Carnage in Paris

[snapshot]

Funny thing is that French government still refuses to admit it's war crimes in Algeria, while they're much worried how many people got killed in Paris , compare to 1,5 Million Innocents it's nothing .

[Gez]

fraggle said:

Call it "Islamophobia" if you want to be pedantic, but if you think that somehow makes it more acceptable then you're not thinking about the full implications.

I don't like the term "islamophobia" and I think it should disappear entirely.

Okay, so you have an irrational fear of Islam? Cool. Where's the problem? Just don't read a Koran or enter a mosque.

The problem is when people have an irrational fear of muslims, so if anything the word for anti-Muslim racists should be "muslimophobia". By calling it Islamophobia, you're doing two things which I find noxious: the first is making the crime to be thinking ill of an ideology, instead of of people; the second is reducing the identity of Muslims to Islam, denying them the capacity to be agnostic or atheist.

DMGUYDZ64 said:

Funny thing is that French government still refuses to admit it's war crimes in Algeria, while they're much worried how many people got killed in Paris , compare to 1,5 Million Innocents it's nothing .

Likewise, the USA should not have intervened in WW2 because they genocided the natives and enslaved the Africans.

[Scet]

fraggle said:

I meant what I said, and I explained why I mean it. When you're judging almost a quarter of the world's population to be "bad people" based on - in effect - the place they were raised, you're a racist.

I don't see the logic in saying "most people of race X are religion Y, therefor insulting Y is insulting X". There are people in those areas that aren't Muslim, pretty sure they'd cry racism of your assuming everyone of their race wants to be part of it.

Gez said:

The problem is when people have an irrational fear of muslims, so if anything the word for anti-Muslim racists should be "muslimophobia".

Again this tying of race and religion. A Muslim is a person that follows Islam, Islam is not a race. Are anti-Atheist racists a thing? Are people that bash Atheism racist against Europeans? No that argument makes zero sense, except for some reason Islam.

Gez said:

the first is making the crime to be thinking ill of an ideology,

Look kids it's thought crime time. Hey is it a crime to think ill of the Westboro Baptist Church? Probably not.

Gez said:

instead of of people; the second is reducing the identity of Muslims to Islam, denying them the capacity to be agnostic or atheist.

Yeah that's what Muslim means, again, a person that follows Islam. Yet somehow you and fraggle have come to the conclusion Muslim means every brown person living in the Gulf or North Africa, which seems a bit racist. An Atheist Muslim makes about as much sense as an Atheist Catholic.

[snapshot]

Amazing to see how far can this discussion go, it all started by simply ISIS claiming an attack that People aren't even sure if ISIS is behind it, few minutes later people started blaming Islam thinking that ISIS was the reason , While all "Real" Muslims denied that ISIS are muslims , People are judging a religion they don't even know any single fuck about , Will you believe anybody with a "Bible Holybook" on a Hand and a gun on his other hand ?

[CorSair]

Doomkid said:

Ok. Continue assuming all Muricans are bad, evil people. I can't stop you.

Edit: In case it wasn't obvious, my post that was in quotes wasn't actually how I feel, I just think your views are frankly baffling.

I don't know if my shitty opinions could explain it, but here goes nothing...

Person or persons in leading position, lets say... Putin or Assad. It is easy to direct your hate to this person, and you don't need to blame whole country for following their leader. This is one good part of dictatorship, but it is also the great weakness, especially if there are many vultures attempting to take the leader's mantle, leaving the country even worse situation that it is.

So, what about the democratic west? I think it could be that western countries are seen as an entity. People elect leaders, which think of them being best for their country, and with that, country's will is shown. It seems this is a leap in logic, but when you have people blaming something invisible for their shortcomings or their paranoia in this part of world, it is likely that same mentality shows everywhere. And what's been happening in Middle East has been one chaos through few decades, and the maniacs who managed to spread their word feeds these flame.

Saw two YT videos how and why that happens, applies to every part of world.



And now, for more personal rant.
Same could be said what some people think badly about refugees in Europe, but the whole situation is a fucking mess in here, and the situation is soon boiling over, thanks to our inefficient representatives we chose. And now, we either try to make situation better in their homelands, either sending troops or other relief, like food, educational material and that, or we try to cope with the situation back here. I sound like those NIMBY whiners, but when two cultures clash quickly, there's gonna be some arguments what is acceptable for other and what is not. Some assimilate to European values, perhaps due to their better education or they see it as something they would really value, but not everyone thinks "that is a culture I am okay with." If I ever need to be forced from my country, whatever disaster happened in there, I wouldn't forget anything what made my country for what it was, be it good or ugly. Eventually, I would settle where I am headed, but I wouldn't forget.

[printz]

What's your opinion of France's recent bombardment of Islamic State territory? It looks like a war to me. I wonder if 2016 will be even more full of terrorism than 2015.

[Gez]

Scet said:

Again this tying of race and religion. A Muslim is a person that follows Islam, Islam is not a race. Are anti-Atheist racists a thing? Are people that bash Atheism racist against Europeans? No that argument makes zero sense, except for some reason Islam.

You might want to look at how often "godless" came up in anti-Soviet propaganda from the Cold War; which is also when the USA started adopting "one nation, under God", "so help me God", and "in God we trust".

And for a more recent example, yes, you'll find out that the high occurrence of atheism in Europe is used as an argument by Islamists why the Western World is corrupt and decadent, and why atheists in Muslim countries are traitors.

Scet said:

Look kids it's thought crime time. Hey is it a crime to think ill of the Westboro Baptist Church? Probably not.

I'm not sure what your point is. Reread my post again and try to understand why I say I dislike the term "Islamophobia".

Scet said:

Yeah that's what Muslim means, again, a person that follows Islam. Yet somehow you and fraggle have come to the conclusion Muslim means every brown person living in the Gulf or North Africa, which seems a bit racist. An Atheist Muslim makes about as much sense as an Atheist Catholic.

An Atheist Catholic makes perfect sense to me; that's who I am.

Hey, pop quiz: can you tell me when in the year is Christmas? Do you know what Easter is about? Can you tell me who are the three figures of the Holy Trinity? What is the name of God's mother?

if you can answer correctly to all these questions, congratulations! You are probably culturally Christian, in that you grew up picking up all these bits about the Christian faith and culture even if you always thought it was folkloric nonsense.

Now can you tell me, without looking it up online first, how many locations are concerned by Kumbh Mela and how often it happens? No? Then you're quite unlikely to be culturally Hindu. If you were culturally Hindu, you'd know -- again, even if you were atheist or agnostic or believing in a minority religion in a Hindu country. Culture is stuff that you pick up just by living where you live; and religion is part of it.

There are some bits you can learn from other religions, but unless the subject interests you on a spiritual or intellectual level you're unlikely to get more than a superficial and often inaccurate knowledge.

[Mechazawa]

printz said:

What's your opinion of France's recent bombardment of Islamic State territory? It looks like a war to me. I wonder if 2016 will be even more full of terrorism than 2015.

That was the point from the get go. Pull France into it by having some event occur in their country. I wouldn't be surprised if France did it themselves to give justification. After all, the whole world believes it was muslims unquestionably, why wouldn't the government use that to its advantage? Every time an attack happens, everyone unequivocally follows along and doesn't question who did it.

We will never know who actually did it, as with any act of terrorism. We can only look at who has the resources, who stands to benefit, and what motive all involved parties have, and decide from there who is more likely to have been behind the act. As was said about 9/11, would you rather believe a group of brown men in rags sitting in a cave did it, or a group of old rich white men sitting in washington did it? Who had the resources, who stood to benefit the most, and who had motive? It doesn't matter what temperature steel melts at, it doesn't matter what bomb-proof passports were found, it doesn't matter that there was no plane at two of the sites.

You can only ever infer who does these acts. If a brown guy bombs a place, and as a result his homeland is bombed into oblivion, It would never cross my mind that this brown guy they claim actually did the crime and that is all there is to it. Why? Because it is stupid and we know the reaction. Terrorism in recent times has never ever been a tool to bring about any positive change, it has never worked. So, the idea that some mysterious global organization, which is smart enough to function and fool global superpowers, is going to use terrorism to force governments to change, is stupid. You know that blowing something up in the west only ever invokes violent response destroying much of your people and forces, then you don't do it. It is simply bad tactics. It accomplishes nothing and nearly always results in a very harsh reaction.

It stands to me that nearly all terrorist acts are in-house acts done to give justification to attack in the first place. Soldiers are human, believe it or not, and they will not go bomb innocent people unless they have a good enough reason. Some random attack in their own country is good enough reason, and they will simply obey their commanders when it comes to the details of who did it and what needs to be done about it. Acts of terrorism done to the state by the state don't serve to convince the public, they serve to convince the military that some action needs to be done. Public opinion matters very little. Someone wanted France to bomb Syria, an act was done in France, everyone believed it was muslims from Syria, justification was thus given, France bombed Syria. Case Closed as far as I see it. Later on someone is going to want someone else to bomb something else in the middle east, some civilian place in the west will be bombed, people will believe its muslims, some military will bomb some muslim land. Rinse Repeat.

The idea that terrorism is done by a small group to bring about a positive change is stupid, and who ever believes that is watching too many Disney movies and reading too many comic books. This isn't GI Joe and Cobra. They are not 'out to end our freedoms and take over the world'. Mwaaaaaaa *Cobra Voice*

[Gez]

Mechazawa said:

I wouldn't be surprised if France did it themselves to give justification.

Yay, another false flag conspiracy theorist! Thank you for telling us right away all your opinions are worthless garbage to be ignored.

[Mechazawa]

Gez said:

Yay, another false flag conspiracy theorist! Thank you for telling us right away all your opinions are worthless garbage to be ignored.

Mechazawa said:

Every time an attack happens, everyone unequivocally follows along and doesn't question who did it.

The fact that there is a negative knee jerk reaction to anyone who ever questions governments that openly bomb civilians all over the world, should be telling enough just how much control media has over the minds of folks.

It is also funny you mentioned false flag, as that term on wikipedia gives a list of accounts that such operations have been done. But I guess those were the 'old days' and we don't do that anymore because the west is so civilized.

[Gez]

Every time an attack happens, every nutjobs unequivocally start claiming it was a false flag.

This irrational need to see conspiracy theories everywhere arises because they want to conciliate their simple-minded belief that everything bad in the world is caused by the men in black of the gubmint with the complexity of the world. Conspiracy theorists are never stopped by common sense or logic, and they will never accept that people have their own agency. Everything is caused by the CIA. A terrorist organization is actually a front for the CIA. The FSB is actually a front for the CIA. Everything is the CIA. The CIA has six billion agents over the world, doing bad things.

So of course, the CIA's French antenna faked a terrorist attack -- the dead people are probably fake corpses, too, don't believe what the media says you sheeple -- because they wanted a pretext to use French bombs on Syria, and this was needed because the French were already bombing Syria so obviously they needed a new pretext to keep doing what they were already doing. I'm a smart person, not like the sheeple, I don't read mainstream media, I get my news from Global Research and Russia Today so I know they say the truth. Now let me tell you about who really did MH370; it was the CIA using their black hole generators that they're using to perform climate change.

[dew]

Gez wins. Flawless victory.

[Mechazawa]

Gez said:

Every time an attack happens, every nutjobs unequivocally start claiming it was a false flag.

This irrational need to see conspiracy theories everywhere arises because they want to conciliate their simple-minded belief that everything bad in the world is caused by the men in black of the gubmint with the complexity of the world. Conspiracy theorists are never stopped by common sense or logic, and they will never accept that people have their own agency. Everything is caused by the CIA. A terrorist organization is actually a front for the CIA. The FSB is actually a front for the CIA. Everything is the CIA. The CIA has six billion agents over the world, doing bad things.

So of course, the CIA's French antenna faked a terrorist attack -- the dead people are probably fake corpses, too, don't believe what the media says you sheeple -- because they wanted a pretext to use French bombs on Syria, and this was needed because the French were already bombing Syria so obviously they needed a new pretext to keep doing what they were already doing. I'm a smart person, not like the sheeple, I don't read mainstream media, I get my news from Global Research and Russia Today so I know they say the truth. Now let me tell you about who really did MH370; it was the CIA using their black hole generators that they're using to perform climate change.

It isn't an irrational need to see conspiracy everywhere. It is an irrational need to see the truth. Nothing I have said is conspiratorial in the sense that you described anyways, it is basic economics. How people make money. Is it a conspiracy in that people worked together to achieve a goal? Of course it was, so is a public map pack. All a conspiracy is, is people working together to achieve a goal, every corporation is a conspiracy in this sense. You just like to make conspiracy sound mystical and then accuse people you disagree with of believing mystical things.

As far as government plans intended to further the corporate interests involved, why is that so hard to believe? It is simple economics. Corporations (groups of people working together) make money from this stuff. In America, the biggest lobbyists for criminal punishment are prison owners. The biggest anti-health food/natural health lobbyists are pharmaceutical companies. The biggest lobbyists for loose gun laws are gun owners. The biggest lobbyists for loose immigration laws are companies, they are also the biggest lobbyists for outsourcing and trade. The biggest lobbyist for restrictive internet laws are IP owners. ... but, people lobbying, doing everything they can, to profit off war would be unheard of, yes.

Things happen in the world because people come together to make them happen, an invasion doesn't just 'happen'- people meet, plan, and plot, and then an invasion occurs (conspiracy). There is nothing magical about it. People have interests and they work towards them. There is chaos in the middle east because someone else wants it there, the middle eastern nations have never attacked any western nations in any real capacity since WW2, yet most of them are in ruins thanks to the west. The only people who end up dead are innocent people minding their own business when suddenly American bombs fall all over them. Just like In Syira when the french bombed regular villages recently.

You said people have agency, yes, they do. They have the agency to oppress and indiscriminately murder people because they get paid to do so. Daesh has agency to do what it does because it gets paid to do so, people do not work for free. If you want to believe it is some Cobra plot to take over the world and end western freedoms, that is your delusion. Drop the mysticism and fantasy and recognize people for what they are.

A group of men with rusty old AKs and black robes want to take over the world, they are not getting paid by any power to do what they are doing, yes, it makes perfect sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8qxoe31wmA&feature=youtu.be

[dew]

All of that sophism means nothing and does nothing to validate your batshit insane theory that the French government somehow organized these terror attacks in order to justify bombing Syrian villages or whatever. Just because they taught you how the world turns at the Sociology School doesn't mean you can throw out stupid theories without a shred of evidence. You're just trying to word us to death here.

[Da Werecat]

dew said:

You're just trying to word us to death here.

I thought that's what everyone's doing in threads like this one.

[snapshot]

In my opinion , French security should put more seriousness about the refugees and make sure none of them are terrorists acting like Migrants , It's their fault .

[Mechazawa]

dew said:

All of that sophism means nothing and does nothing to validate your batshit insane theory that the French government somehow organized these terror attacks in order to justify bombing Syrian villages or whatever. Just because they taught you how the world turns at the Sociology School doesn't mean you can throw out stupid theories without a shred of evidence. You're just trying to word us to death here.

France being bombed could just as easily be a theory. Did the media provide proof of it? You believed the media and take it as fact that a bombing occured.

[dew]

Sssssoooooo the media are lying to us all around the clock right now, fabricating all of this in order to make us give up our freedoms. Yeah, how about you go fuck yourself, buddy.

[axdoomer]

Gez said:

Every time an attack happens, every nutjobs unequivocally start claiming it was a false flag.

This irrational need to see conspiracy theories everywhere arises because they want to conciliate their simple-minded belief that everything bad in the world is caused by the men in black of the gubmint with the complexity of the world. Conspiracy theorists are never stopped by common sense or logic, and they will never accept that people have their own agency. Everything is caused by the CIA. A terrorist organization is actually a front for the CIA. The FSB is actually a front for the CIA. Everything is the CIA. The CIA has six billion agents over the world, doing bad things.

So of course, the CIA's French antenna faked a terrorist attack -- the dead people are probably fake corpses, too, don't believe what the media says you sheeple -- because they wanted a pretext to use French bombs on Syria, and this was needed because the French were already bombing Syria so obviously they needed a new pretext to keep doing what they were already doing. I'm a smart person, not like the sheeple, I don't read mainstream media, I get my news from Global Research and Russia Today so I know they say the truth. Now let me tell you about who really did MH370; it was the CIA using their black hole generators that they're using to perform climate change.

If I tell you that the FBI and the US Department of Justice funded 30% of terrorist attacks that happened in the United-States after the year 2001, would you believe me? Does this makes me a conspiracy theorist? It's true. Documents have been leaked (Article). The US government uses terrorism to make people fear. When people fear, it's easier to pass laws that control the population (laws on espionage, mass surveillance, etc.). Normally, people wouldn't approve such laws, but of course, they always use the same argument: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear from the NSA". This is not a good reason to give up your privacy. It's like having a police officer watching 24 hours a day.

The previous Canadian government also used ISIS's attacks in Quebec and Ottawa to get the approval of Canadians on bill C-51. When that happened, the approval rate of such a bill was 82%, only a few months later, it dropped to 38%.

Everyone should read this book: 1984

[Csonicgo]

Mechazawa said:

France being bombed could just as easily be a theory. Did the media provide proof of it? You believed the media and take it as fact that a bombing occured.

Well let's see here, the dozens of videos inside the theater that were on Twitter? the pictures of dead bodies in the alleyway by the hall? people running from a guy with an AK-47 firing across a bridge? Yep, that was all a Blair Witch Project production.

[Bloodshedder]

axdoom1 said:

If I tell you that the FBI and the US Department of Justice funded 30% of terrorist attacks that happened in the United-States after the year 2001, would you believe me? Does this makes me a conspiracy theorist? It's true. Documents have been leaked (Article).

No, I wouldn't believe you. Are we even reading the same article? For another reference, check here. This is straight from the source.

Your statement is incredibly misleading. Here's what the report actually found:

Multiple studies have found that nearly 50 percent of the federal counterterrorism convictions since September 11, 2001, resulted from informant-based cases. Almost 30 percent were sting operations in which the informant played an active role in the underlying plot.

Law enforcement abuse such as this happens too often, and I agree that overzealous informant techniques aren't really a good tactic to use. But don't conflate it with government funding of 30% of terrorists attack since 9/11.

[axdoomer]

Bloodshedder said:

No, I wouldn't believe you. Are we even reading the same article? For another reference, check here. This is straight from the source.

Your statement is incredibly misleading. Here's what the report actually found:
Law enforcement abuse such as this happens too often, and I agree that overzealous informant techniques aren't really a good tactic to use. But don't conflate it with government funding of 30% of terrorists attack since 9/11.

Your article may be the source of mine. It's not said that the FBI funded 30% of them, but it says that it played an active role in 30% of them. The leaked document must be on Wikileaks.

The FBI, CIA and NSA are abusing their power. It looks out of control. CIA parachuting weapons and ammo to ISIS is another example of that.

The government and its agencies should be more transparent, that would fix a lot of problems.

[Mechazawa]

Csonicgo said:

Well let's see here, the dozens of videos inside the theater that were on Twitter? the pictures of dead bodies in the alleyway by the hall? people running from a guy with an AK-47 firing across a bridge? Yep, that was all a Blair Witch Project production.

Hollywood. Disprove my assertion.

I am done with this discussion, my point has been made long ago.

[RestlessRodent]

Doomkid said:

guys i just had the craziest first hand experients with a terrorist i was walking home from doing laundry at the laundromat cause im poor and i saw a dude wearing a turban and i did what any sane red blooded american would do, i nodded at him as i walked past and he smiled at me as he walked past but even tho he smiled i could tell he actually wanted me DEAD in his evil muslim eyes i could just tell cause hes a muslim that he wanted me ded and he prolly had a bom with him but im not surprised he hates me cause even though were in australa and my family is australan i am ametrican and he could probably tell im an evil american and he knew i supported slavery cause that happened in america and since im american he knew i supporded it It was a crazy first hand experience with terrorism and it reaveld 2 me how evil all americans and muslims are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are you sure he was not a Sikh?

Gez said:

Do you know what Easter is about?

Easter is either about discovering plastic eggs and bunny rabbits, or it is about the killing of Jesus (since the death of Jesus granted eternal life to his true believers).

Gez said:

What is the name of God's mother?

Logically, if God were omnipresent and omnipotent, he would have no mother at all.

axdoom1 said:

If I tell you that the FBI and the US Department of Justice funded 30% of terrorist attacks that happened in the United-States after the year 2001, would you believe me?

Intentionally, no. Inadvertenly, yes. FBI agents and the DOJ could go to a local pizza place to order pizza for their agents, a malicious worker in the pizza place could steal part of the money paid for by the FBI/DOJ and then supply that money to terrorists. In effect, the FBI/DOJ just funded terrorism. Pretty much any movement of monetary funds both physical and virtual can eventually lead to a sequence of events which fund terrorism.

[axdoomer]

I don't think what happened in Paris was a conspiracy, but their are already a lot of questions that will please conspiracy terrorists.

Yesterday, on TV, they said that a passport has been found next to a suicide bomber's body. Conspiracy terrorists like this because they would ask "Why didn't the passport burn in the explosion?". (Logic answer: the suicide bomber was killed before he had time to detonate)

Some conspiracy terrorists would ask the same question about the passport that was found intact on 9/11: link

I have a question about the building in this video. Maybe someone can give a plausible (and intelligent) answer.

What caused its fall? At first, you hear two explosions, then you see it fall like if the work was done by demolition specialists on a construction field. When they destroy buildings in Las Vegas, they have this special way of exploding buildings without causing damage to the buildings are them.

[axdoomer]

GhostlyDeath said:

FBI agents and the DOJ could go to a local pizza place to order pizza for their agents, a malicious worker in the pizza place could steal part of the money paid for by the FBI/DOJ and then supply that money to terrorists. In effect, the FBI/DOJ just funded terrorism. Pretty much any movement of monetary funds both physical and virtual can eventually lead to a sequence of events which fund terrorism.

True

[dew]

Mechazawa said:

Hollywood. Disprove my assertion.

There's nothing to disprove. Your crazy theory is not a legal defence and the burden of proof actually rests on you.

[Pencil of Doom]

DMGUYDZ64 said:

In my opinion , French security should put more seriousness about the refugees and make sure none of them are terrorists acting like Migrants , It's their fault .

This was planned all along, i knew this would happen, ISIS knew that the Syrians were going to flee to Europe to escape from the war, so they infitrated along them, easily fooling security forces, also they had contacts in Europe, which in return supplied them with weapons, bombs and other equipment.

And i can easily conclude that if muslim refugees come to a european country, theres a strong tendency for terrorists to appear and that's exactly what happened.
You can't prevent terrorism, you have to prepare for it, otherwise, you're dead.
Now that they bombed France, my guess is that thier next target will probably be Italy.

[Gez]

axdoom1 said:

Yesterday, on TV, they said that a passport has been found next to a suicide bomber's body. Conspiracy terrorists like this because they would ask "Why didn't the passport burn in the explosion?". (Logic answer: the suicide bomber was killed before he had time to detonate)

No. Logic answer: because the terrorist threw it on the floor first.

For all the conspiratorial thinking about "the CIA must have done this convoluted thing in order to make us believe that fact", there's not one iota of "the terrorists must have done this thing in order to make us believe that fact".

So, here's some facts for you:
1. the passport is a fake (not a surprise, there are thousands of fake Syrian passports because refugees fleeing a war are more likely to be granted asylum than those simply fleeing poverty, so there is a big demand for fake Syrian passports)
2. the terrorist registered as an asylum seeker at two different places to make sure he'd leave a trace
3. it is in the terrorists' interest to punish the "cowards" and "traitors" who are leaving the Middle East to live like heathens in decadent Europe
4. the terrorist is not actually Syrian

Why do you think they brought their passport with them? You don't need to carry your passport 24/7.

Mechazawa said:

I am done with this discussion, my point has been made long ago.

Yep:

Gez said:

Yay, another false flag conspiracy theorist! Thank you for telling us right away all your opinions are worthless garbage to be ignored.

[axdoomer]

Gez said:

No. Logic answer: because the terrorist threw it on the floor first.

That's right.
The article says:
“The single most intriguing fact is that the passport was there at all,” one French official source said. “It was not actually on the terrorist’s body, or what remained of it. It was lying nearby, as if meant to be found.” The holder of the passport was named as Ahmed Almuhamed, aged 25. A man of this name entered the European Union on a Syrian passport with 69 other refugees after their boat sank off the Greek island of Leros on 3 October.

Terrorists want people to fear immigrants, so they dropped a Syrian passport somewhere around for somebody to find it. That's why Marine Le Pen's shitty National Front is probably going to win the next election.