Estimate of the dead in Paris now reaches 160

November 13, 2015 • 6:22 pm

Estimate from the @AFP (tweeting in English), including 100 people executed at the Bataclan venue.

Screen shot 2015-11-13 at 7.16.53 PM
Outside a restaurant in Paris. Photo: Philippe Wojazer/Reuters, from the New York Times

And let the West-blaming begin:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/665310961088245760

167 thoughts on “Estimate of the dead in Paris now reaches 160”

    2. The person tw***ing that stuff does have a point that the West has an extremely bad record of messing around in the Middle East.

      However, it doesn’t really explain why so many Islamist terror attacks are directed at perfectly innocent civilians – many of whom disagree with and protest against their governments’ warmongering.

      Nor does it explain why so many of these attacks are directly linked to people drawing cartoons of Mohammed, or writing books, or making films about Islam, or allegedly insulting the Quran/Islam/Mohammed in some way etc.

      To try and conflate these issues to score liberal virtue points whilst people are being murdered is appalling.

      1. “However, it doesn’t really explain why so many Islamist terror attacks are directed at perfectly innocent civilians – many of whom disagree with and protest against their governments’ warmongering.”

        -Because civilian targets are soft targets, and the goal is to influence the civilian population.

        “Nor does it explain why so many of these attacks are directly linked to people drawing cartoons of Mohammed, or writing books, or making films about Islam, or allegedly insulting the Quran/Islam/Mohammed in some way etc.”

        -This one doesn’t seem to fall along those lines.

      2. The person tw***ing that stuff does have a point that the West has an extremely bad record of messing around in the Middle East.

        Quite true. For almost a millennium now. Two millennia if you’re using “Middle East” as a geographical region not as a proxy for “Muslims”

        However, it doesn’t really explain why so many Islamist terror attacks are directed at perfectly innocent civilians

        Exactly as pithom says : civilians are softer targets, and there are more civilian voters than non-civilian voters.

        Nor does it explain why so many of these attacks are directly linked to people drawing cartoons of Mohammed, or writing books, or making films about Islam, or allegedly insulting the Quran/Islam/Mohammed in some way etc.

        The important point is probably nothing to do with cartoons, insults or whatever ; the important point is that the majority of the targets are the ultimate insult to Islam of not being Muslims.
        Remember, even before the prominence of ISIL/ Daesh/ ISIS, there were many Islamic countries which had the death penalty for apostasy. (One minor consequence of these attacks is that next week I may have to travel through an atheist-hazardous country to get to work, if France keeps it’s borders closed.)
        Incidentally, it doesn’t matter to jihadists if they accidentally kill Muslims in their pursuit of jihad. If you’re a muslim and you die in jihad, then it’s straight to heaven and the 72 virgins for you, even if you were having a coffee at the time of dieing in jihad.

        1. When they blew up Bali one of the reasons was because western women were dancing and wearing bikinis.

          Another reason was that we helped the Timorese avoid being continuously massacred.

          The Balinese are under the yoke of Islam and Indonesian authorities are proposing making it an offence to cohabit in a hotel overnight in Bali.

          This vile corruption of human decency and civilisation has little to with what the West does but almost entirely what the West is.

          Better than that regressive, oppressive, barbaric, primitive, authoritarian’s wet dream, set of abhorrent, revolting set of beliefs.
          Anyone supporting that living human rights violation, cos ‘bad west’, is an idiot.

          1. Did I just hear that the Qatari government are saying the attacks “violate all human and moral values” ? Someone pass them a dictionary open at the page for “irony”.

          3. The population of Bali is mainly Hindu. When I was there, admittedly a long time ago, local dress and culture were notably non-Muslim. Although the current Indonesian government is trying to impose more Muslim rules, the prevalent religion might have been an additional reason for picking on Bali.

          4. I haven’t been for a very long time either.
            I wouldn’t be surprised if it were a factor. The Balinese have (had?) a different mindset, and religious feeling. I here they are feeling the pinch.

          5. Excuse the spelling please. I hear they are feeling the pinch.
            I can’t think of something much worse than have to live under such a thing. As women as a freethinker,as a Hindu and so on. It may be “OK” when it’s moderate but that is very few steps from severe.

      3. Considering how often those fuckers attack places like Nigeria, which is distinctly not the west, no, Wikipedia guy does not have a point. Not even fucking slightly.

      4. The attacks are directed at civilians because Muslim terrorists have tested that approach for decades and found, in their laboratory, that it brings the response they are seeking, and it brings that response fastest and best.

        The response is complex: In summary, it changes the society which has been attacked, costs its government huge amounts in defense spending, huge amounts in medical costs, huge amounts in lost taxes and paid benefits to those who survive but are disabled, afterward, and more.

        That terrorist laboratory, by the way, is called Israel. Jews are the guinea pigs. And so long as Israel has to defend itself with one hand tied behind its back, it will not be able to demonstrate just how well those terrorized really can defend themselves.

        When we allow human shields to dissuade us from defending ourselves against those who use them as human shields, those poor human shields suffer either way, and the perpetrators are inspired by the result.

    3. I assume the reference is to the recent Wikileak from a former US security official of how ineffective US drone technology is. They regularly target cell phones, which often are borrowed from relatives. (That is why the drones hits marriage festivities, say.)

      If the US leak is correct the statistics is 90 % civilian murders, right on the usual amount of civilian causalities in modern warfare, and plausibly creating more terrorists than it kills. A neutral analysis would then be that US is a mad (making more problems in the same way for decades now), aggressive war making, murdering and torturing state, we know this from many observations. Odd, for a democracy, but thankfully not going all out on those accounts. (Note that the statistics is iffy, so some of those claims – i.e. not aggressive wars and torture, those are well established – are iffy.)

      As for the attempted victim blaming, and the UK and France mentioning, I can’t say what was going through the mind of the Wikileak publisher.

    4. Agree with WikiLeaks. It’s true that chickens come home to roost, no matter how bad it sounds or who says it.

      1. The simple answer is that it’s not always about the western imperialism or the Iraq War.

        Take the figures for Islamist attacks in the 1980s and 1990s before 9/11.

        Worldwide according to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks, there were 46 attacks, leaving 1,884 dead and 8,076 wounded. (This is a quick piece of research, with one source, and my own calculations – but we get a ballpark idea).

        Contrary to Robert Pape’s thesis, none of these occurred on native soil against occupying powers (unless one counts Israel – in which case the number would be 11). We know that any pretext will do. Al-Qaeda cited the UN securing of democracy in East Timor: Charlie Hebdo was justified by cartoons of Mohammed; Friday the 13th was justified by the French bombing of ISIS in Syria. Note that the French only started that action in September, after the CH and kosher supermarket attacks. The one variable in all the justifications is explicit Koranic sanction. x

        1. “The one variable in all the justifications is explicit Koranic sanction.”

          Perhaps you meant “constant?”

          1. That’s a good – and rather pedantic – point, Diane, er…Diana, or maybe even darrelle, anyway summat beginning with ‘D’. So…erm, Dermot, I think you can use ‘variable’ and ‘constant’ to mean the same thing in this context. Ain’t that interesting, and something I’d never thought of until you pointed it out? Other antonyms which are synonyms: ‘sanguine’…er, that’s it. Just goes to prove that erudition is a polite term for dilettantism: and that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Nighty-night, sweet Mentor. x

          2. Ah, now I can see how “variable” also fits the construction. Thanks, Durward!

            (Although you’d already limited the discussion to “Islamist terrorist attacks.” So I guess a pedant’s pedant could argue that religion is no longer variable in that case…)

            “…sweet Mentor”

            —that’ll be the day!

            🙄

          5. Yeah I spotted that circular reasoning ‘n’ all! But hey, if it’s good enough for Pape… x

  4. Another new depth for the illiberal left to plumb. It’s literally still fucking happening and people are tweeting stuff like that. And I thought their rhetorical mawling of the Charlie cartoonists’ corpses was swift – it took them a whole twenty-four hours in that case. They’re improving their response times.

    I was thinking about those poor hostages the entire time, hoping that hope might make a difference, but it’s now clear that they were never hostages in the first place. This is just awful.

    Something has to give here.

    1. “Something has to give here.”

      Yes it does. And it will. Unfortunately these insipid losers will result in more casualties than necessary, but right will prevail.

      1. Exactly. “Funny”? What monochromatic, anti-imperialist, left-wing fantasy world are these people living in? Perhaps I’m just unobservant but I haven’t seen massed hordes of sneering western bourgeoisie gathering in the street to collectively mock the Syrian dead. I haven’t seen too many comedians using the refugee crisis as a punchline.

        Tweets like that, from people like that, are the screeching noise of the gears in their mind seizing up as they see ‘anti-imperialist'(anti-imperialist! Think about that…ISIS ideologues, who want to to extend their caliphate to cover most of the world, are considered default anti-imperialists.), ‘oppressed’ ethnic minorities behaving with indefensible, inexcusable brutality and callousness. In a black-and-white world, where every westerner is culpable and every anti-westerner is infallible, inconsistencies of that kind are literally unthinkable. So they try and eliminate the dissonance by doubling down and retreating into their revolting bubble, from which they can claim the west has provoked these poor, brittle freedom fighters into reacting.

        Already on the BBC’s live report a particularly unpleasant French journalist, who attacked Charlie Hebdo on Andrew Neil’s This Week the day after the killings, was calling tonight’s series of attacks a ‘tragedy’. This may sound like nothing much, but I bridle when I hear this subtle shift of emphasis in her language – it’s not a ‘tragedy’, it’s an atrocity. She then proceeded to say that the French government will have to answer hard questions about their foreign policy in the coming days. Compared with the wikileaks tweet some might think this kind of blame reapportionment is mild, but it’s evidence of a sort of stolid, unswervingly ideological mentality on the left that refracts horror after horror after horror through an increasingly fractured and dogmatic lens. They begin getting their excuses and apologetics in disturbingly early these days.

        It feels like the worse this whole issue gets, the deeper the illiberal left push their heads into the ground.

        Crikey. Sorry Irena…I’ve gone on a bit. This is all so f-ed up.

        1. Nothing wrong with having a good rant about this, Saul. What matters is taking out the perpetrators, finding out who their handlers are, shutting down the money-laundering trail, discovering the planners’ nationality and requesting extradition to France. If the host country refuses, well, you take it from there. x

          1. If the host country refuses, well, you take it from there.

            And if the host country turns out to be that chair of the UN Human Rights Committee, Saudi Arabia?
            (Remember – they’re one of the major sources of funding for ISIS/ ISIL/ Daesh.)

          2. Yeah, I know, Aidan, let’s find out the nationalities of all those involved. And, as far as possible protecting the identities of the Security Service personnel, let’s publicize evidence for whodunnit. And openly ask for extradition. The western security forces are not in control of how the host country responds. And the UN is generally capable at most of bleating some banal condemnation: I’d be amazed if the UN could do anything bearing in mind Putin’s permanent veto on any defense of UN Human Rights. Remember, most Muslims worldwide will feel complete shame that this could be associated with Islam: let’s show ’em how secular justice works. x

        3. And NYT has just reported that one of the 3 leaders who carried out this coordinated atrocity was a Syrian who was part of the refugee flow into Europe. So much damage this will do to the legitimate refugees!

          1. I read on Vox that the Syrian passport was found among the mess of possessions and human remains but it wasn’t clear if it did indeed belong to one of the attackers or if it did, that it was his actual identity.

          3. Further information will doubtless emerge, but as Diana suggested, it could belong to one of the victims, or possibly even be an intentional plant.

            I’m just wondering why one of the killers would carry ID, unless he wanted to implicate Syrians.

            cr

          4. Le Monde this morning says that a Syrian passport was found near the remains of a kamikaze near the stadium. Currently, the death toll is 129 with 352 wounded, many seriously. The hospitals have a hard time keeping up. There are 7 terrorists dead, one killed by police, the others having blown themselves up.

            On the 8 o’clock news yesterday evening, the prime minister, Manuel Valls, said among other things, that they (the terrorists) hate us for our democracy. He also said we were at war on terror.

            Sound familiar?

      2. I assume the premise of the “funny” quip is Charlie Hebdo, as if political humor is what drew the ire of the killers.

        I don’t follow the tweetypages, but I can only speculate Wikileaks did not make such a smug and insensitive comment about the downed Russian airliner. I bet they blamed it on Russian foreign policy, but that they weren’t cute about it.

        If that is the case, I wonder why that would be …

    2. Much of the news media considered the possibility that radical al-Qaeda style forces might emerge from the Libyan chaos to rule much of the country or ever overwhelmingly dominate the Syrian opposition funny in 2011-2012. Not so funny now, is it?

  6. Here’s Faisal Saeed al Mutar, the Iraqi liberal of movements.org, with Dave Rubin. Here he shows how you can explain the rise of political Islamism this century. His point is that we in the west vastly underestimate the pre-existing ideas of Sunni and Shi’a Muslims themselves. To him it is blindingly obvious why many Muslims think the way they do, confirming in short the results of the Pew Centre’s global Muslim attitudes surveys. 10 minutes long.

    He’s quite a charming fella, as well. x

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6cTPfE8fAQ

      1. Yeah, Diana, you don’t have to be a Hamasist or Abbasid (pardon the pun) to have real problems about Netanyahu’s handling of the ‘Knife Intifada’: you only have to be concerned about the limits of police rules of engagement in a liberal democracy. But I’m not convinced that is attributable to the Jewish religion: it’s rather due to plain old-fashioned right-wing support for the baton. I’ve seen terrible videos of Israeli police beating old Palestinian guys: how honest the framing is of them I don’t know. But you’d expect a liberal democracy to enquire what was going on. x

          6. I’d be happy to have your strain of Proto-Alzheimer’s if it’d confer anything near your levels of knowledge & erudition upon me.

          7. Yes, and truth be told, I was totally confused by “Diana” as I kept wondering “when did I say all that?” Then I realized the mix up. So I’m more likely the candidate for some sort of dementia.

  7. The death toll seems to stabilize at around 100 from the concert hall out of 1500 attacked,* 40 elsewhere, claimed source Paris officials.

    *) It could have been much worse! Compare Breivik’s terrorism with the smaller fraction here. Seems several trapped people made the right call for a police action – thanks to modern phones – which followed promptly.

  8. But the tasteless Wikileaks comment is rather different from what I’d usually think of as “West blaming”, right? It’s not saying that it’s the West’s fault because of persecution or oil-driven imperialism or supporting Israel or even drawing cartoons. He’s pointing out that we actually FUNDED these same groups in the past to try to influence political outcomes. It’s an observation that our foreign policies have been clueless and we should choose our “friends” more carefully.

    I don’t know to what extent it’s true, but it’s not the same as the pathetic liberal “West-blaming” refusal to acknowledge that Islam is responsible.

    2. I agree, I didn’t read it as West-blaming either. It’s certainly possible to give vile people additional motivation or means to do more vile things, but that doesn’t mean that you’re responsible for their vileness.

    3. I agree about Wikileaks comment.

      I must admit, when the worst thing happening in Syria was Assad bombing the shit out of his people, I felt the west should give *more* aid to the opposition, along, I’m sure, with possibly a majority of concerned Westerners. But I wasn’t expecting ISIS. How predictable that was, I have no idea, whether the people whose job it is to know these things could or should have known, I can’t say.

      It does remind me of Iran, when the anti-Shah revolution got hijacked by the ayatollahs. It seems to be a hazard of popular uprisings, the fascists** sneak in and grab control.

      **I include authoritarian religions in that category.

      cr

  9. Geraldo Rivera’s daughter was at the soccer game. Watching the distress of a parent live, knowing his daughter was currently safe, but still needed to get home 4 miles away was awful. Poor guy.

  11. Hmm.

    I don’t mind blaming the west for what we do wrong. We’ve done plenty of bad shit.

    But this attack on innocent French citizens is on the heads of the terrorists.

    1. But who created the terrorists? Who invited them in? I fall firmly on the West-blaming side in this. But more than one thing is needed to cause a terrorist attack. Thus, I also blame French immigration policy. I’m also strongly leaning towards conspiracy-theorizing regarding this attack.

      1. Answer your own questions. Who did ‘create’ these terrorists? Since they seem to have no personal agency, and are responsible for absolutely nothing they ever do, maybe you could illuminate us? Who programmed these strange Skinnerian humanoids, devoid of free-will, who are only capable of being provoked, and whose response to French ‘immigration policy’ is to execute people in the middle of a theatre? Maybe you could outline some specific arguments and evidence rather than hand-waving and rhetorical questions.

        And which conspiracy theories are most convincing to you, considering the attacks are still actually happening as we speak? Mossad? CIA? The hologrammatic Illuminati Zionist Lizards?

        Really, it’s one o’clock in the morning and I can’t deal with people like you right now. I only hope you’re trolling.

        1. Firstly, our own host denies free will, as do I, due to its sheer logical inconsistency. French immigration policy was a pre-requisite for the attack, not the immediate cause. Probably the people who most directly created the terrorists reside in Turkey, and are closely associated with the Erdogan regime. Turkey is notorious for its open-borders policy in Syria, and that policy goes both ways.

          Yes, I’m thinking CIA. Can’t seem to get the possibility out of my mind. That agency is notorious for its heinous acts and its lies to the public. In any case, even under the free will assumption, if you “choose” your beliefs, you’re Doing It Wrong, and I certainly don’t feel like I’m choosing mine. I’m not trolling.

          1. If you deny free will to that degree you are being inconsistent in taking a “blame” approach to anything.
            Freewill, agency. praise, blame, responsibility are not settled questions.

            I do think we have some form of choice. Hence I find your choosing to support (indirect), shall we say, interesting.

            I am thinking of travelling. I will not go to any backward shit-hole the likes of these creeps derive from, I may however go to Vietnam without any fear of being tortured due to by beliefs, despite what we and the CIA did do there.

            As I said, your mentality is interesting.
            Do you, by extension blame the west for the Bali bombing? Where as I state below, one of the motivations for blowing up women was that they showed too much skin and danced.
            Dammed CIA. Yeah.

          2. [Sigh.]
            https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/why-free-will-compatibilists-are-like-creationists/

            I consider the Bali bombings to be basically unpreventable. And as I think the Obama administration has long been in cahoots with the Islamic State, I’m not arguing for any “blowback” narrative. I’m saying the CIA might have actually been behind the Paris attacks, just as it might have been behind the (probable) Russian airplane bombing. I might, of course, just be paranoid, but I don’t think my ideas are contrary to any strong evidence.

            If you think conspiracy theories are somehow contrary to any semblance of respectability, just look at U.S. mainstream media support for Russian apartment bombings conspiracy theories. And remember the revelations of Snowden.

            As for why you’d be safer in Vietnam, I say that’s because the government there has greater control over its territory, is secure from threat, has given up on international Communism after the Soviet Union collapse, and won its war in 1975, without any more need to extend Communist influence in areas of U.S. influence. Also, Vietnam today is, so far as I know, not even nominally under attack by the U.S. If it was, maybe we’d be seeing more 1980s-style Communist violence that we saw around the world.

          3. …and what strong evidence do you have that the Obama administration is in cahoots with IS? Because strong evidence isn’t needed to refute ideas that have none supporting them – the lack of evidence alone is reason enough to discard them.

          4. What would Obama have done if he wasn’t? Quite a few things. First, care when IS takes Raqqa and Fallujah. Secondly, back the non-IS opposition the two times they directly fight the IS in Raqqa so that they win. Thirdly, openly condemn Turkey for allowing IS sympathizers to move through its southern border. We know the Obama administration was against Gaddafi because his government fell after several months of NATO bombing. What does it say when, after a year of coalition airstrikes, the IS has grown in territory? I became convinced the U.S. was backing IS before it took Mosul. My belief seems to have paid an enormous amount rent, to use Yudkowsky’s terminology.

          5. Those arguments are not strong evidence – they are arguments from incredulity. You can’t think of other reasons than “Obama is in cahoots with IS” to explain things, therefore it is the case. How about domestic politics tying his hands? How about not wanting the US to get too entangled in Middle East conflicts? How about a hundred other possibilities?

            You are arguing from negative evidence, not strong evidence.

          6. Reagan’s administration gave and sold military equipment to much worse entities than to Assad and the Syrian Kurds, and much more publicly, yet, Reagan was still popular, so it’s not domestic politics, which would, in any case, support a much tougher crackdown on the IS.

            As for not desiring excessive entanglement: ever heard of U.S. airstrikes on the IS (which clearly haven’t had significant impact on the course of the fighting; even the much more intensive Russian airstrikes have done little to strengthen the Syrian army), the Libya intervention, the sending of military advisers to Iraq (just not enough to win), etc.? Obama clearly wants the public to think he’s doing something. So lack of decisive action certainly has nothing to do with media appearance; just the contrary.

            There’s nothing wrong with arguing from negative evidence -even if the copious evidence showing Russian aid to Novorossiya didn’t exist on its own, we would still be justified in concluding Novorossiya was a Russian creation by Novorossiya’s direct bordering of Russia, a sovereign state that can control its borders. So is Turkey. So is Jordan. So is Israel (and Israel has attacked Syrian government-controlled territory numerous times; the IS -not once -but I understand why Israel might not want to get too involved in foreign conflicts; it has been burned by them more than once).

            And, in any case, this idea of mine continues to pay rent. Perhaps what most influenced my thinking about this issue was the Turkish support for the Jabhat al-Nusra-Syrian rebel invasion of Kesab in Spring 2014.

            In any case, I feel like I’m commenting too much.

          7. I also get the feeling that this conversation, properly had, would go far too long, so I agree that we should leave this at an agree-to-disagree point. Nice chatting with you though. 🙂

          8. That link doesn’t settle the issue.

            I won’t speak to your collusion theories. Anything is possible but I don’t see any evidence.
            There is however evidence for the things under discussion.
            Obviously Vietnam wouldn’t not be a good place to be while being ravaged by the US and Australia.
            Vietnam had its issues with the French before the US. If corruptions there led to some independence fighters looking to the Soviets so be it.
            Safety there now, has nothing to do with you anti communist drivel. All countries have laws for social stability. What they don’t have is laws condemning atheism or being a women. That is the difference.
            You missed that and many other points.
            Nothing you say changes the reality that there is only one set of beliefs from which the brutal absurdity is springing. Islam.
            One may have had to a party line, somewhat in the soviet era but a women could think and behave like a human without risk of lashes and the rest of their garbage law.

            Over 1 million ‘communists’ were killed in Indonesia either in cahoots with or at least the knowledge of the CIA and approval of right wing elements in Australia. Dam soviets.

            Again, I don’t know what you are really saying. I believe Sam Harris when he says we should believe the people doing the blowing up for why they do it. There fucked up belief system.
            My ex went to Russia in the 80’s. There is no way she would go to any Islamic country.

          9. Really, I think the other commenters here have been extremely generous to you in taking your posts as seriously as they have.

            This is generally a pretty polite comments section. I’ll therefore keep my response to your staggeringly fatuous comments as short as possible so that I don’t let my irritation get the better of me.

            People were still being murdered in Paris when you made your claim about a conspiracy. You’ve since doubled down, mentioning the CIA as possible masterminds, whilst providing not the tiniest, fluttering shred of evidence to substantiate your speculations. The rest of your slippery sophistry is just empty, but your(literally) immediate, conspiracy theorising response to last night’s atrocities is flat-out repugnant.

            You of course have the right to say what you like and believe whatever you like about these attacks, on whatever evidential grounds you choose(or don’t choose, as a determinist), but you’ve lost me I’m afraid. I’m not interested in crass, irrational speculations buttressed by thin air.

            Thanks for replying – have a nice day.

      2. But who created the terrorists?

        The only question I care about is, “What should be done about them?”

        That might be illuminated by determining “who created them”, but it might not.

        1. Super-simple solution: conquer Libya, establish a military government there, and declare it a U.S. Mandate.

          For the main headquarters, kick Turkey out of NATO, demand it close its border with Syria (except to the Syrian Kurds), start covertly arming Syrian Kurds (Iraqi Kurds have been unreliable until the past few days) and the Syrian government, and ask Turkey and the Iraqi government for the use of their territory for launching a massive assault on the upper Euphrates (obviously involving hundreds of U.S. ground troops at minimum). Then, do it. It would only take about a month (cf. Panama invasion, restoration of the Kuwaiti monarchy). Finally, aid the Iraqi and Syrian governments in taking control of the Syrian desert and the upper Tigris. The difficult part is the restoration of Iraqi and Syrian government authority.

          1. I play strategy games based around conquering the world, and even in those other countries wouldn’t just let me get away with a move like that. I don’t see it working any better in real life.

          2. Well, Libya is a complete anarchy, defended by no one, and the Islamic State is effectively backed by Turkey (how else would the IS border it?), and possibly Israel and Jordan (the IS also borders these nations). Jordan is quite subservient to the U.S., and I’m sure Netanyahu wouldn’t object too loudly to the IS’s elimination by the Syrian government, or he’d look like a hypocrite. Turkey is a part of NATO, which is effectively dominated by the U.S. Russia, North Korea, and China formally back the Assad regime against all enemies. So, yes, those other countries would surely let the U.S. get away with restoring the governments they support to full control over Iraq and Syria. It would be a decision every nation but Turkey would publicly agree on, if pressed. Even Turkey would probably agree, if sufficiently threatened. You’re badly underestimating the sheer power of the U.S.

          3. …are you seriously claiming that sheer geographic proximity to IS is reason to think they are “backing” it?

            I’d provide more of a response, but I need to pause and address this kind of “reasoning” first, because if this is the way you’re connecting dots, I’m not really sure how to discuss things with you. You seem far too willing to make assumptions where you cannot possibly have information.

            For instance, yes, Libya is in chaos right now. Your idea is for the US to just jump in and conquer it. We certainly could do that, but how would it improve things there? You say declare it a US Mandate – do we then declare martial law in Libya with no expiration date? How does the populace react to this? Would they even welcome us in the first place? How much time and effort, how many dollars and lives, are we going to spend quashing how many anti-American resistance groups our conquest would spawn, and how long will we keep investing such effort until we call it a lost cause? How well has our variant of this strategy worked in Afghanistan?

            You make it sound like conquering a country that’s falling apart is a good way to hold it together. I have serious trouble accepting that.

          4. Libya has no substantial mountains (except those of Cyrenaica) and has a population smaller than that of NYC. It also had a stable government for decades before 2011. Can’t say the same for Afghanistan.

  12. Maajid Nawaz live on CNN with Anderson Cooper till 10 p.m. (some strange US time , which I’ve never understood). x

  13. Charitably, the writer may have meant that past actions of the US, UK, and France, as far back, perhaps as the colonial days, have encouraged radicals like ISIS now. This is a bit misguided; radical violence between Shias and Sunnis, with Messianic elements, goes far back in Islamic history. Regardless, now, whatever the cause of this, our governments will have to intensify and co-ordinate efforts to destroy ISIS and control radical elements that threaten society. I think this action and the downing of the Russian jet, impel us to greater effort against ISIS, but they may also be acts of desperation by ISIS, in the sense that perhaps the war on them in the mid-East is having some effect and they are trying to break what resolve exists against them.

    1. The Islamic State has more territory today than it had a year ago, despite its losses of Kobani and Tell Abyad (fantastic victories by Syrian Kurds; perhaps the only party in this conflict other than the Iraqi Army which in no way ever supported the Islamic State). It’s recently captured Mahin. It’s doing fine. It’s not desperate, just its same old self.

  15. Completely innocent people. It’s beyond heartbreaking.

    And almost as heartbreaking are the calls for war and death I’m seeing from my “friends” on Facebook. They don’t see that their espousing the very same attitude for which they’re condemning the perpetrators. I so, so, so want humanity to emerge from this infantile irrationalism.

    1. “They don’t see that their espousing the very same attitude for which they’re condemning the perpetrators.”

      -?? Explain.

        1. Well, what’s your plan to keep stuff like this from happening again? Why isn’t it killing those most likely to do such stuff?

          1. First, apologies for “their” instead of “they’re”.

            Second, killing individuals is not the solution. It brings us down to their level, ie, thinking death is the answer, and there will simply be more jihadis waiting to take their places. We have to solve this problem at a more fundamental level. Somehow get people to stop installing the jihadi software on their brains.

          2. I don’t get this line of logic. There are multiple equilibria here, which can be affected by the number of people holding a certain belief who are killed. How were the Spanish anarchists defeated? The Nazis? The Greek Communists? The Native American tribes? The Confederacy? The Islamic State the first time around? In all these cases, it was massive military force that solved the problem, as people were the most “fundamental level”. At some point, confederacies run out of confederates. Fascist states run out of fascists. Islamic states run out of Islamists.

          3. I’m not convinced military actions are what solve problems like this. How many wars and other violent endeavors were undertaken to solve problems in xianity, and how much did they accomplish? It was the Enlightenment that began the process of de-fanging xianity.

          4. Did declaring war on the Nazi’s bring “us” down to their level? Sometimes one has to fight for what is right, and if the enemy is unwilling to negotiate or actually attacks first then I don’t think fighting back means you’re suddenly just as bad. Sometimes the only way to defeat an enemy is to kill him before he kills you.

            Sadly IS and islamic extremism isn’t a regime or country that can be fought and defeated like Nazi Germany was. Well perhaps IS could be militarily defeated in that way if we threw enough manpower at it but the geopolitical situation seems to make that an unlikely scenario. Also the extremist islamic worldview somehow remains incredibly attractive for lots of young muslims, whereas after the war basically nobody wanted to be a nazi anymore (yes I know they are still around but not in any significant numbers). I just don’t see how without reformation from within islam, the “jihadi software” (I’d say “virus”) is gonna be wiped from people’s brains.

          5. While I agree that violent self-defense is sometimes necessary and does not make the defender “just as bad”, I’d say it still brings the defender down to the aggressor’s level. It is theoretically possible for humans to interact peacefully with one another, even when at odds. I know the chance of ever achieving that is minuscule; I guess you may say that I’m a dreamer.

            But the attitude I’m seeing and which I’m decrying is not an attitude of adopting reasonable self-defense measures. As an example, one person wrote a “poem” which contained (I have to paraphrase; he’s since deleted it) lines like “bury them all” and “leave mercy to god”. Others are calling for indiscriminate destruction in the Middle East. Don’t we condemn Amalric’s advice to “kill them all; god will know his own” as a perfect example of the vile, destructive tribalism that religion can engender? That poem was little more than a fleshing out of Amalric’s horrifying command.

          6. There isn’t one. I don’t think that it is possible to stop these people from doing this again.

          7. I would entirely support ‘killing those most likely to do this stuff’ (for a sufficiently definite value of ‘most likely’, not just a ‘might possibly’), but there are three major problems:

            1. Identifying them
            2. Finding them
            3. Killing them.

            And when it comes to (3), that means *without* collateral damage. Every single innocent bystander killed more than negates any advantage in killing the target, and (to adopt Torbjorn’s figure) there are typically 10 times as many innocents killed as targets.

            cr

    2. I’m reading a lot of similar things myself. I give my friends, particularly the younger ones, some latitude for raw nerves on a night like this. But it is still sad to see though.

    3. These terrorists can’t be reasoned with. I tend to agree with your friends in calls for death. Unless they’re calling for the death of innocent people ofcourse. Then I strongly disagree.

      1. They are calling for war and death in general, not that these specific perpetrators should be sentenced to death when/if caught. They are calling for another Iraq.

        But I can’t even get behind the death penalty for these perpetrators. What’s the difference between being against the death penalty for other murders and being against it for these murders? See my comment to pithom above.

  16. The wikileaks tw**er feed is bordering on surreal, at this point. Repeated mentions of tonight’s death toll and the death toll in Syria and when, if ever, these things were “funny.”
    And, of course, grim forecasts of an inevitable crackdown, sure to spawn armies of extremists.

    1. And, of course, grim forecasts of an inevitable crackdown, sure to spawn armies of extremists.

      That’s a “racing certainty.” Probability better than 0.8, I guess.

  17. Unspeakably despicable. But this is what theistic belief spawns, so hardly surprising. Just read the holy books and history. An interesting coincidence: both Seventh-day Adventists and ISIS espouse convoluted, loopy, dangerous apocalyptic eschatologies, which share not only the End Times showdown, but they share some of the same references. Depressing but fascinating from the standpoint of comparative religion. A must-read for explaining ISIS theology is this article in the Atlantic by Graeme Wood http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/.
    Given what little I can understand of SDA eschatology (it’s really a waste of brain cells trying to make sense of such nonsense), if Carson did become president (which of course he won’t), I wonder how they would incorporate that anomaly into their eschatology because to have a Seventh-day Adventist president of the US, I think, cannot possibly be compatible with their gobbledygook End of Days narrative/s, unless he somehow became an agent of the Antichrist or something like that. Whatever. And SDAs, like ISIS, also considers God’s law supreme – everything in the cosmos subjected to it, which, it goes without saying, is diametrically opposed to the principle of separation of church and state; so, irrespective of what one thinks of Islam or theism in general, where does Carson get off wanting to deny the presidency to ‘Muslims who follow Sharia’, when he himself follows his own Sharia?

  18. Friend in Paris says that the Bataclan concert hall has been threatened previously, possibly for hosting several Jewish events. It’s also close to the former Charlie Hebdo offices. Not a random choice by the terrorists, IOW.

  19. There are two identifiable enemies here.

    First, of course – the specific individuals who are committing, promoting, planning and financing terrorism.

    Second, the in the war of ideas, the prime motivating factor for this pattern of terrorism: the bad IDEAS of Islam.

    But let’s be completely clear here that the enemy is NOT some ill-defined mass population of Muslim PEOPLE. That kind of attitude really is the bigotry that’s often inaptly labeled “Islamophobia”.

    Many West-blaming po-mo liberals refuse to acknowledge the distinction between ideas and people, and seek to label criticism of Islamic ideas as racist Islamophobia. So, please, in the heat of a moment like this, let’s not lose track of this important distinction ourselves.

    1. Yes, it’s getting worrying – I really hope the extent to which this has been allowed to bubble away and fester doesn’t result in a mass pushback against Muslims in general. Presumably that kind of backlash against French Muslims(and Muslims in general) is part of what’s motivating ISIS attacks like these – they want to incite a worldwide holy war, and an uprising by the ‘Ummah’ against unbelievers is therefore a prerequisite. It’s certainly easy for me to say – I’m not in Paris – but we have to stand firm in not allowing ourselves to drift into reactionary thinking.

      I’m very concerned. All societies have their breaking point.

  20. Hmmm, seems like 4 distinct attacks : two suicide bombers at the football match (presumably successful suicides) ; the concert hall (two attackers dead) ; and the bar/ restaurant (hang on, doesn’t that make it 5 attacks?)
    Therefore at least one squad of the terrorists is still at large. Maybe two, possibly three squads, depending on if they count the suicide bombers as one attack or two.
    This isn’t finished. The second wave hasn’t even begun.
    OTOH, they’re now only talking about much tighter border checks, so I might not have to travel through Ethiopia. That’s a relief.

    1. And the training and preparedness of the attackers is being stressed again.
      There will be a second – if not third – wave. These guys may be insane, but they’re not stupid.

  21. God is great? Really. This sad excuse for an attempt at being is pathetic.
    God is not, and the sooner more people know it the sooner this kind of abhorrence will stop.

    1. Rare burst of candor on CNN. Interview with French senator Nathalie Goulet who said in the middle of the interview “They are not doing this in the name of Buddha” (possibly a slight paraphrase.)

      1. You mean Allah is complicit? No. I refuse to believe that the religion of peace has anything to do with…well, OK, probably so.

  23. Let me begin by saying two things: 1) I haven’t found any reliable reporting that directly links the Paris attacks to ISIS (full disclosure, I honestly believe that it probably will come out), however if they are linked, I think it is an example where an organization’s recruiting and fund raising strategy may lead to their downfall ; 2) I think that the ill thought US/UK invasion of Iraq help set the conditions for the rise of an ISIS, but was far from the root cause of it.

    Let me address the second point first. The US/UK Iraq operation was totally a “faith based initiative.” Not in a religious sense, but on the ideas that WMD were rampant there, soldiers would be greeted as liberators, long standing Sunni/Shia animosity would suddenly dissolve, etc., etc. Yes, the west (i.e. US/UK)certainly erred in those faith based assumptions. And they certainly deserve blame for a lot of the strife and leadership vacuum that the Iraqi people suffered as a result of the invasion. But, the west did not create ISIS. Let’s look at ISIS’s M.O.: They kidnap people for ransom, they rob banks, they force young girls into prostitution, they shake down merchants for protection money. These are not anti-west freedom fighters, their flipping criminals!

    Now, to the first point. Isis has based their recruiting funding on being the “true Islam.” No doubt successful on both fronts. But, here’s the rub. Let’s say that perpetrators of the Paris attack identify with the ISIS “true Islam” movement. All the west has to do is recognize ISIS as a legitimate political institution. Then under article 5 of the NATO charter, an attack on one NATO country (France)is an attack on all. Using religious dogma to recruit may increase numbers in the short term, but you’re eventually going to have the consequences.

    1. No nuclear weapons are known to exist that would end the world were one of them to be detonated. So they can’t.

      1. Good point. The combined nuclear arsenals of all the major players, could make life as we know it unrecognizable. But a single rouge entity with one bomb, no way. With that in mind (that “all” wouldn’t be silenced), I would hate to think of the level of extortion they would commit if they could even convince the world that they had one.

  25. I think what’s going to be shocking, (besides the sheer number) is the age of the victims. I’m assuming most of the concert goers were young people. Many people lost their children yesterday.

    This is just so sad.

    1. On CBC they were remarking that young French people were being targeted since no tourist areas were targeted, just areas with young people.

      1. The reasoning is probably two fold:
        1) Tourist areas may not be as soft of a target, more closely watched by the police.
        2) The terrorists are also young and can fit in with a young crowd without standing out.

  26. It’s refreshing to have got so far into comments without a single person suggesting that had the citizens been armed then the death toll would have been lower. I’m quite sure that right wing, NRA loving, types will have a field day on the subject but here sense prevails.

    1. The BBC reported this morning that Trump had implied blame on France’s “strict gun control”. (Actually much less strict than in the UK.)

      1. As a side point, a couple of bloggers in the UK have been openly targeted for death by the same group that has killed several Bangladeshi atheist bloggers. Under the strict UK laws, which cover more than just guns (even carrying MACE can get you in trouble), there is little such a person could legally do to protect themselves from an attack.

        I’m sure the police would do a thorough job of investigating the killing, however.

        1. We have our own way of dealing with terrorists without arming the entire population.
          By the way, we must reassure the militia minded in America that we have no intention of sending the Redcoats back again, we are not that interested anymore.

    2. Not that I want to go anywhere particular with that, but keep in mind that the violence only stopped when the only people, other than the terrorists, with guns arrived.

      1. Seriously that is one of the most idiotic comments I have ever read on this website. Let’s arm the whole of Europe then! So rather than just the extreme nutcase muslims having guns, all the disgruntled, disaffected muslims would have them too. That’s in addition to all the other loners, sociopaths and plain nasty people having them too. We only have to look at the US to see what happens when that’s the case. What a ridiculous comment. I know you said that you don’t want to go anywhere with it but the implication is obvious. I apologise to our host for being a little incivil, but this sort of nonsense really annoys me.

  27. There isn’t much that can be done to preventive attacks by these fanatical parasites, increased security, stop and search etc can help but in the long run only international solidarity can really achieve anything positive.
    These parasites are no better than the Nazi SS, spreading terror but like the SS they will fail and for the same reasons, it is counter productive and only unites their enemies.

  28. There isn’t much that can be done to prevent attacks by these fanatical parasites, increased security, stop and search etc can help but in the long run only international solidarity can really achieve anything positive.
    These parasites are no better than the Nazi SS, spreading terror but like the SS they will fail and for the same reasons, it is counter productive and only unites their enemies.

  29. I don’t buy the argument about the west creating the terrorists. You could just as easily say that Pope Urban III created them, or Mo himself. There are too many factors involved, including the fact that most of the Islamic terrorists will have been brought up in the Islamic faith, just as the sectarians terrorists in Northern Ireland were brought up with their particular sect.

    Foreign policy is always messy and rarely totally ethical. Satirists get easy targets but reality is what politicians have to deal with, even if we think they are fantasists. That’s whypoliticians look like failures most of the time.

    Having said all that, the proximate cause for terrorists is a willingness to accept a violent ideology. When you get the false promise of eternal reward for mass murder, some will accept that temptation. I now refer everyone to Steven Weinberg’s quote: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

  31. I am surprised at the gross simplifications I have been reading here. Of course, there are some excellent remarks too. But trying to say these attacks (currently six different sites with 120 dead) is because of religion or because of something else is reductionism pushed to a useless extreme. It is not JUST Islam that is at cause, just as it is not just colonialism, or historic conflicts or relative poverty or marginalization or unemployment. It is all those things — and probably more.

        1. I believe Ant’s point is that there is one thing that the removal of would have prevented these particular attacks.

  32. ISIS if indeed they are the ones responsible for these Atrocities are a Death Cult, their sole raison d’etre is to bring about the End Times “ring a bell ?” by engaging the Forces of Evil “ie us” in a land Battle in 4 possible places. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/601641/Islamic-State-apocalypse.
    So I think the time has come to stop pussyfooting around the problem and give them their wish , send them to their Allah and lets be rid of them once and for all. And it really is Religion that is behind these abominations , their insane adherence to the ramblings of an 7th Century Peadophile.

    1. My name is Michael too. Aren’t we named for the Guy who leads the forces against evil hordes?

    1. Very much worth watching. Two people of like minds that need a lot more listening to. I like the comment about our president talking about the terrorism but not saying what it is – Islamist terrorism. Or the question, where are the moderate Muslims? In fear is mostly where they are.

  34. ISIS has claimed, and I suspect it is true, that they have many fighters mixed among the refugees. I have no reason to doubt that, especially now.

    The EU obsession with taking in an almost unlimited number of (largely undocumented) refugees as a political goal was an exercise of ideology over common sense. Yet anyone who objected was cast as a right wing racist. It’s a good thing to help a homeless person on the street, but not to bring him into your house at risk to your family.

    [Many news articles seem to ignore that, unlike normal wartime refugees consisting of women, children and old people while the men try to protect the homeland, this group is largely military age young men–who’ve left the families back home. That does not bode well.]

    France and German have probably got thousands of ISIS supporters inside their own borders.

    1. I think it would be prudent to wait until the activities of these killers are better known before speculating. So far, Europe has exported far more Jihadists than it has imported, and stopping refugees out of fear based on speculation has a humanitarian cost that must also be considered.

      While I don’t blame the West for this kind of extremism, the West has sold weapons and profited from “security” aka political expedience by supporting dictatorships. I think we have a responsibility to accept the fact that people will flee when it all goes to hell.

      And blocking refugees won’t stop home grown terrorism. Sensible integration policies that emphasize human rights and civil liberties rather than supposed national culture would help.

  36. I wish people wouldn’t use the word “executions” to refer to murders. It conveys a spurious and undeserved impression of legitimacy. “Execution” should be reserved for the outcome of a judicial process.

  37. Had half the audience at the concert been packing heat, been trained and prepared to respond to attack, the outcome might have been different. The image of hundreds of concert goers lying on the floor awaiting an ak47-bearing executioner is more than one can stand. So 200! (or thereabouts) people ventured out last evening, concert bound, thinking luck was on their side. What would be the probability that there would be a terrorist attack at this time and place?

    2. Training. Now there is a fantasy for you.

      Maybe that’d go over in France, but in the U.S., the high priests of the gun worshiping religion would NEVER submit to training (or licensing, insurance, or any socially responsible requirement beyond a pulse and a couple hundred dollars burning a hole in your pocket).

  38. The Wikileaks tweet is rather ironic coming from the organization that essentially trained Isis on how to avoid detection (with Snowden’s help) by the NSA, and other security organizations. Not so funny now is it Wikileaks.

    2. I guess we have to choose whether we want freedom to live our own lives or be subject to scrutiny for security reasons. Each to his/her choice. I know what mine is.

      1. “I guess we have to choose whether we want freedom to live our own lives or be subject to scrutiny for security reasons. Each to his/her choice. I know what mine is.”

        Wherever you stand you can’t argue that they didn’t do just what I said. Even if one wants to justify the 100+ dead in France, and an unknown number elsewhere, and in the future as Snowden’s collateral damage.
        I would argue that having the knowledge necessary to make the choice you mention didn’t necessarily require the wholesale release of information pertaining to the NSA’s methods, and capabilities.

        1. You mean, exposing the way in which the NSA are snooping on all of us, and lying about it?

          What makes you think the NSA would have somehow detected or prevented or even noticed the Paris attackers? What makes you think the NSA’s spooks would even have shared anything they did notice with French counterintelligence – given that France refused to invade Iraq and is not a member of the ‘Five Eyes’ snooping club (which I’m ashamed to say New Zealand is).

          Trying to lay any part of the blame for this on whistleblowers is bullshit.

          cr

          1. “What makes you think the NSA would have somehow detected or prevented or even noticed the Paris attackers?”

            We can’t know for sure, but what we do know is that terrorists stopped using cell phones when the extent of our ability to listen in on them was exposed. That alone justifies laying part of the blame on the “whistleblowers”, if not in this specific incident then blame for the terrorists being more difficult to identify.

          2. And I hate the word whistleblowers being used. They are criminals. I was in the military, and even at the time I was in 30+ years ago, we were trained on what to do when we saw wrongdoing, and none of that training involved indiscriminately releasing classified documents to a third party as a first option.

          3. Well I will certainly use the word whistleblower. The NSA was snooping on everybody, including ‘friendly’ powers. They were so busy trawling through Angela Merkel’s emails I doubt they would have noticed a few odd terrorists among the gigabytes of political and commercial fish in their net.

            How would we know if the NSA was any better at its job than the TSA? I certainly wouldn’t trust them any more that I’d trust the FBI under Hoover (remember those files he built up on the Kennedys?). I wouldn’t be surprised if someone in NSA is, right now, compiling a big file of Hilary Clinton and Obama’s private emails, ready to leak it to the Trump (or whoever) campaign at the right moment.

            IMO they’re out of control and begging to be exposed, and hypothetical appeals to ‘they might have caught the Paris terrorists’ is just so much BS.

            As to what Snowden should have done, what precisely do you think would have been effective in combating the NSA’s abuses of power? Report it to his supervisors? Excuse me while I laugh.

            cr

          4. “As to what Snowden should have done, what precisely do you think would have been effective in combating the NSA’s abuses of power? Report it to his supervisors? Excuse me while I laugh.”

            He could have contacted his Senator, or congressman, or a Senator, or congressman who he thought would have been sympathetic. IF, and only IF that hadn’t resulted in a reasonable action he, or his congressman could have released carefully selected information after it had been vetted to well known, and respected journalists.
            I’m sorry, but we can’t allow individuals in government, or in the military who have a beef with something they discover in secret documents be the sole arbiter of whether that information should be released. If we allow that we can have no secrets.

          5. Then who should we allow to be the arbiter? The NSA? That don’t work.

            “he, or his congressman could have released carefully selected information after it had been vetted to well known, and respected journalists.”
            You must realise how impractical that is. Selected? By whom? Vetted? By whom? The NSA would just put a black line through the whole lot. Who else is going to ‘vet’ it?
            And, err, ‘well known and respected journalists’. What, ones who will obligingly help to ‘spin’ it so its significance is completely obscured? If that isn’t the objective, then what does it matter what sort of journalists it is released to.

            That strikes me as an exercise in futility.

            While I wouldn’t put too fine a point on what is or is not criminal (because laws often don’t reflect what is right), I think the NSA was also engaged in widespread criminal – or certainly illegal – activity. Which was one of the motivations for Snowden to expose them.

            cr

        2. I was hoping not to go on with this subject, but some people cannot leave well enough alone. The claim that Edward Snowden’s revealing of NSA’s illegal spying, not only on US citizens but on foreigners, was responsible for the Paris attacks is ludicrous at best. Remember that the government behind the NSA funded the fighters who would later become Al Qaeda and then the Daech.

  39. The Paris situation has been horrible on so many levels. Unfortunately, that also includes some of the backlash I’m seeing against Muslims in general.

    I’m on a martial arts forum in which people there have usually united in condemnation of
    Social Justice Warriors, and against the “my feelings trump your arguments” attitude from the Yale student videos.

    And yet…after the Paris incident there has been a boiling over of anti-Muslim sentiment, literally “I Hate Muslim” threads, people agreeing, some saying don’t let Muslims tell you they are nice, they are evil bastards, ship em all out of the country immediately, etc.

    I have stepped in to say, hey let’s be careful here, whatever our qualms with Islam’s holy texts and certain Islamic actors, we can’t go treating every Muslim like they were guilty of terrorism. That’s pretty much exactly the rash, black and white attitude that has led to so many innocent minorities being persecuted during war times – likely including relatives of people on the site.

    I’m immediately faced by a pile on of “Muslim Apologist!” “You sicken me!” and all manner of “If you don’t follow lock step with how I’m expressing my anger, you are part of the problem” type responses. Complete of course with utterly (e.g. you assume Islam has nothing to do with terrorism!” which of course I’d never have even implied). This is exactly the behavior they have been condoning in the Yale students and “SJWs.”

    Humans are gonna human, I guess…

    1. I think you mean ‘condemning’ rather than ‘condoning’.

      But other than that I agree with you 100%.

      cr

      1. Sorry, yes, typo. Meant to write:

        “This is exactly the behavior they have been condemning in the Yale students and “SJWs.”

  40. This is weird! Guess what is missing from
    The Guardian’s rendering of the actual ISIS statements in direct quotes.

    Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/14/syrian-greece-refugee-paris-attacks-killers)

    “France and those who follow her voice must know that they remain the main target of Islamic State and that they will continue to smell the odour of death for having led the crusade, for having boasted of fighting Islam in France and striking Muslims in the caliphate with their planes,” the group said in a statement.

    Vox.com (http://www.vox.com/2015/11/14/9734794/isis-claim-paris-statement)

    Let France and all nations following its path know that they will continue to be at the top of the target list for the Islamic State and that the scent of death will not leave their nostrils as long as they partake in the crusader campaign, as long as they dare to curse our Prophet (blessings and peace be upon him), and as long as they boast about their war against Islam in France and their strikes against Muslims in the lands of the Caliphate with their jets, which were of no avail to them in the filthy streets and alleys of Paris. Indeed, this is just the beginning. It is also a warning for any who wish to take heed.

Comments are closed.