Many dead in coordinated Paris shootings and explosions

[butchersapron]

For the marxist geographers on here, one of the translators of David Harvey key book in this tradition was killed in the attack. One of the important things in this tradition is to show how power imposes itself through exactly the sort of social top-down state managed spatial/temporal division that ISIS try to achieve. To make other uses of the city.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I bet the US is not even taking that many in the first place

Growing Number of States Refuse to Accept Syrian Refugees in Wake of Paris Attacks

I'd like to see how the states expect to enforce that. Most of the entities bringing refugees in are private charities such as Catholic Social Services, not states. Anything the state might expect to do would quickly end up in litigation and ultimately declared unconsitutional.

 

[butchersapron]

I'd like to see how the states expect to enforce that. Most of the entities bringing refugees in are private charities such as Catholic Social Services, not states. Anything the state might expect to do would quickly end up in litigation and ultimately declared unconsitutional.

I was just going to ask what the legal basis for this is and then realised it's just grandstanding.

 

[butchersapron]

Yeah I saw that on Twitter this morning but I don't think there was a link or anything.

E2a

Here is a Yahoo news report

Syria rebels, activists denounce IS attack on Paris

The photo looks to be from the same place

See further the Statement by the Local Coordination Committees in #Syria Regarding the Paris Attacks (the ones assad tried to barrel bomb to hell)

 

[BlackArab]

View attachment 79696 View attachment 79695 (pics from link above)


What if ISIS can ( partly) be understood as being basically, a gang, like the hardest most scariest most famous and feared gang on the planet just now, and much easier to join than most, especially if you are all those surprising things that so many of the known individuals turn out to have been (educated, not especially poor etc).

The internet's full of lists for scared parents/ by think tanks trying to explain why kids join gangs. Whilst some do highlight deprivation and peer pressure the main themes seem to be (as per Malik on radicalisation):

• A sense of belonging, acceptance and loyalty. Gangs may offer a sense of identityto their members and a way to gain attention or status. Kids who do not have strong ties to their families, communities, schools or places of worship may turn to gangs for companionship and as a substitute family.
• Companionship, training, excitement,and activities. Gang members, recruiters and the media glamorize the gang lifestyle.
• A sense of self-worth and status. Some are drawn by parties, girls or drugs. Others feel they will receive more respect as a gang member and are seeking power

etc etc.
With IS you get all that plus guns and a uniform and you're not just joining your local boys but a world famous band of brothers, engaged in combat with the most well armed opponent anyone could wish for, on live TV.

(note: i did say partly)

Nail on head. The link between young men who have experienced the criminal justice system and religious extremism has long been drawn. You can add to those themes the burning anger that comes from a lifetime of relentless racial or religious prejudice, real or perceived from the society you were born into. I meet a lot of these young men through my work and have some very strong concerns and fears about how this will all play out.

 

[Orang Utan]

The Foreign Legion v.2
Their motto was/is Legios Patria Nostra: the Legion is our fatherland

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

The Foreign Legion v.2

Last time I checked, which isn't often I admit, they still existed.

 

[Orang Utan]

Last time I checked, which isn't often I admit, they still existed.

Yup

 

[butchersapron]

Not read this one yes, but looks like could be very interesting indeed:

Slavoj Žižek: In the Wake of Paris Attacks the Left Must Embrace Its Radical Western Roots

Taking control of the refugee crisis will mean breaking leftist taboos/critique of multi-culturalism and other goodies

Great openers:

In the first half of 2015, Europe was preoccupied by radical emancipatory movements (Syriza and Podemos), while in the second half the attention shifted to the “humanitarian” topic of the refugees. Class struggle was literally repressed and replaced by the liberal-cultural topic of tolerance and solidarity. With the Paris terror killings on Friday, November 13, even this topic (which still refers to large socio-economic issues) is now eclipsed by the simple opposition of all democratic forces caught in a merciless war with forces of terror.

There should be no “deeper understanding” of the ISIS terrorists (in the sense of “their deplorable acts are nonetheless reactions to European brutal interventions”); they should be characterized as what they are: the Islamo-Fascist counterpart of the European anti-immigrant racists—the two are the two sides of the same coin. Let’s bring class struggle back—and the only way to do it is to insist on global solidarity of the exploited.

edit:it makes big big mistake about rotheram.

 

[BlackArab]

Sadly there is also I feel a wider nihilistic mood among all young people with the doom and gloom about global warming and economic uncertainty.

Nothing new on this point tbh, we who grew up during the Cold War will recognise this. At least we haven't got 'Protect & Survive' leaflets dropping through our letterbox...yet!

 

[SpineyNorman]

Absolutely. And have no doubt, I don't object to the theme of your politics, which I'm probably in complete agreement with.

What I have the problem with is this idea that we can wholly avert this stuff through some action, which is - inadvertently or otherwise - victim blaming. It would be immediately rejected in any other sphere. Well if we - byword not for any individual but their country's government - hadn't got involved in Syria we wouldn't have been attacked. Oh right. And if she hadn't gone out dressed like that she wouldn't have been attacked.

We should be doing, or not doing, a whole bunch of stuff. But it's independent of terrorism - we should be doing it because it's the right thing, not for safety margin or a hopeless attempt at appeasement. How we conduct ourselves in the world and our exposure & reaction to terrorism are no doubt linked, sometimes strongly, but rarely in a particularly helpful, intervenable cause-and-effect way.

You appear to be drawing some kind of paralel between waging a war that kills innocents in their tens or hundreds of thousands and a woman wearing a short skirt. I'm not entirely sure you've thought that comparison through very well.

 

[mauvais]

You appear to be drawing some kind of paralel between waging a war that kills innocents in their tens or hundreds of thousands and a woman wearing a short skirt. I'm not entirely sure you've thought that comparison through very well.

I think you've missed the point by quite some distance.

 

[teqniq]

I bet the US is not even taking that many in the first place

Growing Number of States Refuse to Accept Syrian Refugees in Wake of Paris Attacks

 

[frogwoman]

Tbh It's totally naive to think jihadism would disappear if we got out of the middle east. But it's wrong to say that western fp has had no effect on the rise of jihadism by increasing the general level of 'background violence' (ie if you see your relatives blown up regularly you might not get overly upset about beheading etc that's not happening to you) and by making it more likely that people will eg be reluctant to turn in jihadis or shun them socially if they think that their views are based on a legitimate grievance.

 

[frogwoman]

It's worth repeating again and again on these threads that the overwhelming majority of terrorism by Jihadis is carried out against poor Muslim civilians in impoverished countries that happen to be Shia or of the wrong sect, not religious enough or simply at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I get a bit annoyed whenever clueless liberals try to totally dismiss the idea of jihadist terrorism by saying stuff like 'most terrorist attacks aren't religiously based' er sorry but if some crazed gunman gets on a bus he's not going to be shouting 'free the Huntingdon Life Sciences Guinea Pigs' these days is he. But then the right wingers try to act like bombing and war is going to solve everything when it played a large part in causing the problem in the first place. These French air strikes in Raqqa are daft frankly and incredibly counterproductive

 

[teqniq]

...These French air strikes in Raqqa are daft frankly and incredibly counterproductive

Well yes quite possibly but they were going to bomb something by way of retaliation fortunately this time it appears

 

[chilango]

I hesitate to say this, as I'm in no way advocating or endorsing military action by the West (or Russia), but...

...but would the military defeat of the Daesh forces on the ground in Syria and Iraq and the elimination of the physical calipahte as an entity not pretty much finish off Daesh as an organisation? Does its physical existence not prove to be the biggest draw as som sort of "real existing caliphate"?

(obvs the ideas will survive though )

 

[mauvais]

Tbh It's totally naive to think jihadism would disappear if we got out of the middle east. But it's wrong to say that western fp has had no effect on the rise of jihadism by increasing the general level of 'background violence' (ie if you see your relatives blown up regularly you might not get overly upset about beheading etc that's not happening to you) and by making it more likely that people will eg be reluctant to turn in jihadis or shun them socially if they think that their views are based on a legitimate grievance.

Of course. And if you want a recruiting poster child for radical Islam then look no further than the war on terror.

Yet there's an apparently popular idea or more specifically an explanatory, retrospective narrative to cling to in which one action inescapably and fatalistically means the other in retribution, and it crashes headlong into personal responsibility, whether meaning to or not. So fortunately, very few people come out and say, 'you know what, he deserved to be shot dead in that restaurant', but many are happy to proclaim that this could never have happened, that France could have avoided the attacks by staying out of Syria.

Well, you explain this to me: for the man sat eating at that unfortunate table every day for, say, the last twenty years, what's the difference? At what point should he have avoided it? Or should he just have tried a bit harder to be born somewhere else?

So yeah, the war has been a clusterfuck, and it's not surprising that it and many other of our democracies' actions have fostered terrorism. But when your other poster takes umbrage at the comparison between any other form of victim blaming, yet in the same breath - I trust inadvertently - implies that the dead paid the toll for their own war, you tell me what's to like about that.

 

[butchersapron]

I hesitate to say this, as I'm in no way advocating or endorsing military action by the West (or Russia), but...

...but would the military defeat of the Daesh forces on the ground in Syria and Iraq and the elimination of the physical calipahte as an entity not pretty much finish off Daesh as an organisation? Does its physical existence not prove to be the biggest draw as som sort of "real existing caliphate"?

(obvs the ideas will survive though )

Yes, but It won't be done by french airstrikes, it won't be done by Russian airstrikes on the people fighting ISIS - it'll be done by people fighting on the ground who are no longer blocked from access to heavy weapons etc and who won't after they finish off ISIS get murdered by Iran and Russia. There is growing YPG/FSA co-operation.That's the only way out of this - them winning victories together and supporting each other and putting areas they liberate under the control of the Local Coordination Committees. There were few regions so set up for ISIS as this, so physical destruction here will at least potentially kill organised mass ikhwan bollocks for a while.

 

[frogwoman]

Wtf. I wasn't implying that the dead paid the price for their own war at all.

 

[butchersapron]

Of course. And if you want a recruiting poster child for radical Islam then look no further than the war on terror.

Yet there's an apparently popular idea or more specifically an explanatory, retrospective narrative to cling to in which one action inescapably and fatalistically means the other in retribution, and it crashes headlong into personal responsibility, whether meaning to or not. So fortunately, very few people come out and say, 'you know what, he deserved to be shot dead in that restaurant', but many are happy to proclaim that this could never have happened, that France could have avoided the attacks by staying out of Syria.

Well, you explain this to me: for the man sat eating at that unfortunate table every day for, say, the last twenty years, what's the difference? At what point should he have avoided it? Or should he just have tried a bit harder to be born somewhere else?

So yeah, the war has been a clusterfuck, and it's not surprising that it and many other of our democracies' actions have fostered terrorism. But when your other poster takes umbrage at the comparison between any other form of victim blaming, yet in the same breath - I trust inadvertently - implies that the dead paid the toll for their own war, you tell me what's to like about that.

So tell us, what % of the current situation is down to previous actions. Because you seem to want to look at a chain going round and pick a random point that suits you. Stop the film at this point, it suits me best. I don't want to see the rest of it.

 

[LDC]

Indeed, a comprehensive welfare and equality program will kill ISIS and its ilk better than any thousand bombs. Give people hope and a place in the world and the anger will go, let them know they matter.

Its why I find this sort of thing a bit tasteless

Last thing Paris needs is people charging in with more guns, they aren't the answer.

Fucking hell that cartoon makes me puke.

 

[mauvais]

Wtf. I wasn't implying that the dead paid the price for their own war at all.

No, not you. The post above that you liked and then were apparently responding to.

 

[frogwoman]

But without the Iraq war I don't think Daesh would be in the position they are today, Iraq is a failed state because of the invasion and subsequent way it was handled.

 

[butchersapron]

No, not you. The post above that you liked and then were apparently responding to.

Which only makes your response even weirder.

 

[butchersapron]

But without the Iraq war I don't think Daesh would be in the position they are today, Iraq is a failed state because of the invasion and subsequent way it was handled.

But but he doesn't like talking about the past and how it effects the modern day.

 

[frogwoman]

No, not you. The post above that you liked and then were apparently responding to.

That post wasn't blaming the victims of terrorist attacks for what happened to them at all.

 

[weltweit]

But without the Iraq war I don't think Daesh would be in the position they are today, Iraq is a failed state because of the invasion and subsequent way it was handled.

But why IS now? for example and why not al Qaeda. The destruction of the IS caliphate could just see a new movement formed with the same individuals behind it.

 

[Jimmy Turr]

Nothing new on this point tbh, we who grew up during the Cold War will recognise this. At least we haven't got 'Protect & Survive' leaflets dropping through our letterbox...yet!

It seemed to me a safer world when the seeming certainties of the Cold War were still in place.

Maybe this is why some people are so apparently relieved that we are supposed to be unambiguously hostile to Russia again.

 

[Jimmy Turr]

But why IS now? for example and why not al Qaeda. The destruction of the IS caliphate could just see a new movement formed with the same individuals behind it.

Not could but will.