"Shootings" reported in central Paris.

Scroll to see replies

UK / US / France bomb iraq, syria, palestine, libya killing hundreds of thousands of civilians-> NOT terrorism
ISIS kills a couple people in paris -> terrorism
white man goes on a rampage, shooting up a school or island -> NOT terrorism, just a crazy lone wolf

Lazy.

If Iraq was to bomb England it would be war not terrorism. Its by a state.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 841

xxvine

Original post by Arkasia

I hate Tottenham Hotspurs, and would never support them, but I know that other people would, and do. Just because you don't support ISIS doesn't mean no other Muslims would.

What is your argument, that these Muslims are so violent they even kill those within their own religion? Good point, Poirot, totally deflects all criticism.

I'm not going to get my tinfoil hat out, but it all seems a little too neat - if you're planning and carrying out a terrorist attack, why would you carry a passport with you?

Isis are clearly not doing it in the name of their 'religion' though. The are killing their own fellow muslims. Wasn't the police officer killed in the Charlie Hebdo attacks a muslim? Wasn't the shop worker who hid customers a muslim? My point is these people are clearly insane or doing it for their own evil beliefs. I just don't get them. They kill women wearing hijab's yet they are doing this for islam? WTF

Reply 842

Josb

Original post by Arkasia

That's true, but if they wanted honour/glory, they would have some form of letter or video that gets leaked to the media, ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack but their press release was incredibly vague "we sent 8 brothers armed with explosive belts and assault rifles". Leaving an ID in your car makes more sense than an ID being found 'near' a body.

There will be videos, but it's too early.

Reply 843

Valyrian

Original post by Scrappy-coco

Lazy.

If Iraq was to bomb England it would be war not terrorism. Its by a state.

Posted from TSR Mobile

If we look at the definition of terrorism:

the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."the fight against terrorism"

If Iraq was to bomb England it would still be an act of terrorism.

Reply 844

xxvine

Original post by yulebook

I just woke up to this after a late night last night... omg seriously scary. Something like this could happen in London with Pakis too...

What?

Reply 845

Carpe Diem Jay

Original post by Scrappy-coco

Lazy.

If Iraq was to bomb England it would be war not terrorism. Its by a state.

Posted from TSR Mobile

???????

Original post by Valyrian

this ^

Reply 846

Hasan_Ahmed

Original post by Arkasia

It's the same religion, with various strands, same as Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Catholicism etc all being part of Christianity. The fact is that you can't use "they kill more people in their own countries, and their own religion" as an argument against the religion being violent (especially since Sunni/Shia/Sufi strands are also all violent against each other). We can only progress via a mixture of destruction of pre-existing violent ideological institutions, and education to prevent future ones from growing.

Among the sunnis, only the deobandi, wahaabi and qutbist followings are violent to other muslim schools of thought. Among the shias, only the safavid influenced form is violent to other schools of thought. There are no modern sufi violent groups. To claim that as whole groups, 'shias, sunnis and sufis' are all violent to one another is fallacious. I do, however, agree with your final sentence - this has become my main mission in life. However, saying 'the religion is violent' is not conducive to using education to prevent future ones from growing - instead it turns off most muslims from the notions of progressivism and towards ideological resistance. Especially since there are many, including myself, who argue that originally islam was progressivist and humanist, and that false history was created over time to justify the injustices of 'islamic' leaders after Muhammad.

Reply 847

Hasan_Ahmed

Original post by xxvine

They believe that the muslims they are killing are not true muslims. Study their ideology a bit, my friend.

Reply 848

xxvine

Original post by MC booSack

it wasnt a couple though...i don't know what you are trying to say?

Reply 849

yulebook

Original post by College_Dropout

Paris under siege, Daily Mail commenters seem to be more concerned with boarder controls in the comments section.

Sorry but I absolutely love this comment.

Reply 850

Arkasia

Original post by Josb

There will be videos, but it's too early.

True, what happens over the next few weeks will be important, this could be US/Iraq all over again.

Reply 851

Hasan_Ahmed

Original post by woIfie

The worst part about this is that the usual suspects will come out of the woodwork and start ranting about how the French brought this on themselves.

France didn't take part in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it strenuously opposed it. France is not a supporter of Israel at the UN. Pretty much none of the traditional grievances against the US apply to France. The only basis on which this is rationalised is that France stepped in to help stop a Yezidi/Kurdish genocide.

The apologists and sympathisers should be ashamed of themselves

Arguably, ISIS might actually be secretly happy about the invasion of Iraq, since it used the disorder and discontent of, and following, that series of conflicts in Iraq in order to establish itself as an organisation. I think they attacked France because the issues surrounding the bombing in Syria and french involvement with the aid of kurds and yezidis is in direct relation to them, as opposed to the whole issues with israel and etc. I think ISIS is terrified of attacking israel or getting involved in that conflict, at this point.

Reply 852

Scrappy-coco

Original post by xxvine

Wait a minute, you don't think they targeted muslims do you? The police officer was a target anymore than an innocent muslim happened to be on the train in 7/7 bombings.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 853

Hasan_Ahmed

Original post by The Blue Axolotl

Just goes to show how pathetic and cowardly these "Jihadi" militants are.

They speak of their hatred of the West, their policies and governments, yet instead of going for the heart (the government itself), they choose easy/soft targets.

Hundreds of innocent human beings having dinner, drinking and watching football and a rock band.

I'm in complete and utter shock. As someone who has a lot of affection for France, it truly sickens me.

I wish they'd attacked a military compound and got obliterated.

Reply 854

Scrappy-coco

Original post by Valyrian

Except a bomb from Iraq would be officially authorised by them, as a sovereign country :wink:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 855

MC booSack

Original post by Josb

i forgot to mention afghanistan - we left that country completely inhabitable. no outrage when we're the ones committing terrorism on a much larger scale. our actions in the middle-east cause ISIS to form and them fighting back was inevitable, but we continue to blame muslims instead of our governments. hmm..

Reply 856

woIfie

Original post by Hasan_Ahmed

I think they attacked France because the issues surrounding the bombing in Syria and french involvement with the aid of kurds and yezidis is in direct relation to them, as opposed to the whole issues with israel and etc.

I agree, and that in itself makes it impossible for the usual suspects on the left to offer their mealy-mouthed excuses. France's attacks against ISIL were not targeted at civilians, they were not part of some imperial agenda, they were there to help protect the Kurds and Yezidi from genocide.

To the extent it could be considered "blowback", it's precisely the kind of blowback you have in a war. Otherwise it might have been argued that we shouldn't get involved in World War 2 lest the Nazis attack us.

Reply 857

Josb

Original post by MC booSack

Yeah Afghanistan was much better before 2001. They could stone women in peace. Now that we have left, they can do it again.

Reply 858

woIfie

Original post by MC booSack

You are confused. Today there are 6 million children at school in Afghanistan, 2 million of which are girls. There is a dozen TV channels, many newspapers and radio stations. There is a democratically elected government. None of that was there in August 2001. I tell you what was there in 2001 and isn't there now; Al-Qaeda training camps.

As for blaming our foreign policy, France didn't take part in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. They don't support Israel at the UN. You are basically saying that we should not support the Kurds because fascists might attack us if we do.

You are a weak and contemptible individual.

Reply 859

The Rad Prince

Original post by Hasan_Ahmed

Guilty as charged.

I've noticed that many of the violent attacks seem motivated by certain Hadiths rather than the Qur'an itself. The Qur'an seems like more of a spiritual book.

Original post by MC booSack

Where was the criticism when Pashtuns were massacring Dari speakers in Afghanistan?

Anyone who actually speaks out in favour of the Taliban is literal human trash, especially if they're not actually from Afghanistan.