News Paris shooting and explosion kills at least 140

[HossamCFD]

has anyone claimed responsibility ?

Yes. Isis has. Hollande also directly blamed them for the attack.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34820016

 

[S.G. Janssens]

Yes. Isis has.

Do you have any opinion on what could be a good strategy to deal with this garbage? It's not a trick question, I'm genuinely curious.

 

[Astronuc]

French President Francois Hollande said the violence was organized from abroad by UnIslamic State with internal help.

http://news.yahoo.com/islamic-state-claims-responsibility-paris-attacks-105251415.html

The attacks at a stadium, concert hall and cafes and restaurants in northern and eastern Paris were "an act of war committed by Daesh that was prepared, organized and planned from outside (of France)" with help from inside France, Hollande said, using the Arabic acronym for UnIslamic State.

Certainly modern technology, allows instant communication and transfer of funds. Illicit trafficking (smuggling) of anything allows weapons and explosives to move relatively easily across borders.

 

[Astronuc]

Where the attacker residents of France/EU or did they come from ISIS directly? the article doesn't say anything.

I think we have to wait for the French government to identify the attackers and from that see if their movements can be traced.

From the Yahoo article:

Foreign fighters who join Islamic State, the group which controls large swathes of Iraq and Syria, are seen as especially dangerous because Western passports enable them to live in and travel to Western countries undetected.

 

[HossamCFD]

Do you have any opinion on what could be a good strategy to deal with this garbage? It's not a trick question, I'm genuinely curious.

I wouldn't have suspected it was a trick question. Though I'm afraid I don't have any intelligent answers. However, I can share some incoherent ramblings.

I would say there's two sorts of "garbage". First is religiously motivated terrorism (and I understand that many people won't link it to religion). This can only be dealt with through security measures IMO as there's no reasoning with those people. I'm no expert on security so I can't elaborate on that.

The second kind of garbage is Islamic extremism; the wider circle of people who share many of the beliefs of the terrorists but are not willing to act on them. This IMO is more difficult to deal with. I don't think there's a solution to that apart from people becoming less religious in the long run. This is a long process that has to be homegrown in muslim communities. Promotion of science, good education, and freedom of expression are essential in this process. I'm not sure how much can the west help in this process, but certainly maintaining current levels of tolerance and inclusiveness is important; people tend to identify more with religion when they think they are being persecuted because of it. Trying to promote liberal values and democracies in muslim majority countries (however hard that might be) is also important.

 

[russ_watters]

The countries where Islam is a majority religion are mostly broken down at this point. This is a cyclical thing in history; it can and does happen to all countries, cultural groups and religion at different points in their respective evolutions. Christianity has had its ugly days too, with crusades, the inquisition, it was used as an excuse to enslave people and colonize and exploit countries , etc. I think if one takes a longer-term view of Islam and history, this reveals that recent behavior is not so much intrinsic to Islam, but more a result of a culture that is currently broken down.

While I agree with most of that, I disagree with it being cyclical. Development is not cyclical, it is parabolic. On average, the world does not go backwards, over timeframes of decades or longer. The world is, in general, a much more peaceful place than it was 50, 100, 200, 500 years ago. What is cyclical is the cycle of violence in a failed society; the violence feeds on the religious extremism, which feeds on the violence.

However, yes, the failure of many parts of the world to develop into stable, peaceful civilizations is the root of the problem, regardless of how it connects to religion. There are many areas of the world that have failed to develop (much of Africa, for example). Religion is often a component of that (and indeed, in the Crusades, christians exported their violence to the Middle East), and just because other religions have in the past had violent tendencies does not mean we should be ignoring the religious component here. Islam is a key fuel that powers the war.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but I do know that we in the West have been falling-down on the job for decades, and Europe more than the US. Europe has gotten a pass mostly because the US absorbed most of the terrorism, but ISIS appears less picky than al Qaeda.

We all, in the West though, have chosen the worst possible course of action. A minor bombing campaign feels clean and easy, but it is like gently poking a wasp's-nest with a stick: It doesn't solve the problem and it pisses off the wasps. We must either totally pull-out of the ME and be ok with letting it be an anarchic cesspool, or we must fully commit to locking-it down with half a million ground troops.

 

[Monsterboy]

I hope that this attack sends a strong signal for an urgent need of good military cooperation between Russia and NATO in order to kick ISIS out. One of the main objectives of Russia is to secure Assad's regime ,lets live with that ,leave Syria to Assad and Russia , let's deal with ISIS together ,Assad is just about Syria ,ISIS is a threat to the whole world.

 

[russ_watters]

There is, but which way does it go? If someone approach a text wanting to find a justification for murder, chances are they'll be able to find it. That success tells us more about the person than the text.

I agree and that's why I don't find the 'is it or isn't it the fault of Islam' argument useful. We're in a global Islamic Jihadist war because they say so, regardless of whether the chicken or the egg came first.

 

[russ_watters]

I hope that this attack sends a strong signal for an urgent need of good military cooperation between Russia and NATO in order to kick ISIS out. One of the main objectives of Russia is to secure Assad's regime ,lets live with that ,leave Syria to Assad and Russia , let's deal with ISIS together ,Assad is just about Syria ,ISIS is a threat to the whole world.

Agreed. We've made nice before when we had mutual threats. This may be an opportunity for reconciliation with Russia that has long-term implications far beyond the Middle East.

Downside? The Syrian people are basically screwed -- but I think they are screwed either way. They may be slightly less screwed under Russia/Assad though.

 

[mheslep]

but certain ethnic groups.

Such as?

Murray has it right in the Spectator I think:

We have spent 15 years pretending things about Islam, a complex religion with competing interpretations. It is true that most Muslims live their lives peacefully. But a sizeable portion (around 15 per cent and more in most surveys) follow a far more radical version. The remainder are sitting on a religion which is, in many of its current forms, a deeply unstable component. That has always been a problem for reformist Muslims. But the results of ongoing mass immigration to the West at the same time as a worldwide return to Islamic literalism means that this is now a problem for all of us. To stand even a chance of dealing with it, we are going to have to wake up to it and acknowledge it for what it is.

 

[mheslep]

I hope that this attack sends a strong signal for an urgent need of good military cooperation between Russia and NATO in order to kick ISIS out. One of the main objectives of Russia is to secure Assad's regime ,lets live with that ,leave Syria to Assad and Russia , let's deal with ISIS together ,Assad is just about Syria ,ISIS is a threat to the whole world.

I agree and that's why I don't find the 'is it or isn't it the fault of Islam' argument useful. We're in a global Islamic Jihadist war because they say so, regardless of whether the chicken or the egg came first.

The presumption there seems to be that, yes Putin is bit of a strong man, knocking down the odd passenger aircraft, but there exist some nebulous set of basics where we share common interests. It would be nice if that's the case, but I see little evidence that it is so. Putin's done almost nothing to impede ISIS. I think a more likely case is that Putin wants the greatest possible leverage obtainable over the west, via any means he can muster. Currently the West counts terror as the biggest threat. As posts here indicate, certainly terror groups are counted as a bigger threat than ME dictators and their pals.

For a strong man leverage does not lie in cooperation, but by threat. In the Soviet days, this was done, for instance, by positioning nuclear weapons along side murderous lunatics like Che Guevara who wanted those weapons used. And as Kasparov says about Putin, "once KGB, always KGB".

I doubt Putin counts the Global War on Terror as a major threat to his country. So, if he should gain influence over ISIS, even if by no more than leaving it alone to multiply, then it may well become his instrument to manipulate against the West.

 

[mheslep]

The countries where Islam is a majority religion are mostly broken down at this point.

A couple are, like Syria, Libya, Sudan. Most such countries are not broken, not if broken means chaos and civil war. Turkey, Iran, Morocco, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Malaysia, UAE, Indonesia, Bangladesh... . All are majority Muslim, overwhelmingly so, and have functioning if non-pluralistic governments and a degree of civil order.

 

[Nugatory]

Such as?

Murray has it right in the Spectator I think:

We have spent 15 years pretending things about Islam, a complex religion with competing interpretations. It is true that most Muslims live their lives peacefully. But a sizeable portion (around 15 per cent and more in most surveys) follow a far more radical version. The remainder are sitting on a religion which is, in many of its current forms, a deeply unstable component. That has always been a problem for reformist Muslims. But the results of ongoing mass immigration to the West at the same time as a worldwide return to Islamic literalism means that this is now a problem for all of us. To stand even a chance of dealing with it, we are going to have to wake up to it and acknowledge it for what it is.

"Follow a far more radical version" isn't the same thing as "support random murder".

There is no credible polling data showing that a randomly selected Muslim is more likely to support random murder than that a randomly selected American is likely to have personally committed rape, murder, armed robbery, or criminal assault - and we've managed to find meaningful distinctions between the criminal and non-criminal elements of the American population.

This is not to say that the West doesn't face a serious problem - that's clear to everyone. The question is what to do about it; bad interpretations of bad data and straw man distortions (who exactly needs to "finally admit that the Paris attacks had something to do with Islam"?) don't seem to me the best starting point.

 

[Astronuc]

I hope that this attack sends a strong signal for an urgent need of good military cooperation between Russia and NATO in order to kick ISIS out. One of the main objectives of Russia is to secure Assad's regime ,lets live with that ,leave Syria to Assad and Russia , let's deal with ISIS together ,Assad is just about Syria ,ISIS is a threat to the whole world.

Coincidentally, US, Russia and other nations discuss a plan for Syria
http://news.yahoo.com/syria-talks-begin-vienna-under-pall-paris-attacks-094454124--politics.html

As an aside, "Countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, which support different sides in the conflict, put aside their dispute to condemn the bombings and shootings that left at least 123 people in the French capital dead Friday."

Even Hezbollah condemned the attacks in Paris.
http://news.yahoo.com/hezbollah-chief-lebanon-denounces-paris-attacks-184742949.html

One should remember the Muslims have been the primary targets of Daesh. Daesh and their sympathizers would seem to be the primary problem at the moment, or at least with respect to acts like the attacks in Paris.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Even Hezbollah condemned the attacks in Paris.

Hezbollah and ISIL are on opposite sides, though.

 

[mheslep]

"Follow a far more radical version" isn't the same thing as "support random murder"...

"Random murder" is a straw man relevant to the events at hand, is not what occurred in Paris. It was a planned and orchestrated mass attack, and if executed by ISIS as seems obvious, it was what the perpetrators would say was in the defense of Islam. By calling the event other than what it was, ironically you serve up a case in point for the Spectator author which you would call a straw man.

There is no credible polling data showing that a randomly selected Muslim is more likely to support random murder than that a randomly selected American is ...

Nobody polls for approval of "random murder", but for actions like suicide bombing and capital punishment for apostates, surveys have long been common knowledge.

Muslim Views on Suicide Bombing.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

Nobody polls for approval of "random murder", but for actions like suicide bombing and capital punishment for apostates, surveys have long been common knowledge.

I understand what you are saying, but I refuse to judge individuals on the basis of population statistics, although sometimes it is really, really tempting.

 

[mheslep]

I understand what you are saying, but I refuse to judge individuals on the basis of population statistics, although sometimes it is really, really tempting.

The need is not for judgement on individuals based on statistics. The need is to destroy the like of ISIS, who self-identify themselves with speeches and flags in the ME, if not when attempting to enter the West.

Edit: the longer the mislabeling continues, the more difficult the problem will be to isolate:
16% of French Citizens Support ISIS, Poll Finds

 

[Evo]

The need is not for judgement on individuals based on statistics. The need is to destroy the like of ISIS, who self-identify themselves with speeches and flags in the ME, if not when attempting to enter the West.

Edit: the longer the mislabeling continues, the more difficult the problem will be to isolate:
16% of French Citizens Support ISIS, Poll Finds

From your link

Newsweek's France Correspondent, Anne-Elizabath Moutet, was unsurprised by the news. "This is the ideology of young French Muslims from immigrant backgrounds", she said, "unemployed to the tune of 40% who've been deluged by satellite TV and internet propaganda." She pointed to a correlation between support for ISIS and rising anti-Semitism in France, adding that "these are the same people who torch synagogues".

 

[Student100]

"Random murder" is a straw man relevant to the events at hand, is not what occurred in Paris. It was a planned and orchestrated mass attack, and if executed by ISIS as seems obvious, it was what the perpetrators would say was in the defense of Islam. By calling the event other than what it was, ironically you serve up a case in point for the Spectator author which you would call a straw man.Nobody polls for approval of "random murder", but for actions like suicide bombing and capital punishment for apostates, surveys have long been common knowledge.

Muslim Views on Suicide Bombing.

ISIS didn't orchestrate the attack in Paris, if fighters leave the Caliphate once they're there, they're seen as weak and cowards by ISIS. That's why so many propaganda videos of passport burning exists. Further, ISIS generally frowns upon suicide attacks, as it doesn't fit into their interpretation of Islam.

If ISIS actually had any skin in the Paris attacks, it was likely lone wolf would-be immigrates to Syria that had their passports seized.

Most of those countries Muslims are enemies of the Islamic state, and have been excommunicated from the faith by Baghdadi- therefore they're apostles that must be killed.

 

[Evo]

ISIS didn't orchestrate the attack in Paris, if fighters leave the Caliphate once they're there, they're seen as weak and cowards by ISIS. That's why so many propaganda videos of passport burning exists. Further, ISIS generally frowns upon suicide attacks, as it doesn't fit into their interpretation of Islam.

If ISIS actually had any skin in the Paris attacks, it was likely lone wolf would-be immigrates to Syria that had their passports seized.

Most of those countries Muslims are enemies of the Islamic state, and have been excommunicated from the faith by Baghdadi- therefore they're apostles that must be killed.

ISIS claimed responsibility, you don't believe them?

 

[Student100]

ISIS claimed responsibility, you don't believe them?

Not fully, I don't see how it fits into their ideology. They seem to claim responsibility for many attacks that are latter shown to be another group/homegrown.

It seems like they're just wanting to capitalize on the publicity, not actually planning these attacks.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

it was likely lone wolf would-be immigrates to Syria

It was three separate coordinated group attacks. I wouldn't call that lone wolf.

 

[Student100]

It was three separate coordinated group attacks. I wouldn't call that lone wolf.

Yeah, the coordination seems atypical for homegrown attacks. It also seems atypical for ISIS though, there was some mumbling that it might have been Al Qaeda , or an Al Qaeda affiliate. It just seems counter to the ISIS goal of obtaining territory, holding/developing that territory and expanding it. ISIS claimed responsibility for the Texas shootings, Oregon college shooting, and basically every other attack on westerns without any real evidence they had planned or orchestrated the attacks. I don't take their claims of responsibility seriously.

I guess they could be behind the attack and had coordinated the entire thing for months, it just seems outside of their operating norm.

 

[Nugatory]

"Random murder" is a straw man relevant to the events at hand, is not what occurred in Paris. It was a planned and orchestrated mass attack, and if executed by ISIS as seems obvious, it was what the perpetrators would say was in the defense of Islam. By calling the event other than what it was, ironically you serve up a case in point for the Spectator author which you would call a straw man.

You are correct about my choice of words, and I apologize. I should have called it deliberate and premeditated murder of random victims in Paris - there was nothing random or unintended in the attackers' deliberate choice to murder innocent people. The only thing that was random was which innocent people died, and I'm not hearing anyone except for the criminals themselves questioning whether that makes for an appalling crime.

However, I do disagree with you on two other points.
First, although as far as I know you are right that there has never never been a poll specifically asking about "random murder", several polls were done after the 7/7/2005 attacks in London and Madrid that failed to find any substantial support among Muslims for these attacks. What's substantial? I already mentioned the likelihood that a randomly selected American has committed a violent crime leading to incarceration, and that's around one in five hundred. So we're generally willing to accept levels of one in five hundred or lower as evidence of individual depravity rather than an indictment of the whole community.

Second, the question in the poll data that you cite is just begging to be misinterpreted. "Can be justified..." isn't asking whether the responder believes that a specific action is right or wrong, it's asking whether the responder is willing to commit to saying that no similar action could ever be right. That's a classic example of a bad poll question, one in which the answer will swing from poll to poll (compare American attitudes towards bombing cities in 1944 and 1967) according to whatever is in the air at the moment... and it shows in the data. The table suggests that the Palestinian territories have become more moderate over the years, Egyptians suddenly changed their attitudes in 2007 and have spent the next five years undoing that change, Jordan has become moderate and Tunisia was never anything else, Bangladesh is a jihadi hotbed but for a whole decade no one noticed, Pakistan at 3% is a force for moderation, and something really weird happened in Israel's Muslim minority after 2011... None of this is especially plausible.

But all of this is somewhat beside the point. There are somewhere north of 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. If there's a solution, they're going to be part of it.

 

[HossamCFD]

Further, ISIS generally frowns upon suicide attacks, as it doesn't fit into their interpretation of Islam.

I'm sceptical as to how much ISIS was involved but I just wanted to point out that this bit is inaccurate. ISIS loves suicide attacks and pretty much relies on them. If you saw the Vice documentary that Greg posted some time ago they were boasting they have a massive list of volunteers for suicide missions. It was also reported that suicide attacks played an important role in the invasion of Ramadi. It's suicide that's not allowed in their interpretation of Islam, not suicide bombing.

 

[Nugatory]

A couple are, like Syria, Libya, Sudan. Most such countries are not broken, not if broken means chaos and civil war. Turkey, Iran, Morocco, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Malaysia, UAE, Indonesia, Bangladesh... . All are majority Muslim, overwhelmingly so, and have functioning if non-pluralistic governments and a degree of civil order.

If we weight it by population, mhelsep's point becomes even stronger. The population of Syria, Sudan, Libya, West Bank and Gaza, Iraq (which maybe does belong in the list of broken countries), and Afghanistan (can't argue for keeping it out of the list of broken countries if we're including Iraq) together is about 6% of the world's Muslim population. Chances are, the important stuff is happening in the other 94%.

 

[WWGD]

"Random murder" is a straw man relevant to the events at hand, is not what occurred in Paris. It was a planned and orchestrated mass attack, and if executed by ISIS as seems obvious, it was what the perpetrators would say was in the defense of Islam. By calling the event other than what it was, ironically you serve up a case in point for the Spectator author which you would call a straw man.Nobody polls for approval of "random murder", but for actions like suicide bombing and capital punishment for apostates, surveys have long been common knowledge.

Muslim Views on Suicide Bombing.

There are a few strange things , difficult to understand here: some values have these great jumps, and then there seems to be no correlation between high belief and action in many cases. On top of the fact that "defending Islam against its enemies" may mean widely different things to people. Is someone drawing an offensive cartoon of the prophet or are they setting fires in Mecca to kill pilgrims, are they destroying the Dome on the Rock, etc.
How many Bangladeshis have engaged in attacks, given that 47% of them believe action is sometimes justified? Same for Pakistanis between 2002 and 2006. Nigeria goes from 34% to 8% two years after, then jumps up to 19%. Israel jumps from 7% to 20% two years after, then down to 7%, then up to 16% ?

 

[WWGD]

A couple are, like Syria, Libya, Sudan. Most such countries are not broken, not if broken means chaos and civil war. Turkey, Iran, Morocco, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Malaysia, UAE, Indonesia, Bangladesh... . All are majority Muslim, overwhelmingly so, and have functioning if non-pluralistic governments and a degree of civil order.

O.K, I would then add countries with repressive regimes and unemployment rates consistently above 30% or so, where the majority barely gets by.

 

[HossamCFD]

O.K, I would then add countries with repressive regimes and unemployment rates consistently above 30% or so, where the majority barely gets by.

I agree that political and economical grievances do play an important role, but let's not forget that Saudi, a major exporter of Jihadis to ISIS that's second only to Tunisia, isn't really suffering from economical problems. The regime is repressive of course but mostly towards liberal bloggers like Raif Badawy. Those fighters left to join the ultimate repressive regime on earth. Let's also not forget the few thousands who left from western Europe, mostly France, UK, and Germany. These didn't live under repressive governments and while some of them might have suffered from unemployment, it doesn't seem that economical difficulties are enough of a reason to justify this huge numbers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...y-foreign-fighters-are-fighting-for-Isil.html

Can we not agree that, along with geo-political and economical grievances, religion does also play a role in motivating this ideology?