Many dead in coordinated Paris shootings and explosions

[SpineyNorman]

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. As I said before, I take this to be unintentional rather than what you actually mean to express.

Out of respect for the what this thread is about I refuse to be drawn any further into this idiotic argument. I'll leave it here and let people judge for themselves who's done what.

 

[butchersapron]

At least he's polite when he suggests that you justify the attacks. Or by logical extension the whole of ISIS' actions in syria/iraq/libya/egypt.

 

[LDC]

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)

Yeah. If the French State has any sense (but also with some justification of course) they'd officially ask organizations to cancel the events on both security and sensitivity grounds, it'd put most/all organizations and groups in a very difficult situation and I think NGOs would have no real choice but to cancel, and probably everyone (?) would have to follow suit.

 

[frogwoman]

OK but how did the one man and his dog 'organisation for combat and jihad' of 1999 turn into Daesh. Without the war in Iraq and the collapse of state security to prevent their attacks, the breakdown of law and order, the use of sectarian hatred by Iraqi Politicians, the whole 'with us or against us' rhetoric of Bush and Blair I just dont think it would have happened.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Yeah. If the French State has any sense (but also with some justification of course) they'd officially ask organizations to cancel the events on both security and sensitivity grounds, it'd put most/all organizations and groups in a very difficult situation and I think NGOs would have no real choice but to cancel, and probably everyone (?) would have to follow suit.

I think you're right.

 

[SpineyNorman]

At least he's polite when he suggests that you justify the attacks. Or by logical extension the whole of ISIS' actions in syria/iraq/libya/egypt.

But pointing to the treaty of versailles as an important factor in the rise of national socialism is blaming the jews for the holocaust. (I really am stopping now)

 

[Greebozz]

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.

It's been enshrined into canon law, this war criminal Blair war criminal Bush. And we all know about the dodgy dossier. But before the Iraq war defectors from Saddam Hussein's regime lied about Saddam Hussein having chemical weapons. Who knows why? Maybe to increase their value and importance to the Americans. Tony Blair to me was nothing more than a bumbling vicar trying to do the decent thing at the time. His point has been and would be, what if these terrorists in Paris had access to chemical or biological war agent. Obviously Saddam Hussein had nothing in common with Al Qaeda but it was the fear of my enemy's enemy is my friend. Throw in the mix the anthrax episodes in America. Which turned out to be non-Al Qaeda. But unless you were around at the time is very hard to explain the mood of fear after 9/11. But it seems there has been a battle of propaganda to decide what reality was. It's a rather obvious point that is never mentioned by the criminal Blair Lot, is that if 9/11 hadn't happened there wouldn't have been the further Iraq debacle. And we would still be discussing Monica Lewinsky and new Labour would probably still be in power, or maybe not.

 

[teqniq]

Bumbling vicars don't strike me as the sort of people who get other people to blatantly make stuff up for them.

 

[SpineyNorman]

It's been enshrined into canon law, this war criminal Blair war criminal Bush. And we all know about the dodgy dossier. But before the Iraq war defectors from Saddam Hussein's regime lied about Saddam Hussein having chemical weapons. Who knows why? Maybe to increase their value and importance to the Americans. Tony Blair to me was nothing more than a bumbling vicar trying to do the decent thing at the time. His point has been and would be, what if these terrorists in Paris had access to chemical or biological war agent. Obviously Saddam Hussein had nothing in common with Al Qaeda but it was the fear of my enemy's enemy is my friend. Throw in the mix the anthrax episodes in America. Which turned out to be non-Al Qaeda. But unless you were around at the time is very hard to explain the mood of fear after 9/11. But it seems there has been a battle of propaganda to decide what reality was. It's a rather obvious point that is never mentioned by the criminal Blair Lot, is that if 9/11 hadn't happened there wouldn't have been the further Iraq debacle. And we would still be discussing Monica Lewinsky and new Labour would probably still be in power, or maybe not.

I'm not really sure how that's a response to my post or what you're trying to tell me here. sorry.

 

[butchersapron]

JAN/Nusra come out in support of the attacks.

"We are happy if a deviant sect successfully executes an operation against the Kufaar (infidels)" read a statement released by the group over the weekend, adding it would have prefered that Nusra had carried out such an attack.

"Scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah have explained this topic: we choose the most guided from two sides."

Another Nusra spokesperson also praised the earlier attacks in Beirut, while cautioning against support for IS.

"I am still saying that ISIS are a riding mount of the tyrants and that they are the dogs of hellfire," wrote a spokesperson, Sheikh Abu Mariyah Al-Qahtani on Monday, using an alternative acronym for IS.

"And that they are the ones who ruined the Jihad in Iraq and Syria. And that they kill the Sunnis. But I was happy with their strikes against Hizbu Shaytaan," he said, referencing Hezbollah, members of whom were based in the Beirut district, with the Arabic word for Satan.

The remarks have contrasted sharply with statements by other major rebel groups fighting in Syria, Ahrar al-Sham and Jaish al-Islam, who both condemned the attacks on Friday, which claimed as many as 132 lives.

 

[Anudder Oik]

The concert moments before.

 

[kebabking]

...If it was not for the chaos produced by the invasion they would never be at the point they are now.

while i wouldn't suggest that the 2003 war - or to be precise, the destabilisation of Iraq caused by the dismantling of the Iraqi state in the aftermath of the 2003 war - have not played a significant role in the timeline that has seen IS get to where it now is, the 2003 war is not the only opportunity they either have, or would have had, had the war not taken place, or the decisions made in the aftermath of that war been both different and wiser.

Saddam was 66 in 2003. he lived life to the full - in every depraved way - he was a heart attack waiting to happen. to say that without the war, the chaos from which IS grew could not happen is to assume that either at 79 he'd still be alive, or that his succession would be peaceful, or that whoever took over from him would have the same grip on power, or that the 'Arab Spring' would have bypassed Iraq like it didn't bypass Syria.

a decade on, theres just too many inponderables - we can certainly say that the war is a cause, but is it a greater or lesser cause than an incompetant, spiteful, sectarian but broadly democratically elected government in Baghdad that alienated most of the previously anti-AQ sunni population of northern and western Iraq while a civil war raged next door?

 

[Anudder Oik]

while i wouldn't suggest that the 2003 war - or to be precise, the destabilisation of Iraq caused by the dismantling of the Iraqi state in the aftermath of the 2003 war - have not played a significant role in the timeline that has seen IS get to where it now is, the 2003 war is not the only opportunity they either have, or would have had, had the war not taken place, or the decisions made in the aftermath of that war been both different and wiser.

Saddam was 66 in 2003. he lived life to the full - in every depraved way - he was a heart attack waiting to happen. to say that without the war, the chaos from which IS grew could not happen is to assume that either at 79 he'd still be alive, or that his succession would be peaceful, or that whoever took over from him would have the same grip on power, or that the 'Arab Spring' would have bypassed Iraq like it didn't bypass Syria.

a decade on, theres just too many inponderables - we can certainly say that the war is a cause, but is it a greater or lesser cause than an incompetant, spiteful, sectarian but broadly democratically elected government in Baghdad that alienated most of the previously anti-AQ sunni population of northern and western Iraq while a civil war raged next door?

What this implies is that, unlike the west, when a leader dies, in say Iraq, chaos must ensue.

 

[kebabking]

What this implies is that, unlike the west, when a leader dies, in say Iraq, chaos must ensue.

no, it implies that when a dictator dies, the future of the regime is not certain.

 

[butchersapron]

while i wouldn't suggest that the 2003 war - or to be precise, the destabilisation of Iraq caused by the dismantling of the Iraqi state in the aftermath of the 2003 war - have not played a significant role in the timeline that has seen IS get to where it now is, the 2003 war is not the only opportunity they either have, or would have had, had the war not taken place, or the decisions made in the aftermath of that war been both different and wiser.

Saddam was 66 in 2003. he lived life to the full - in every depraved way - he was a heart attack waiting to happen. to say that without the war, the chaos from which IS grew could not happen is to assume that either at 79 he'd still be alive, or that his succession would be peaceful, or that whoever took over from him would have the same grip on power, or that the 'Arab Spring' would have bypassed Iraq like it didn't bypass Syria.

a decade on, theres just too many inponderables - we can certainly say that the war is a cause, but is it a greater or lesser cause than an incompetant, spiteful, sectarian but broadly democratically elected government in Baghdad that alienated most of the previously anti-AQ sunni population of northern and western Iraq while a civil war raged next door?

That stills places things (correctly of course) within history and choices, actions and outcomes - whereas the post that FW was replying to seemed to suggest that history doesn't exist. That we should wipe the word consequences from the dictionary.

 

[Anudder Oik]

no, it implies that when a dictator dies, the future of the regime is not certain.

I agree, but it doesn't mean a vacuum will appear that will allow a death cult to thrive. Where else has that happened?

 

[Pickman's model]

What this implies is that, unlike the west, when a leader dies, in say Iraq, chaos must ensue.

no

next

 

[teqniq]

Been posted before (quite possibly by me) but seeing as how people are discussing the beginnings of IS, I found this Martin Chulov article quite educational.

 

[likesfish]

Well saddam killed all his potential rivals his sons were total sociopaths so chances are the whole thing would end in chaos.
But then the west couldnt be blamed when it all went to hell

 

[butchersapron]

Been posted before (quite possibly by me) but seeing as how people are discussing the beginnings of IS, I found this Martin Chulov article quite educational.

That starts at a point 5 years at least too late. It's useful for the period it covers. But it's the period before that explains stuff.

 

[butchersapron]

What's happened to all that analysis that said ISIS had no interest in the 'father enemy' unlike AQ?

 

[kebabking]

I agree, but it doesn't mean a vacuum will appear that will allow a death cult to thrive. Where else has that happened?

off the top of my head, i'd say here, upon the death of Henry VIII...

IS being death fetishists isn't important to their beginings or growth, in same way as the Nazi fetish for uniforms isn't an important part of how they were able to overun most of a continent - whats important is that they were a group, among many, who exploited a vacuum and either defeated or subsumed their rivals. their ruthlessness and ability to inspire fear has certainly played a role in their success, but the other groups weren't exactly the Woodland Folk either.

 

[mauvais]

So I'm probably wasting time for the both of us, but in the earlier and ultimately failed hope of explaining that whole 'parallel' related problem on its own, I didn't get chance to talk about this half:

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.

It's not that it has a role and not that it explains it that I have a problem with. That much has been self-evident for a long time especially to anyone faintly interested in the roots of terrorism. And I agree with you here for the most part.

My problem starts with what I perceive as a growing public narrative - largely elsewhere - that it's strongly relational, scalable and avoidable. If you follow this line of argument back to where this came from in the thread, it was about the apparent notion that if we'd done something else even recently, got out of the Middle East and been belatedly nice to people, we could have turned off the tap, there'd have been no attack(s) and these people would still be alive, like switching points on a track. This is something distinct from a broad, long term political & historical explainer for the motivations of extremism, and for clarity, it's also not something I'm accusing you of. And, I think that breed of analysis is at best very close to a tight pairing of provocation and justification, thus very close to the pattern of victim blaming, and that the people unwittingly doing it wouldn't put forward the same in more obvious spheres.

No doubt I'm not expressing it well and perhaps we should just forget about it, but that's my best and final stab at trying to show you the specifics of what I mean.

 

[Zabo]

"Got a French flag on your Facebook profile picture? Congratulations on your corporate white supremacy."

"It’s a dismaying and damaging truth that Westerners care about and empathise with images of white-skinned women grieving in Topshop bobble hats far more than brown-skinned women grieving in niqabs and, when you lend your voice to Euro-centric campaigns such as Facebook’s flag filter, you exacerbate this. When we buy into such easy corporate public mourning, we uphold white supremacy. We’re essentially saying that white, Western lives matter more than others."

Why a French flag on your Facebook profile doesn't make you a hero

 

[Anudder Oik]

off the top of my head, i'd say here, upon the death of Henry VIII...

IS being death fetishists isn't important to their beginings or growth, in same way as the Nazi fetish for uniforms isn't an important part of how they were able to overun most of a continent - whats important is that they were a group, among many, who exploited a vacuum and either defeated or subsumed their rivals. their ruthlessness and ability to inspire fear has certainly played a role in their success, but the other groups weren't exactly the Woodland Folk either.

What happened in Russia after the death of Stalin? Was there room for a vacuum? You'd think there would be after the way he carried on with his purges.
The point you make is interesting, it's a what if scenario, but I can't help thinking that without the gulf war and the subsequent sectarian puppets put into power., the iraqui military might today be very different and would not have given ground so easily, allowing ISIS to make such large territorial gains.

 

[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)

Does Paris attack prove Islamic State is attracting younger followers?

 

[Pickman's model]

off the top of my head, i'd say here, upon the death of Henry VIII...

IS being death fetishists isn't important to their beginings or growth, in same way as the Nazi fetish for uniforms isn't an important part of how they were able to overun most of a continent - whats important is that they were a group, among many, who exploited a vacuum and either defeated or subsumed their rivals. their ruthlessness and ability to inspire fear has certainly played a role in their success, but the other groups weren't exactly the Woodland Folk either.

check your history book - what vacuum was there on edward vi's accession?

 

[butchersapron]

What's the multiple name lulu nunn ever published about anythin

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.

Plain illegal

 

[Anudder Oik]

Nicolas Sarkozy vows to 'electronically tag' all 11,500 people France's extremist watch list: Former president promises tough line if returned to the Elysée

I view this headline with alarm, Sarkozy is trying to precipitate the FN vote with an extremely risky policy, however, I can't understand how, with anything up to 350 "returned" from ISIS, in both France and the UK, they haven't been rounded up. I mean the ones who have returned.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Nicolas Sarkozy vows to 'electronically tag' all 11,500 people France's extremist watch list: Former president promises tough line if returned to the Elysée

I view this headline with alarm, Sarkozy is trying to precipitate the FN vote with an extremely risky policy, however, I can't understand how, with anything up to 350 "returned" from ISIS, in both France and the UK, they haven't been rounded up. I mean the ones who have returned.

'rounded up'?

you want people to be rounded up because they are under suspicion? No. Please no. This is not the response.