if they are immigrants then . . .

They are just saying on the radio that France has less security and a more open policy than Britain. So is our strict filtering regime a genuine protection? Would opening up our borders open us to similar events?

Should such events modify Britain' or Europe's policy on what actions, or not, we should be involved in in Syria, Iraq etc.?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Paris killings

#2 Postby thundril » November 14th, 2015, 5:34 pm

Dave B wrote: .

They are just saying on the radio that France has less security and a more open policy than Britain. So is our strict filtering regime a genuine protection? Would opening up our borders open us to similar events?


It's not oflen I quote a Tory with approval, but I broadly agree with David Davis on this. He said (quoting from memory, so not precise) 'Our fathers sacrificed their lives to protect our freedoms. It would be a disgrace if we now sacrificed our freedoms to protect our lives'. Something like that, anyway.
The point was, I think, that the way to deal with terrorists is with a big, fearless 'Fuck you!'.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Paris killings

#3 Postby animist » November 14th, 2015, 7:33 pm

well what a surprise, Dave, you have many times expressed fears about the current migration crisis, which stars mainly Muslims from the Middle East and elsewhere, so I guess you "choose" to interpret these awful events as a justification for restricting this forced migration. And of course I, who tends to support military action against extremists, hope that these events will strengthen rather weaken the resolve of Western states like France to suppress Isis. What does seem idiotic about the French government is that it seems not to recognise that there is a three-way war going on in Syria, and, like most of the West, wants to defeat both Isis and Assad. Let's get rid of Isis first, even if it means (probably Russian plus Iranian) boots on the ground. Some settlement might follow with Assad in some role, though I would not bet on it.

Neither would I bet on cessation of these attacks, whatever peaceful countries do. We are stuck with incomprehension of the potential of religious fanaticism

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Paris killings

#4 Postby Dave B » November 14th, 2015, 10:18 pm

I decided to scrap my whole original answer and leave it with:

Animist, are you willing to go to Paris and explain your philosophy to the injured and the families of the dead?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Paris killings

#5 Postby animist » November 14th, 2015, 10:53 pm

Dave B wrote:I decided to scrap my whole original answer and leave it with:

Animist, are you willing to go to Paris and explain your philosophy to the injured and the families of the dead?
short answer - no. Longer answer - I am not really sure what your point is, or even that I have a "philosophy" about this. Do you expect Francois Hollande to stop bombing Isis? Maybe he will, but I doubt it, for fear of appearing to be giving to these dreadful people. But in that case, I assume that you would, if you could, demand that he too explains his philosophy to the injured and the families of the dead

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Paris killings

#6 Postby thundril » November 14th, 2015, 10:59 pm

Dave, not all bereaved families are calling for more suffering to be inflicted on the people of Syria, Iraq, or anywhere else. Some will want instant revenge, others won't. After the passage of time, the actual bereaved often develop a deeper thoughtfulness then those outraged on their behalf. Consider the families of the people murdered by 'Jihadi John' Some of the people currently turning up in the Med are running away from Daesh. The rest are running away from 'our' bombing.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Paris killings

#7 Postby Dave B » November 15th, 2015, 10:52 am

thundril wrote:Dave, not all bereaved families are calling for more suffering to be inflicted on the people of Syria, Iraq, or anywhere else. Some will want instant revenge, others won't. After the passage of time, the actual bereaved often develop a deeper thoughtfulness then those outraged on their behalf. Consider the families of the people murdered by 'Jihadi John' Some of the people currently turning up in the Med are running away from Daesh. The rest are running away from 'our' bombing.

Thundril, please quote where I asked for more suffering to be heaped on the people of that part of the world.

I am as sad as anyone else that any kind of violence is happening but am pragmatic enough to accept that it is a fact, a fact that we have to live with, that we may have no lasting solution for. Therefore is it not sensible to do what is possible to reduce the spread of that violence?

The past colonial/imperial policies of the west are part of the historic basis for some of the violence in the Middle East and, perhaps combined with the actions of the West in Iraq, Afghanistan and, now, Syria the hatred for some factions for all things Western. This, of course, ignores the hatred and violence between the various sects of Islam itself, but that is part of the dynamic that keeps the whole cycle rotating over the centuries. Violence has almost become a way of life for some.

I was, sort of, accused of picking on Muslims, well, it seems that much of the terrorist type violence seems to be by those who claim to be Muslims. We have been told that Islam is a religion of peace and that the terrorists are not true Muslims. I can understsnd that, most religions have their militant factions that use their interpretation of "The Word" to justify their actions.

So, take any group of 1000 male "refugees" from the Middle Est or North Africa; a portion of them will be in a position of actual danger in their own country, another portion will simply want a better life than being bombed by whoever, some are not in danger but want a better quality of life and think they will achieve it in the West. But, possibly, one or more will be sponsored by IS, al Q or some affiliated group. I would like to know how to differentiate between these.

Ideas have been put forward that priority be given to unaccompanied children and women. I am all for that, such people are vulnerable in many ways. Families with the husband come next and single men are the lowest priority. Short of the "open door" pokicy some sort of priotity system will be needed.

Given "open door" it seems inevitable that those bent on violence will get in. As has been demonstrated one successful bomber equals tens of innocent deaths.

I am attempting an objective and pragmatic consideration here, not calling for absolute banning of immigration but sensible "filtering" to reduce the possibilty of violence spreading. If I am right, as I said before, these events must be good propaganda for right wing and anti-immigration groups. I do not support such groups. I also meet people who have a sort of formless fear. They are not political, not right wing, just afraid and think keeping the doors closed will make them safer.

One of IS's justifications for the recent events was France's bombing of their positions. What is the answer to that? Is it to withdraw all foreign forces from ME countries and let them sort it out amongst themselves? Not a good policy, unless we want a bloodbath of even greater proportions and the chance of the IS caliphate being a fact and declaring (terrorist at least) war on all non-Muslims or Muslims not of their specific beliefs. They have declared the intention of establishing a global caliphate. Their motivation is based on historical precepts, not the short-termism of Western politics. It is "funded" by the immaterial, not the economy.

So no real answer, we stay in the action and make ourselves targets, we get out and still probably remain targets.

I will say it again; I am saddened by the events in the ME and Paris and am attempting a pragmatic view. Unfortunately pragmatism does not always allow for ideology, philodophy, emotion etc., it attempts to deal with the world as it is. I will not appologise for wishing to at least attempt to prevent any enemy of my culture, my nation, my town falling to a violent enemy if it is possible to prevent such violence. I cannot accept that putting ordinary people at risk is justified to keep an open door policy. If I chose to put myself in danger to defend another that is a concious decision. If I ignore or, worse, encourage a situation that results in the death of many people I am not going to feel less than extremely guilty.

I have always been of the opinion that all things have some kind of limit, even personal values like humanism. Humanity has always had its inhumane side and perhaps one has to take less than ideal actions to restrict the spread of that aspect. Whatever action or inaction is employed there will always be innocents that suffer, that is a fact of history.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Paris killings

#8 Postby animist » November 15th, 2015, 2:27 pm

Dave B wrote:So, take any group of 1000 male "refugees" from the Middle Est or North Africa; a portion of them will be in a position of actual danger in their own country, another portion will simply want a better life than being bombed by whoever, some are not in danger but want a better quality of life and think they will achieve it in the West. But, possibly, one or more will be sponsored by IS, al Q or some affiliated group. I would like to know how to differentiate between these.

Ideas have been put forward that priority be given to unaccompanied children and women. I am all for that, such people are vulnerable in many ways. Families with the husband come next and single men are the lowest priority. Short of the "open door" pokicy some sort of priotity system will be needed.

Given "open door" it seems inevitable that those bent on violence will get in. As has been demonstrated one successful bomber equals tens of innocent deaths.


there is something in what you say, but then why restrict all this to refugees or other migrants? Countries like France and the UK have large settled Muslim communities, some of whom are clearly sympathisers with IS, and it is surely much easier for these settled would-be jihadists to get involved in organised terror than for someone in a holding camp. I don't think that the risk of letting in a few radicals justifies breaking up families or turning back migrants

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Paris killings

#9 Postby Dave B » November 15th, 2015, 3:32 pm

Wrote a long reply on my tablet but cannot get it submitted for some reason. Will try again later.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Paris killings

#10 Postby Dave B » November 15th, 2015, 3:36 pm

animist wrote:there is something in what you say, but then why restrict all this to refugees or other migrants? Countries like France and the UK have large settled Muslim communities, some of whom are clearly sympathisers with IS, and it is surely much easier for these settled would-be jihadists to get involved in organised terror than for someone in a holding camp. I don't think that the risk of letting in a few radicals justifies breaking up families or turning back migrants


You are right, it should not be restricted to immigrants, it seems that at least one of the terrorists was a French citizen. Perhaps any members of IS "imiigrating" for terrorist purposes would di their best not to end up in a holding camp, they would almost certainly have been in contact with resident sympathisers. IS is well known to be skilled users of technology so planning before hand would not be dificult.

I did not say families should be broken up. There have been unaccompanied kids and women, with and without kids, immigrating, I suggested making such high priority. Full families, especially with kids would be tge next priority. Adult males would be the lower priority. I think priorities will become necessary if the numbers get larger, not sure how many countries have the housing, medical and educational reserves that will be needed.

It is still really early days in some ways. There is still a lot of scope for covert migration, something harder to guard against - no amount of "checkpoint control" can stop the small boat on the deserted coast.

Whether "home grown" or imported we have to choose between security and some sort of restrictions. If the public voted for no restrictions then it would have to bear some of the responsibility for any terrorist action that was a consequence. You, animist, would seemingly vote to take the risk and thus accept some of the responsibility? I, evidently, would prefer to mitigate the risk if that is possible. Just still unsure how.

But I am also concerned about what the rest of the "active" members of the public think; concerned that more will slide to the right. Just hoping they don't slide too far.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Paris killings

#11 Postby Dave B » November 15th, 2015, 3:40 pm

For some reason the Submit and other buttons would not work on the tablet but it all worked on my PC. Had to reload TH. Can't copy/paste between plstforms or devices it seems.

Strange.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Paris killings

#12 Postby Tetenterre » November 15th, 2015, 3:53 pm

Thoughtful piece by Niall Ferguson in ST today, comparing Europe to Roman Empire in decline. This para in particular struck home:
Attachments
20151115_151658-1_resized.jpg
20151115_151658-1_resized.jpg (236.88 KiB) Viewed 3490 times
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Paris killings

#13 Postby Dave B » November 15th, 2015, 5:23 pm

I think I understand what he is trying to say but I did find it a bit confused, perhaps a bit metaphorical.

Agreed that the majority of Muslims in Europe are not militant, though it only takes a few people to create serious events, QED.

True that there is a gulf between what Islam and the more liberal West consider immoral, though they will have allies amongst the more fundamentalist Christian denominations. The sentence that jumps from sex to religion then back to sex had me scratching my head.

Are these "weapons" he speaks of moral ones, used to sway Muslim opinion and thus recruit for the militant cause, or actual AK47s etc.? I can understand the former but not the latter.

In any event by whst IS have said over the last couple of years if you are not a follower of their specific version, or interpretation, of Islam then you are their enemy. This makes the majority of the world their enemies regardless of their beleifs or morality, or lack of. Whatever we do or think we are in their target area.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24031
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Paris killings

#14 Postby Alan H » November 15th, 2015, 10:00 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Paris killings

#15 Postby Dave B » November 16th, 2015, 8:55 am

Sort of following TT's offer an advisor type said that most of IS's attacks, in Africa as well as Europe, seem to be in areas where Muslims and non-Muslims currently live without to much conflict.

So they are attempting to inflame opinion on both sides, create division.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Compassionist
Posts: 3422
Joined: July 14th, 2007, 8:38 am

Re: Paris killings

#16 Postby Compassionist » November 16th, 2015, 10:08 am

I am very saddened by the deaths of 132 people in Paris at the hands of the terrorists. I am equally saddened about all the killings all over the world. Why can't we resolve conflicts through diplomacy? World War II killed around 63 million people. I am worried that we will end up creating an even more deadly World War III.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6519
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Paris killings

#17 Postby animist » November 16th, 2015, 11:14 am

Compassionist wrote:I am very saddened by the deaths of 132 people in Paris at the hands of the terrorists. I am equally saddened about all the killings all over the world. Why can't we resolve conflicts through diplomacy? World War II killed around 63 million people. I am worried that we will end up creating an even more deadly World War III.
I don't think this will happen, and I hope this is of some comfort to you, Compo. Fortunately (or is it unfortunately?), we do not currently live in a world of two huge power blocs, as we did a couple of decades ago. Instead, we live in a world featuring asymmetric warfare, the ability of fanatical and religiously-fuelled terrorists to create havoc at certain times and places

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Paris killings

#18 Postby Dave B » November 16th, 2015, 11:56 am

animist wrote:
Compassionist wrote:I am very saddened by the deaths of 132 people in Paris at the hands of the terrorists. I am equally saddened about all the killings all over the world. Why can't we resolve conflicts through diplomacy? World War II killed around 63 million people. I am worried that we will end up creating an even more deadly World War III.
I don't think this will happen, and I hope this is of some comfort to you, Compo. Fortunately (or is it unfortunately?), we do not currently live in a world of two huge power blocs, as we did a couple of decades ago. Instead, we live in a world featuring asymmetric warfare, the ability of fanatical and religiously-fuelled terrorists to create havoc at certain times and places
No, not a "world war" as such but it certainly seems like a conflict without boundaries or borders, spreading from Europe to Africa at the moment.

It does seem mad to engage in conflict because others do not believe in the same things you do but, at least since tge crusades, that has been the origin of war. We did not really fight against Germany and its people in the last war, we fought against an expansionist and exclusive ideology - Nazism.

There are similar elements and patterns now: an ideology that is attractive to the dissatified, disenchanted members of a society or culture, a promise that the world is theirs if they fight for it, that all non-members* are automatically enemies etc., etc. Trouble is there is evidence that these things are true currently, except that the chance of taking over the world using current tactics is pretty slim.

*Remember that to some fundamentalist Muslims all non-Muslims are tbe same - not to be tolerated. We are not individuals just members of an enemy group.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
getreal
Posts: 4353
Joined: November 20th, 2008, 5:40 pm

Re: Paris killings

#19 Postby getreal » November 16th, 2015, 12:55 pm

I'm no politician. Philosophy makes my ears bleed and my grasp of politics is scant. But if we are fighting an ideology, how are bombs going to do that?

France claim more than 2000 French citizens have left France and joined IS. I don't know th figures for the uk, but the jihadi bride recruiter from Glasgow was in a close friends daughters class at school. How do these people become radicalised? How can we prevent this? What are the Muslim "authorities" doing to stop this?

I believe in Denmark, everyone returning from fighting is "de briefed" and used to help educate young people about the truth of this conflict. What do the uk and France do with returnees? Does the uk even know if they have returned?

A major part of th blame for the radicalisation of young people in the west lies at the feet of Muslims themselves. What are they doing to protest the reputation of their faith? I see nor hear any evidence of a concerted effort on the part of the faithful to help stop the radicalisation of their youth.


"The majority of Muslims are peaceful" they say. So why do they stay so quiet on the hijacking of their religion?
"It's hard to put a leash on a dog once you've put a crown on his head"-Tyrion Lannister.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Paris killings

#20 Postby Dave B » November 16th, 2015, 1:28 pm

getreal wrote:I'm no politician. Philosophy makes my ears bleed and my grasp of politics is scant. But if we are fighting an ideology, how are bombs going to do that?

France claim more than 2000 French citizens have left France and joined IS. I don't know th figures for the uk, but the jihadi bride recruiter from Glasgow was in a close friends daughters class at school. How do these people become radicalised? How can we prevent this? What are the Muslim "authorities" doing to stop this?

I believe in Denmark, everyone returning from fighting is "de briefed" and used to help educate young people about the truth of this conflict. What do the uk and France do with returnees? Does the uk even know if they have returned?

A major part of th blame for the radicalisation of young people in the west lies at the feet of Muslims themselves. What are they doing to protest the reputation of their faith? I see nor hear any evidence of a concerted effort on the part of the faithful to help stop the radicalisation of their youth.


"The majority of Muslims are peaceful" they say. So why do they stay so quiet on the hijacking of their religion?
Part of the problem is that, globally, there is no supreme Islamic authority - like the Pope for Catholics. I have read the "The Word" is open to interpretation by the faithful because of a lot of metaphor and shifts in values over the centuries (the Bible suffers from this to a degree). So there is no person who can excommunicate erring Muslims.

There seems to be evidence that the more peaceful Muslims, in Britain at least, are doing what they can to prevent radicalisation, but that may not always be a lot and puts them in greater danger, being seen as "traitors" or having forsaken the true Islamic values as seen by the radicals.

I am not sure how much the Ummah affects this. The Ummah views the whole of Islam as a single nation, one people, and requires all Muslims to defend it against outsiders. This is why some Sunnis claim that Shiites are not Muslims and vice versa, allows them to ignore the Ummah.

Yes, the radicalisation is entirely due to the efforts of militant Muslims but any aggressive action by non-Muslims, or by the other kind of Muslims, is good propaganda for the process. There are always "angry young men" in any society (and a few angry young women?) but the deep seated value set in Islam makes it easier, perhaps, to tip them over the edge. It is this same value system that allows them to volunteer as suicide bombers, their individual survival is as nothing compared to the fate of the true people of Allah!

This is something that is hard to fight from the outside and may cause a blood bath if fought internally. Syria is blood bath enough. Such people may have visions and aims that extend beyond their own lives and will therefore ensure there is a good supply of warriors for the cause in the pipeline. IS is changing, in places, into a true state with an administration, services, industry etc. - for those in favour at least. That is perhaps the greatest danger, others seeing them as a, sort of, legitimate authority. Hezbollah did something similar in Lebanon.

Saudi Arabia, with its Sunni allies, could almost certainly put an end to the conflict but at a huge cost in other ways - almost certainly a war with Iran. Saudi Arabia are, at best, poor allies for us, I get the feeling that the West is the lesser of two evils for them, tolerated mainly because it buys their oil and supplies much of their arms and luxury goods. But there is a deeply stratified society there and the under-dogs are ripe for radicalisation.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests