Paris Attack

[Mega]

I am 110% in favor of freedom of thought & you should be free to express what you wish. I am very sorry for those killed, but with freedom comes re-sponce-abilty people. If i made false claims about someone.........they take action against me!

I could say nasty things to people about themselves or their children, it might be true but just because i have the freedom to say it & its true should i say it?......Yes he/she is fat & uglay sone of a bi*ch......but why look for trouble?

I read tonight that the now Dead French press people had just finished attacking Islam on Twitter that very morning.....not a very bright thing to do....there comes a point when hummor turns into haressment...........

Mike

[don]

Re: Paris Attack

The killers demonstrated military training and experience on a special forces level.

Time might tell . . . .

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Paris Attack

The killers demonstrated military training and experience on a special forces level.

Time might tell . . . .

I wouldn't go THAT far directly.......indirectly, quite possibly.

They certainly conducted themselves in a calculated, confident, and technically competent manner.

I would seriously doubt that they are a bunch of hicks born and raised in a Yemeni backwater.

If I had to guess, I would go with:

Muslim extremists(1st generation immigrants or native converts)
Multi-lingual
Possibly well educated up to university level
Well funded(to fund weapons purchase and support cell)
Well supported(support weapons procurement, cell safe house(s), multiple stolen cars, training conducted in denied area perhaps)
Well trained(based on results and exfiltration, so far...quite possibly trained in denied area)
Well planned(they accomplished their goal and have at least temporarily eluded pursuit)

All this can(and has, with varying degrees of success) be conducted without state support, non-state actor support, or military training/experience...but obviously the likelihood of success would increase with it.

France reportedly has the largest contingent of European citizens/residents/immigrants fighting in Syria/Iraq and elsewhere, outside of Russia's identical problem.

I would think there's a very good chance these offenders are amongst that large cohort and I would think that it is unlikely to be a lonewolf/lonegroup attack due to what I've listed above.

From a clinical perspective, it's seems a bit like a more targeted/precise Mumbai Massacre, whose offenders reportedly received training from Pakistan SSG.

I think if a sovereign state security force could be implicated in the training/support of this organized massacre it would be a game changer, so I'd say highly unlikely. Even if it was it would likely be conducted via cutout/proxy.

But state militaries and law enforcement no longer hold the monopoly on effective tactics, training, procedures, planning, and execution.

An indicator of a return to the crazy European 70's/80's? Perhaps.

[jpetr48]

Re: Paris Attack

I am 110% in favor of freedom of thought & you should be free to express what you wish. I am very sorry for those killed, but with freedom comes re-sponce-abilty people. If i made false claims about someone.........they take action against me!

I could say nasty things to people about themselves or their children, it might be true but just because i have the freedom to say it & its true should i say it?......Yes he/she is fat & uglay sone of a bi*ch......but why look for trouble?

I read tonight that the now Dead French press people had just finished attacking Islam on Twitter that very morning.....not a very bright thing to do....there comes a point when hummor turns into haressment...........

Mike

Mike -correct in UK - incorrect in US.

In UK, I recall vividly that drive back to Heathrow in 2009 where I was told any conversation overheard and interpreted in a public place as defamatory to the Muslim religion can result in arrest.

Don't mean to recall unpleasant memories but we do have the first amendment here in the US. That allows people like author of Newsweek article The Bible So Misunderstood Its a Sin written Dec 23 , 2013 to have the freedom to express his views. BTW- for fun check his background out while at the NY Times and other qualifications to write an article in a major US magazine
The point is no matter what race, language educational background people can say whatever they want here in the US. The problem is like this Newsweek article you get garbage because of no truth or reality.

What you also may be also referring to is deference, a character trait and that is being aware of what you are saying so you don't offend the tastes of other people. Of course deference is a noble trait.

[astonas]

Re: Paris Attack

I am 110% in favor of freedom of thought & you should be free to express what you wish. I am very sorry for those killed, but with freedom comes re-sponce-abilty people. If i made false claims about someone.........they take action against me!

I could say nasty things to people about themselves or their children, it might be true but just because i have the freedom to say it & its true should i say it?......Yes he/she is fat & uglay sone of a bi*ch......but why look for trouble?

I read tonight that the now Dead French press people had just finished attacking Islam on Twitter that very morning.....not a very bright thing to do....there comes a point when hummor turns into haressment...........

Mike

I'm afraid I could not possibly disagree with you more on this point.

Yes, Mega. With freedom comes responsibility.

But there is a valid venue that is acceptable for adjudicating accountability for that responsibility. A comment that is merely nasty is protected. One that is slander/libel may be result in action in court. But there is no speech that does not itself cause a death, for which a death penalty (or twelve) is appropriate.

We respect religions out of respect for the people who follow them. They are people who have a right to hold opinions, and it is a civic nicety to treat people as one would like to be treated oneself. But while we would all like to be respected, we do not have a right to forcibly extract that respect from others who disagree with us. A society based on THAT principle, leads not to civilization, but madness.

It is inherently dangerous when any idea - religious or otherwise - takes universal precedence over human life. The idea that showing a picture of a prophet, or saying disparaging things about him, is not only punishable by death within a community of believers (who have chosen to adhere to that code) but also outside that community (no choice allowed) is simply advocacy of the lowest form of barbarism. To the extent that a religion claims a right to demand respect in this way, that religion is incompatible with democratic society, and demands extirpation.

In this case, blaming the victims of islamic terrorism based on their speech implies that a death penalty is appropriate for people who criticize religions. The victims may well have been, as you say, "looking for trouble." But they were doing so in the same manner that a soldier is when sent off to war. They were choosing to put themselves at risk to hold society back from a very slippery slope, in this case that of self-censorship based on fear for one's life.

That makes them heroes, however unseemly the things that they said may have been.

This isn't just US bias. It was most famously stated by a Frenchman:

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
-- Voltaire

[jk]

Re: Paris Attack

An indicator of a return to the crazy European 70's/80's? Perhaps.

let's see, this is like a crazy S.A.T. analogy problem:

baader-meinhof or red brigades is to muslim/jihadi terrorist cells, as olaf palme or aldo moro are to political cartoonists.

[vt]

Re: Paris Attack

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/wo...rope.html?_r=0

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Paris Attack

let's see, this is like a crazy S.A.T. analogy problem:

baader-meinhof or red brigades is to muslim/jihadi terrorist cells, as olaf palme or aldo moro are to political cartoonists.

No doubt........

But I reckon we have a ways to go in Western Europe before reaching the level of social disruption that occurred in the 70's/80's.

But I think the raw materials are there if inclusion/assimilation isn't achieved in the coming decades.

Instead of a disaffected generation(post WWII babies) that eventually went on to run the countries(much like "Don't trust anyone over 30" Yippy/Hippy Baby Boomers who now run and own the US now), the EU has a large cohort of overeducated/underemployed indigenous Europeans(sound familiar?) as well as a large cohort of unassimilated immigrants who don't have a stake in the leadership/ownership outcome.

I reckon the problem is not nearly as bad today........but has the real potential to be twice as bad tomorrow.

[jpatter666]

Re: Paris Attack

I am 110% in favor of freedom of thought & you should be free to express what you wish. I am very sorry for those killed, but with freedom comes re-sponce-abilty people. If i made false claims about someone.........they take action against me!

I could say nasty things to people about themselves or their children, it might be true but just because i have the freedom to say it & its true should i say it?......Yes he/she is fat & uglay sone of a bi*ch......but why look for trouble?

I read tonight that the now Dead French press people had just finished attacking Islam on Twitter that very morning.....not a very bright thing to do....there comes a point when hummor turns into haressment...........

Mike

Mike, in the world you describe, this is how your cartoons would look.

http://funfive.net/pictures/images/P...%20cartoon.jpg

[shiny!]

Re: Paris Attack

Perfection! I want to print this and frame it.

I'm afraid I could not possibly disagree with you more on this point.

Yes, Mega. With freedom comes responsibility.

But there is a valid venue that is acceptable for adjudicating accountability for that responsibility. A comment that is merely nasty is protected. One that is slander/libel may be result in action in court. But there is no speech that does not itself cause a death, for which a death penalty (or twelve) is appropriate.

We respect religions out of respect for the people who follow them. They are people who have a right to hold opinions, and it is a civic nicety to treat people as one would like to be treated oneself. But while we would all like to be respected, we do not have a right to forcibly extract that respect from others who disagree with us. A society based on THAT principle, leads not to civilization, but madness.

It is inherently dangerous when any idea - religious or otherwise - takes universal precedence over human life. The idea that showing a picture of a prophet, or saying disparaging things about him, is not only punishable by death within a community of believers (who have chosen to adhere to that code) but also outside that community (no choice allowed) is simply advocacy of the lowest form of barbarism. To the extent that a religion claims a right to demand respect in this way, that religion is incompatible with democratic society, and demands extirpation.

In this case, blaming the victims of islamic terrorism based on their speech implies that a death penalty is appropriate for people who criticize religions. The victims may well have been, as you say, "looking for trouble." But they were doing so in the same manner that a soldier is when sent off to war. They were choosing to put themselves at risk to hold society back from a very slippery slope, in this case that of self-censorship based on fear for one's life.

That makes them heroes, however unseemly the things that they said may have been.

This isn't just US bias. It was most famously stated by a Frenchman:

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
-- Voltaire

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Paris Attack

I'm afraid I could not possibly disagree with you more on this point.

Yes, Mega. With freedom comes responsibility.

But there is a valid venue that is acceptable for adjudicating accountability for that responsibility. A comment that is merely nasty is protected. One that is slander/libel may be result in action in court. But there is no speech that does not itself cause a death, for which a death penalty (or twelve) is appropriate.

We respect religions out of respect for the people who follow them. They are people who have a right to hold opinions, and it is a civic nicety to treat people as one would like to be treated oneself. But while we would all like to be respected, we do not have a right to forcibly extract that respect from others who disagree with us. A society based on THAT principle, leads not to civilization, but madness.

It is inherently dangerous when any idea - religious or otherwise - takes universal precedence over human life. The idea that showing a picture of a prophet, or saying disparaging things about him, is not only punishable by death within a community of believers (who have chosen to adhere to that code) but also outside that community (no choice allowed) is simply advocacy of the lowest form of barbarism. To the extent that a religion claims a right to demand respect in this way, that religion is incompatible with democratic society, and demands extirpation.

In this case, blaming the victims of islamic terrorism based on their speech implies that a death penalty is appropriate for people who criticize religions. The victims may well have been, as you say, "looking for trouble." But they were doing so in the same manner that a soldier is when sent off to war. They were choosing to put themselves at risk to hold society back from a very slippery slope, in this case that of self-censorship based on fear for one's life.

That makes them heroes, however unseemly the things that they said may have been.

This isn't just US bias. It was most famously stated by a Frenchman:

+2

But I would push it even a bit further.

What I find absolutely fascinating(like rubbernecking at a horrific car crash) is how accepting folks are of one discriminatory system(Islam, based on it's own founding tenets regarding women and non-Muslims) that is completely incompatible with our own system(values).

Would western countries accept new immigrants who are adherents to a stated white race supremacy doctrine that is incompatible with western national values?

Of course not.

Why do western countries accept new immigrants who adhere to a stated religious supremacy doctrine that is incompatible with western national values?

Why the difference?

[astonas]

Re: Paris Attack

+2

But I would push it even a bit further.

What I find absolutely fascinating(like rubbernecking at a horrific car crash) is how accepting folks are of one discriminatory system(Islam, based on it's own founding tenets regarding women and non-Muslims) that is completely incompatible with our own system(values).

Would western countries accept new immigrants who are adherents to a stated white race supremacy doctrine that is incompatible with western national values?

Of course not.

Why do western countries accept new immigrants who adhere to a stated religious supremacy doctrine that is incompatible with western national values?

Why the difference?

The difference is that there is a longstanding culture of respect toward religion, that spans all human societies.

It has historically been normal to accept things in a religious context that would seem mad outside of it. Hearing voices in a religious context is ok, even divine. Outside that framework it is considered insanity.

But because religion serves additional functions in society (e.g. charity, the teaching of morality, the establishment of a sense of belonging, the unification of a people in times of strife) it has continued to be given an exemption to critical examination. This is clearly an exemption highly prized by those who conducted the Paris attack; I have no doubt that they believe that a humanist institution based on reason could never serve such purposes as well or better than their religion does.

But I suppose that in this they aren't too different than many others. Most people still believe that religion does more good than harm, even when the harm is great indeed.

I imagine that this is one of the questions that might be revisited by human society as the body-count (and associated loss of freedoms) due to religious extremism continues to mount. Do we wish to be first and foremost a free society? Or first and foremost a religious one?

If the answer were universal within the U.S. electorate, a great many political quagmires would suddenly cease to exist, so it isn't as trivial a question as it might seem.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Paris Attack

The difference is that there is a longstanding culture of respect toward religion, that spans all human societies.

It has historically been normal to accept things in a religious context that would seem mad outside of it. Hearing voices in a religious context is ok, even divine. Outside that framework it is considered insanity.

But because religion serves additional functions in society (e.g. charity, the teaching of morality, the establishment of a sense of belonging, the unification of a people in times of strife) it has continued to be given an exemption to critical examination. This is clearly an exemption highly prized by those who conducted the Paris attack; I have no doubt that they believe that a humanist institution based on reason could never serve such purposes as well or better than their religion does.

But I suppose that in this they aren't too different than many others. Most people still believe that religion does more good than harm, even when the harm is great indeed.

I imagine that this is one of the questions that might be revisited by human society as the body-count (and associated loss of freedoms) due to religious extremism continues to mount. Do we wish to be first and foremost a free society? Or first and foremost a religious one?

If the answer were universal within the U.S. electorate, a great many political quagmires would suddenly cease to exist, so it isn't as trivial a question as it might seem.

Personally, I'm finding it a bit "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" kinda spooky lately.

While I'm naturally a bit more desensitized to the bible thumping Christian stuff(coming from Christian majority society), it's still disturbing to see/hear/read such vehement and vigorous use of God, Him, His Word, etc in enough frequency to choke the interweb and consider complaining about the noise and thought pollution.

But even more disturbing is a pattern of behavior of not just disenfranchised(albeit often self-inflicted) muslim males but the Stepford Wives like behavior of young women(often fresh converts) jumping into the black hole of non-permissive Syria/Iraq via Turkey.

Maybe Germany's position regarding Scientology is rational, logical, and worth considering for expansion to include other religions, namely Islam?

But I would think that highly unlikely due to the significant minority penetration of practitioners as well as the difficult geopolitical consequences of such a shift, regardless of the complete lack of reciprocity.

Maybe reciprocity(or lack of it) could become a popular word in the near future as this trend continues.

Reciprocity in trade freedom should be synonymous with religious freedom should it not?

[touchring]

Re: Paris Attack

But there is no speech that does not itself cause a death, for which a death penalty (or twelve) is appropriate.

Recently, there are many mentally deranged people that are acting crazy in the name of religion. I won't be too quick to associate such acts with religion and we should stop "glorifying" them. Mentally deranged people are more common than we think, and some of them are able to act and speak very normal.

The human mind is fragile, war, inflation, unemployment, etc, can cause insanity..

[Mega]

Re: Paris Attack

So............you walk up to Mike Tyson & say you hate rape-est like him?
;)
Mike