Many dead in coordinated Paris shootings and explosions

[butchersapron]

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.

Now? You need to have a look at the chain from that invasion (and from 911 itself and before) to ISIS today. Do you really think they just popped up in june 2014?

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

Fucking hell that cartoon makes me puke.

If the statue had been holding a medkit, say, instead of a gun, it would have been a great cartoon.

 

[Buckaroo]

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

Nostalgia's not what it used to be.

 

[LDC]

Apologies if this might be better on a separate thread, but the COP (climate discussions) are due to start in Paris at the end of this month, and of course the 'counter-COP' mobilizations (see here for some info Home - Climate Games).

Any opinions if the counter-mobilization should go ahead as planned, or be altered, or even cancelled altogether?

At the very least I hope the organizers are having some serious discussion alone the same lines rather than just ploughing on ahead without thinking about the best course.

 

[weltweit]

Now? You need to have a look at the chain from that invasion (and from 911 itself and before) to ISIS today. Do you really think they just popped up in june 2014?

No, but isn't it true to say that they emerged as al Qaeda lost strength? My argument is just that destruction of the IS Caliphate will not be an end to this kind of extremism, and people thinking western (and possibly Russian) boots on the ground will solve the terrorism are mistaken.

 

[dylanredefined]

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.

If the war had to be fought the collation should have stayed for 10 or more years till the place was fixed government and the army and police worked and would continue to work with out outside assistance. It was rushed and they tried to do it on the cheap.

 

[LDC]

If the statue had been holding a medkit, say, instead of a gun, it would have been a great cartoon.

I dunno, I shy away from general lazy anti-Americanism, but any cartoon involving the Statue of Liberty crossing the Atlantic to help anyone can fuck right off IMO.

 

[mauvais]

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.

That doesn't make a great deal of sense as a representation, but nonetheless, in essence: the strands of expectation and justification can't be combined. Start a disastrous war and you can expect it to have repercussions, but unless one has a very warped perspective of what complicity is, it doesn't justify those repercussions when life gets in the way by presenting a complex set of actors. And if you can't boil it down to a personal tit-for-tat level of simplicity that you're comfortable standing up and describing for what it is, then you have to decide how you're going to handle this idea of cause and effect.

 

[Jimmy Turr]

Nostalgia's not what it used to be.

I know. It comes to something that you're nostalgic for the days when the end of the world was always only minutes away.

 

[teqniq]

France Should Stop Listening to Saudi Arabia on Syria

 

[toblerone3]

Internet stages of grief/outrage:
1) Solidarity with the victim (‪#‎BlackLivesMatter‬, French profile pics)
2) Outrage against specificity of previous grief (‪#‎AllLivesMatter‬, 'What about Beirut?')
3) Outrage against people in #2
4) General bickering until we gradually forget the source of #1's original outrage/grief
5) Back to looking for cats on roombas and celebrity sideboob"

 

[SpineyNorman]

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

I don't think I have. You're attempting to paint people who point the finger at western foreign policy for this as victim blamers of the same ilk as those who blame women in short skirts who become victims of rape. Unless there's some kind of paralel between wearing a short skirt and bombing civilians I don't see it myself. I get the point you're making and agree to an extent but I really really don't like the way you've made it.

There clearly is a link with western foreign policy - I don't see how ISIS could possibly have existed without the invasion of Iraq for example (which definitely doesn't mean 'the west' withdrawing from the region would solve anything - that horse bolted long ago). But that doesn't mean the murderers aren't the ones to blame - it explains it, it doesn't excuse it. And it certainly doesn't mean those who died are anything but innocent. Unfortunately these subtleties tend to be lost on people on both sides of the debate, if you can call it that, and you get those who can't bear to hear that western foreign policy played a significant role in bringing about the huge wave of shit we now find ourselves covered in and those who refuse to see any other causal factor acting equally idiotically. Fortunately I've yet to hear anyone (apart from ISIS themselves) claim that the victims are not innnocent because they're citizens in an imperialist country but I'm sure that's just a matter of time.

 

[butchersapron]

That doesn't make a great deal of sense as a representation, but nonetheless, in essence: the strands of expectation and justification can't be combined. Start a disastrous war and you can expect it to have repercussions, but unless one has a very warped perspective of what complicity is, it doesn't justify those repercussions when life gets in the way by presenting a complex set of actors. And if you can't boil it down to a personal tit-for-tat level of simplicity that you're comfortable standing up and describing for what it is, then you have to decide how you're going to handle this idea of cause and effect.

You've just said that all history and analysis is worthless - it's all just individual acts and moralisms.

And that all people who disagree are saying they are against the attacks, but...

The usual all encompassing agree with me or you have nothing that i'm very familiar with from you by now. When the reality is that you are so blinkered you can't even begin to recognise what other people have, the traditions, the methods of analysis, the research, the application - nothing. You arrogant shit.

 

[SpineyNorman]

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.

Assuming you're talking about me here, I suggest you either show where I did that or apologise.

 

[SpineyNorman]

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

Nobody was. That only happened in mauvais head. I find it quite depressing that we can't sensibly discuss this and all the factors that played into it without people either calling you a victim blaming terrorist lover or on the other hand an apologist for imperialism.

 

[leanderman]

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

Muslim media colleague quietly said at work during Friday night's horrors that he wished we could turn the clock back 20 years.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Apologies if this might be better on a separate thread, but the COP (climate discussions) are due to start in Paris at the end of this month, and of course the 'counter-COP' mobilizations (see here for some info Home - Climate Games).

Any opinions if the counter-mobilization should go ahead as planned, or be altered, or even cancelled altogether?

At the very least I hope the organizers are having some serious discussion alone the same lines rather than just ploughing on ahead without thinking about the best course.

I reckon the police will probably use the state of emergency to take that decision out of the organisers hands (unless I'm misunderstanding what the SOE means)

 

[frogwoman]

Daesh (or the organisation that would become Daesh) was founded in 1999 as 'the organisation for combat and jihad', they did manage to carry out a few bombings and may have been supported by elements of the Baathist state but mostly remained very small, at one point they had less than 50 people. The Iraq war gave them a perfect opportunity not only to grow but to get some level of 'soft' support they had not had previously. If it was not for the chaos produced by the invasion they would never be at the point they are now.

 

[Anudder Oik]

So, is France at war? What is Hollande's aim with his statement that they are at war? Is it just rhetoric because he failed to defend France from terrorist attack? Is it some kind of spin?

 

[butchersapron]

Daesh (or the organisation that would become Daesh) was founded in 1999 as 'the organisation for combat and jihad', they did manage to carry out a few bombings and may have been supported by elements of the Baathist state but mostly remained very small, at one point they had less than 50 people. The Iraq war gave them a perfect opportunity not only to grow but to get some level of 'soft' support they had not had previously. If it was not for the chaos produced by the invasion they would never be at the point they are now.

Victim blaming.

 

[frogwoman]

I don't see how stating this is controversial or blaming the victims at all . I mean France opposed the invasion of Iraq at the un ffs.

 

[weltweit]

So, is France at war? What is Hollande's aim with his statement that they are at war? Is it just rhetoric because he failed to defend France from terrorist attack? Is it some kind of spin?

Holland seems to think saying it, is the right thing to do, but I doubt French boots will be on the ground on their own any time soon.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't see how stating this is controversial or blaming the victims at all . I mean France opposed the invasion of Iraq at the un ffs.

Personal responsibility. Nothing is connected. No such thing as society or history. etc. I think that's it.

 

[frogwoman]

France didn't go into Iraq and the organisation of Daesh and it's growth has nothing to do with the people who were killed, it's just stating a fact ffs.

 

[butchersapron]

Holland seems to think saying it, is the right thing to do, but I doubt French boots will be on the ground on their own any time soon.

Damn, i had 6-30 for your first 'boots on the ground' of the day.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Daesh (or the organisation that would become Daesh) was founded in 1999 as 'the organisation for combat and jihad', they did manage to carry out a few bombings and may have been supported by elements of the Baathist state but mostly remained very small, at one point they had less than 50 people. The Iraq war gave them a perfect opportunity not only to grow but to get some level of 'soft' support they had not had previously. If it was not for the chaos produced by the invasion they would never be at the point they are now.

This is absolutely 100% spot on IMO. Unfortunately when it comes to solutions I'm at a complete loss. My only idea is invent a time machine and then go back and not start the Iraq war. Not very practical though

 

[Anudder Oik]

Holland seems to think saying it, is the right thing to do, but I doubt French boots will be on the ground on their own any time soon.

So it's just spin to pre-empt and deflect any criticism that might come his way?

 

[mauvais]

I don't think I have. You're attempting to paint people who point the finger at western foreign policy for this as victim blamers of the same ilk as those who blame women in short skirts who become victims of rape. Unless there's some kind of paralel between wearing a short skirt and bombing civilians I don't see it myself. I get the point you're making and agree to an extent but I really really don't like the way you've made it.

You've just done it again.

Pause a moment. A while back I appealed for people to judge posts benevolently, and to try and keep to the spirit of that myself, I'll see if I can explain this to you without being impolite. But I don't feel I owe you an apology.

If you claim that the actions of the French state caused a retaliatory terror attack, that it was a inescapable logical follow-on from it, you justify that attack. Whether that means you blame the state as a contained entity, or the victims as part of it, I don't know, but in general terms amongst the public narrative it feels pretty blurred to me.

I complained about that form of victim blaming being unacceptable in any other context. Not a meaningful parallel, but an illustration. You claimed that I was making a parallel between waging a bloody war and wearing a short skirt.

In the very terms that you've just set out in doing that, where short skirt equals attack, and waging war equals being shot, you've implied that the victims waged that war. And you just did it again above. The dead people didn't bomb civilians, did they? So it's the wrong comparison and if there ever was a parallel you misidentified it. As I said before, I take this to be unintentional rather than what you actually mean to express.

 

[teqniq]

This is absolutely 100% spot on IMO. Unfortunately when it comes to solutions I'm at a complete loss. My only idea is invent a time machine and then go back and not start the Iraq war. Not very practical though

That may well fall foul of the Paradox Department tbh.

 

[butchersapron]

Do you know the difference between description and prescription/justification mauvais? It's one of the building block of historical or political analysis/narrative/debate.