Explosion and shootings at Paris 11/13/2015

[solomon]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

I'm afraid this requires the combating of ignorance and following dogma-- that to the oppressed and oppressors. And unfortunately those that would persecute Muslims for this-- they're most likely so seated so deep in their hatred that no words are going to change anything.

It would require one to keep an open mind and actaully be receptive to new information; unfortunately dogmatism aggressively stops them from happening, and certainly this applies to things beyond Islam, but it doesn't help that many places are relatively backwards in these regards.

That being said, I am fairly sure there's just no one unified voice when it comes to religion. How many things can Christians really agree on, for example? What would be a singular voice for Christianity? It certainly would not be the Pope.

Personally, I would focus on these people being murderers, terrorists, and tyrants. Them being associated with Islam is incidental and correlation doesn't lead to causation. The insulation that the Islamic community should have to speak for these people is insulting, to say the least.

While I agree with you from a logical perspective, from a practical perspective I don't know if the Muslim community can just expect that the wider western world will be willing to totally cast off all biases without someone to really SELL them on WHY THEY'RE WRONG.

Otherwise they run the risk of being even more run out and treated as incompatible with western society as a whole.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

Still though, I don't think it's that unreasonable to think that even with a pea shooter, one would probably die but if they manage to at least injure the enemy, it'd slow them down and allow more people to escape.

It's just harder to hurt something that's able to hit back.

Bingo. At least give me a chance to defend myself and others around me. A chance is better than absolutely nothing.

[RRW]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Friday the 13th much.

It is annoy me that this 2 news is pretty much ignored. Of course Paris bombing is bigger and deserve more recognition. But there is 100 people dies in Middle East and Africa everyday but no one care about it.

Then again consider that the world is dominated by western country and their allies. The media pretty muchake sure that thier live is more important that people in other place.

Well that how reality works really

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by RRW

It is annoy me that this 2 news is pretty much ignored. Of course Paris bombing is bigger and deserve more recognition. But there is 100 people dies in Middle East and Africa everyday but no one care about it.

Then again consider that the world is dominated by western country and their allies. The media pretty muchake sure that thier live is more important that people in other place.

Well that how reality works really

the media you are complaining about are base in the west. So logically speaking they are going to be more concern about what goes on in the west. I don't see what is wrong with that.

[Marcus H.]

It is annoy me that this 2 news is pretty much ignored. Of course Paris bombing is bigger and deserve more recognition. But there is 100 people dies in Middle East and Africa everyday but no one care about it.

Middle East and Africa doesn't have the same amount of annual travelers compared to Paris, which is known worldwide as a tourist attraction.

[Yu Ominae]

An American/Swedish national are confirmed dead. FBI is sending agents to Paris.

Two of the hostiles are Egyptian and Syrian, based on the passports seized by PN.

Third guy is French and has a "nice record" with the PN.

[RRW]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

the media you are complaining about are base in the west. So logically speaking they are going to be more concern about what goes on in the west. I don't see what is wrong with that.

Not saying they are wrong. But this day western media is pretty much equivalent to global media. Majority of people in this world. only believe what this media is been told and forced to go bond the other part of the world. Which pretty much sad reality really

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by solomon

I think realistically

Western Countries have more potential to deal with the lives of radicalized or potential radicals in their own countries.

Reading up on Mr. Nawaz's views, it seems like there needs to be a combination of law enforcement and civil community engagement/education along with a competing narrative of what it means to be a Muslim in a western country.

That needs to be done both by the Muslim community and the larger community as a whole.

The thing is, the Muslims want their hijabs, daily prayers regardless of work-timings, halal food, etc. There are so many religious restrictions that put off the people they work and live with.

You can't "law enforcement" on those things, they are human rights. Neither can you force the people who live there to "deal with it" because it is also their right not to put up with such oddities.

It is kind of like a quagmire that nobody wants to talk about. It segregates communities because to live together means that there is a certain social standard to adhere to, and people of certain religious affiliations cannot do that due to their commitments.

Originally Posted by RRW

Not saying they are wrong. But this day western media is pretty much equivalent to global media. Majority of people in this world. only believe what this media is been told and forced to go bond the other part of the world. Which pretty much sad reality really

That is because most alternative media don't know how to report from a neutral point of view. The reason why people don't read certain stuff is because the agenda it pushes is obvious in the print.

The art of writing a good piece has to be subtle even if it has to skew a POV.

[Yu Ominae]

Reports are in that one of the hostiles has masqueraded as a refugee to stay under the radar.

[risingstar3110]

A hectare of refugee camp in France, housing 6000 immigrants were on fire just hours after the Paris attack

I hope that it's just a coincidence. But I seriously doubt that.

Unknown casualties atm

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Yu Ominae

Reports are in that one of the hostiles has masqueraded as a refugee to stay under the radar.

And people are questioning why these nutjobs carry their passports around when they go shooting. It is the same for Charlie Hebdo.......

[monir]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

Actually a Glock can do quite a lot against an AK-47 depending on the circumstances. We are talking about inside a building where the range is closer. And a .40 round in center mass is still going to do some serious damage to someone.

Terrorists will always strike at areas where they know responses will be slow, and the people in those areas cannot defend themselves. Whether it's home grown terrorism, or imported. Europe can't defend itself from these attacks(most were killed by guns here not bombs). And when people are being executed inside a concert one by one while the police are outside awaiting orders...

I'll take my chances defending myself. My chances of surviving, and being able to protect others, goes up exponentially when I have the means to defend myself. I'll take my methods over yours, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

Let’s go over an overly simplified scenario, Justin…. You are not in a controlled environment where you are shooting at a stationary target, aiming for center mass. You are not peering between your sights, lining them properly by aiming carefully at your target. The accuracy of your glock is also diminishing significantly further your go from 15 yards. Even if you are a world-class marksman your chance of hitting the target beyond 25 yards goes down significantly despite a long, careful aim. Now, you are in a real life situation like in Paris…. you are in a crowded area where people are running away from sound of gunshots. If you were not affected by the immediate line of fire of an AK-47 that doesn’t need careful aiming because of the amount of projectile it can spew out per second, more than likely you have no idea who the assailant is. In some incredulous chance, you do spot the assailant with his AK-47 and decide to take a few shot with your glock in that split second because you are brave….. Even at 15 yards I say you hitting the assailant is just as high as you hitting a few friendlies that are running away from him that had the misfortune of being in the way of your line of sight. And even if you do hit the assailant who didn’t really have a plant to leave out alive probably detonates his suicide vest……….., that is providing you didn’t shoot the vest yourself to trigger the blast.

A whole lot of the people that are dying of gunshot wounds in Chicago and Baltimore had their own gun in their person as are discovered by the local PD everyday. It didn’t do them any good though just because you still need an incredible amount of luck to properly and effectively react to someone who is shooting at you without them telegramming you the fact beforehand. My point is don’t mock the guy’s helplessness who is cowering in fear (and on facebook) in the face of terror just because he didn’t have a gun. Having a gun means shit for your chance if you didn’t have the time to react. And even if you have the time, you still need an incredible amount of luck and bravery to effectively discharge a few rounds.

Now that I think about it, what a terrified guy truly needs is Kevlar covered from head to toe every time he decides to go out which provide him with serious protection from flying bullets. A gun can’t even compare at providing such illusion of courage and strength.

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

Regardless of the validity of the implications. I don't think that's an appropriate rebuttal.

Fair enough....alas your righteous self-indignation was not aroused when one person is mocking fun of cowering victim in facebook living terror instead of having prepared self with a gun like him, or the other poster with his borderline xenophobic vitriol because a certain group of people don’t conform to his way of living (incredibly, he still persists.) Let’s not just focus on the tone but also pay attention to the words between the lines, shall we?

[Marcus H.]

Now that I think about it, what a terrified guy truly needs is Kevlar covered from head to toe every time he decides to go out which provide him with serious protection from flying bullets. A gun can’t even compare at providing such illusion of courage and strength.

But then again, kevlar helps jack when somebody threw explosives at you.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by monir

Fair enough....alas your righteous self-indignation was not aroused when one person is mocking fun of cowering victim in facebook living terror instead of having prepared self with a gun like him, or the other poster with his borderline xenophobic vitriol because a certain group of people don’t conform to his way of living (incredibly, he still persists.) Let’s not just focus on the tone but also pay attention to the words between the lines, shall we?

How is it xenophobic when that group of people demand that everyone accept their highly restrictive religious commitments and make leeway for all of them? There is a limit to giving in the relationship of give-and-take.

I never requested for people to conform to my way of living (rather I live with people who constantly demand that from me). If you want to start a fight by claiming there is an underlying meaning to my words when there is none, take it to the PM.

Originally Posted by solomon

What to do?

My ex Navy father says that you have to put boots on the ground in Syria and Iraq to take care of ISIS.

But like Maajid Nawaz, former radical and now UK MP commented on CNN the other day....

The problem is this ideology is atomized and could rear anywhere there is the threat of radicalization. Taking out an ISIS stronghold is not an end all solution.

More on Nawaz

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz

I won't disregard the potential or need for military action but it's going to be a very LONG and EXPENSIVE endeavor.

Europe faces a important logistical problem vis a vis immigration and borders as well.......but I think a REAL KEY QUESTION THAT NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IS...

HOW TO DEAL WITH THE DISSAFFECTED YOUNG MUSLIMS WHO DO AND POTENTIALLY BECOME RADICALIZED?

I cannot speak for America that well, but I do know from news reports and analysis from France that muslim immigrants from The Middle East and North Africa make up a considerable amount of the countries' ghetto residents.

How much is the problem lack of means to economically integrate and become productive members of society? Which then leads to seduction via Radical Islam?

There is going to be a witch hunt against Radical Muslims no doubt. But that is going to be very easily turned into even FURTHER xenophobia towards Muslims as a whole. Which along with being morally wrong will only cause more on the fence Muslims to harden.

Europe and the West are going to have to look long and hard at how they interact with their Muslim communities beyond sticking a nightstick up their ass..

Unfortunately, Nawaz is one of the few sane men left which nobody listens to. Everyone is flocking to Bilal Philips and his like.

The real problem is with the tenets of Islam. Like the Jewish halakha, the highly restrictive nature and practice makes them unapproachable and gives them the image of the "special snowflake". Then requiring vengeance strikes against religious satire, demanding political correctness when addressing their religion, that is ridiculous.

The world has changed much. We can't live better if we tie ourselves to an outdated rulebook meant for our ancestors.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by monir

Let’s go over an overly simplified scenario, Justin…. You are not in a controlled environment where you are shooting at a stationary target, aiming for center mass. You are not peering between your sights, lining them properly by aiming carefully at your target. The accuracy of your glock is also diminishing significantly further your go from 15 yards. Even if you are a world-class marksman your chance of hitting the target beyond 25 yards goes down significantly despite a long, careful aim. Now, you are in a real life situation like in Paris…. you are in a crowded area where people are running away from sound of gunshots. If you were not affected by the immediate line of fire of an AK-47 that doesn’t need careful aiming because of the amount of projectile it can spew out per second, more than likely you have no idea who the assailant is. In some incredulous chance, you do spot the assailant with his AK-47 and decide to take a few shot with your glock in that split second because you are brave….. Even at 15 yards I say you hitting the assailant is just as high as you hitting a few friendlies that are running away from him that had the misfortune of being in the way of your line of sight. And even if you do hit the assailant who didn’t really have a plant to leave out alive probably detonates his suicide vest……….., that is providing you didn’t shoot the vest yourself to trigger the blast.

A whole lot of the people that are dying of gunshot wounds in Chicago and Baltimore had their own gun in their person as are discovered by the local PD everyday. It didn’t do them any good though just because you still need an incredible amount of luck to properly and effectively react to someone who is shooting at you without them telegramming you the fact beforehand. My point is don’t mock the guy’s helplessness who is cowering in fear (and on facebook) in the face of terror just because he didn’t have a gun. Having a gun means shit for your chance if you didn’t have the time to react. And even if you have the time, you still need an incredible amount of luck and bravery to effectively discharge a few rounds.

I've thought about this far more than you have. Believe me. I doubt you even own any firearms Monir. I've spent my entire life around them, and handling them. Revolvers, Semi-autos, long rifles, shotguns(pump, side by side, over-under, etc), even full auto(which is useless in most firefights hence why our special forces prefer 3 round burst).

Half of the crap you were pushing on me for this scenario, goes for the terrorists as well. They also have to react, and find out who is shooting at them. An AK-47 is also not the most accurate rifle around. Especially if someone is using the full-auto feature.

I've thought this kind of thing through for years. Give me my glock at the very least, and whether I succeed or not, my chances are at least raised over having NOTHING. People were being executed yesterday 1 by 1. F' that. I am not going down like that.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I've thought about this far more than you have. Believe me. I doubt you even own any firearms Monir. I've spent my entire life around them, and handling them. Revolvers, Semi-autos, long rifles, shotguns(pump, side by side, over-under, etc), even full auto(which is useless in most firefights hence why our special forces prefer 3 round burst).

Half of the crap you were pushing on me for this scenario, goes for the terrorists as well. They also have to react, and find out who is shooting at them. An AK-47 is also not the most accurate rifle around. Especially if someone is using the full-auto feature.

I've thought this kind of thing through for years. Give me my glock at the very least, and whether I succeed or not, my chances are at least raised over having NOTHING. People were being executed yesterday 1 by 1. F' that. I am not going down like that.

I still remember what an NCO once told me about "training the way you fight" - he said that conflicting human emotion is the top killer in any standoff, particularly the fear of death and/or killing someone. It is that split second objectivity that determines the living and the dead.

Hopefully you have done that firing-under-pressure scenario. Making a difference counts alot on who-shot-and-hit-first.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I still remember what an NCO once told me about "training the way you fight" - he said that conflicting human emotion is the top killer in any standoff, particularly the fear of death and/or killing someone. It is that split second objectivity that determines the living and the dead.

Hopefully you have done that firing-under-pressure scenario. Making a difference counts alot on who-shot-and-hit-first.

Emotion doesnt play a part when chit hits the fan. Not in the cases I've lived through. You either act, or someone dies. If you're going to hesitate, you may as well just not get involved. Because it'll already be too late. I've saved lives. I was directly involved in the Cedar Fires in San Diego back in 2003(I created a fire-break on an HD-6 Bulldozer to save a horse ranch while a neighbor's house burned and had flames coming through both tracks around me).

Have I shot anyone, or pointed a gun at anyone? No. But I've already been through some situations that required action over emotion. Hell I shot my first rattlesnake at 10 years old. I still have that .22 rifle. A Stevens bolt-action that has been in the family for decades. Hopefully I'll have my own children someday and be able to pass on my experiences to them as well as teaching them how to operate firearms safely and effectively.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by monir

Fair enough....alas your righteous self-indignation was not aroused when one person is mocking fun of cowering victim in facebook living terror instead of having prepared self with a gun like him, or the other poster with his borderline xenophobic vitriol because a certain group of people don’t conform to his way of living (incredibly, he still persists.) Let’s not just focus on the tone but also pay attention to the words between the lines, shall we?

I never commented on the tone of the rebuttal, mind you, nor do I necessarily agree with either poster on these matters. I do believe making it clear that later in this thread that turning it into something over culture and the view towards guns is not a very appropriate thread and probably true gun control is a tangential issue. I am glad you elaborated on your opposition, which makes it better. However, you're following up with what I consider a fairly disingenuous presentation of either poster's position, of which you're not even bothering to mention them by name. It's sort of hard to have an honest discussion if you're not willing to take people seriously. Even if you regard Saintess's posts as xenophobic, I don't think you can characterize the entire person as such.

Honestly, I am incredibly disappointed if the most you can point out is my own alleged hypocrisy.

[solomon]

Yea, I am in favor of dropping the argument about guns here cause it's gonna be a HUGE distraction and thread locker.

[SaintessHeart]

More conspiracy theories incoming :

Israel gives France intelligence on Paris attackers: media

Israel's spy services are helping France investigate the Paris gun and bomb attacks, Israeli media said, with one radio station suggesting the assistance drew on surveillance of militant groups in Syria and Iraq.

Israel had no advance warning of Friday's rampage that killed at least 129 people, but within hours of it happening gave France information about some of the Islamic State militants who claimed to have carried it out, the top-rated television station Channel Two said, quoting an unnamed senior Israeli official.

Without providing details, Channel Two said Israeli intelligence saw a "clear operational link" between the attack in the French capital, Thursday's Beirut suicide bombings and the Oct. 31 downing of a Russian airliner in the Egyptian Sinai.

Israeli spy services are monitoring Syria and Iraq - where Islamic State insurgents have conquered swathes of territory - which may have yielded intelligence on the organization of the Paris attacks, Israel's Army Radio said.

Israeli officials contacted by Reuters had no comment, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told reporters on Saturday: "I've instructed Israel's security and intelligence services to assist their French counterparts and counterparts from other European countries in any way possible."

A Western diplomat said last year that Israel was providing the U.S.-led coalition fighting Islamic State with information gleaned from international travel databases about Western citizens suspected of joining the insurgents.

And I'll just leave this here. I share this guy's view btw, so sue me.

Spoiler for Long:

I want to thank well-meaning non-Muslims who, in the wake of these attacks, have emphasised that they have been carried out by a small, twisted minority. A terrorist's goal is to sow hatred and discord, and by not giving in, you are defeating their plans.

But I want to say that as a Muslim, I wish that we weren't so quick to emphasise that this has nothing to do with us. While I personally have never killed anyone and none of my friends and family have ever resorted to violence, radicalism has everything to do with Islam. And the failure to address that out of a well-intentioned commitment to tolerance is making the problem worse.

ISIS is a Muslim organisation, and it is an Islamic problem. Let me say it again to be perfectly clear. ISIS is a Muslim organisation, and they are a cancer at the heart of Islam. And the problem will not go away until Muslims confront that.

ISIS attackers scream 'Allah hu'akbar' during their attacks.
ISIS recruits cite Qur'anic verses as justification for the rape and enslavement of women.
ISIS soldiers kill archaeologists, gay men and women, and people who refuse to convert to Islam because they are blasphemers.

There are no Christians in ISIS. There are no Buddhists, Jews, Pagans, Taoists, Houngans, Catholics, Wiccans, Hindus or even Scientologists in ISIS. ISIS is a Muslim organisation and they kill in the name of Islam.

So don't say that ISIS aren't 'true Muslims' or that they are 'not really Muslims'. Like any large organisation, ISIS exists in a spectrum. You have the aimless, restless teenager who never amounted to anything in his life and traveled to Syria because he can't find a job and doesn't know if the Qur'an is to be read from left to right or right to left. But you also have pious professionals, businessmen, and academics who read their Qur'an cover to cover, pray every day, were seduced into radicalism, and truly believe that the Islamic State's goal of conquest is a noble one. The so-called 'Caliph' Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has a doctorate in Islamic studies.

So if you feel that Muslims are being oppressed or killed in Muslim countries, I expect you to also be just as outraged by ISIS. Because they have killed more Muslims in Iraq, Syria and Jordan than the entire US army. They have done more damage to the name and reputation of Islam than any Western nation. ISIS is Islam's biggest enemy, not the US, not Israel or France or Germany or the Russians.

We have to own the problem. We have to admit that this is a religious problem, and we need to renew our commitment to a secular country which treats all religions equally. I have believed in the importance of secularism all my life, and with every day that passes that belief grows stronger. Religion is no way to govern a nation. Not any religion, and not any nation.

ISIS is not America's problem, nor the British, nor the French. ISIS is not Syria or Iraq's problem. ISIS is a problem for Muslims. And if you can't admit that, you're not really a good Muslim either.