Tony_Tarantula on 16/7/2016 at 19:25
Quote Posted by demagogue
I think it's natural to be fed up and angry that these attacks keep occurring. And I think the direction to channel that anger is to the groups and institutions that are facilitating it.
Of course terrorist groups themselves like ISIS that put up YouTube videos. But also big players like the Saudi gov't which has been irresponsibly supportive of radical wahabiism and Iran for actively sending out rogue Shia militias.
Don't leave the French government out of it. They were massively on board with that whole "Let's arm moderate rebels to overthrow Assad!" idea not that long ago....which I suspect is part of the reason why their response has been so massively limp wristed.
There's also another big player in all of this that I've always known was a supporter of this insanity, but was only recently advised to pay attention to their activities.
I'm not going to say it because it will have a much greater impact if it's not coming from me, and if you all discover it yourselves. Start looking into who is pouring money into the Clinton Foundation, who benefits, and who is trying to cause a massive immigration surge from Africa .... e.g. there is, no shit, a member of the top 1% of the 1% who is distributing massive numbers of "migrant handbooks" to people in North Africa and the Middle East attempting to further the refugee crisis. I do not quite know what the motivation or the goal is but it is abundantly clear that there are some Game of Thrones-ish shenanigans going on.
And no none of this is "conspiracy theories". If you're going any further than established, "reputable", mainstream news sources or reputable foreign policy journals you're looking in the wrong places.
Quote:
Oh, I get it. We have christians here. It's getting personal.
Christianity has bullied people around for ages. Telling homosexuals and women they are inferior. Starting wars. Abusing people. Fucking up people's lives. But when you call them names, I suddenly cross a line.
Let me tell you guys one little anecdote about how fun and innocent and awesome religion is.
In the street where I live, right under my window, we have police officers patrolling with machine-guns. Every day, all day. I had never seen that before. Now I see machine-guns out in the open when I walk to work. Why ? Because some Muslims don't like Jews. Keep telling me all religion is peace.
Moronic black and white thinking. It so happens that one of (I believe "the", but can't be arsed to double check right now), the People's Republic of China, was a militant atheist regime that would kill and torture anyone caught practicing religion and still does brutally repress some of the sects and ethnic groups that exist in the country. Not too far behind them is the USSR which was responsible for killing more jews than Hitler did...and now that I mention Hitler nobody quite knows what he was for sure but the best available evidence seems to indicate that any spiritual views he had were pagan and/or occultist ("coincidentally", so did the masterminds of the US and French revolutions).
Here's the thing. I've worked in some of the Islamic countries before, in roles where I was more or less living with the locals. It is an absolutely asinine assumption to draw an equivalency between even two sects of the same religion.....e.g. It's insane to think that Catholics are the same as Westboro Baptist just becuase "religion trolololo!". Same way with the Islamic world except you have to take tribal differences into account. A pashtun's practice if Islam will be significantly different from a Tajik's or an Uzbek's.
Don't even get me started on the "Christians were just as terrible in the middle ages!" Trope.
It's quite frankly, bullshit because the Crusades were a response to literally hundreds of attacks on Europe by Turkish and Arabic regimes.
Somewhat biased reporting, but his facts are mostly accurate
[video=youtube;I_To-cV94Bo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo[/video]
Harvester on 16/7/2016 at 20:27
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
Oh, I get it. We have christians here. It's getting personal.
Christianity has bullied people around for ages. Telling homosexuals and women they are inferior. Starting wars. Abusing people. Fucking up people's lives. But when you call them names, I suddenly cross a line.
Oh, get lost. It's true that some Christians have behaved badly, and still do. But when have I done any of those things, or my parents, for that matter? And yet you call the people who have worked their asses off to make our country prosperous again after the war dogs. People like my parents, who have done nothing but work hard to provide for their families and rebuild our country from the rubble. That's low behavior, dude...
nickie on 16/7/2016 at 20:50
Quote Posted by Nicker
Of course ISIS is going to claim responsibility, it's free publicity for them. It doesn't mean that they orchestrated the act in any direct way.
It doesn't make sense to me that any efficient terror group would send someone to commit this atrocity with, apparently, one automatic pistol, one fake automatic pistol, 2 replica assault rifles and a dummy grenade.
As for the rest of your post, thank you. There seems to be some consensus among the less rabid news sites that this man suffered mental problems for which he sought and received psychiatric treatment and wasn't considered religious by his neighbours as he drank, ate pork and didn't attend a mosque. And because it seems necessary to point out that relating possibly 'more factual' information doesn't equate to being an apologist, I don't consider any of the above to justify the attack in any way, shape or form.
I'd dearly like to know of any major country which hasn't, at one time or another, contributed to, aided or abetted, or funded, some form of terror.
Tony_Tarantula on 16/7/2016 at 21:28
ISIS is a patched up bunch of foreign mercenaries, muslim psychos and useful idiots. They only area where they have organic support is in Iraq with the sunnis there, because that group, from which Saddam drew his regime, has been violently suppressed since the Gulf War, attacked from all directions (US, Iraqi regime, Kurds) and left with few resources. ISIS came to them with funding and weapons, so their Baath/insurgent leadership, which had come together in US prison camps like Bucca, joined in.
In Syria though, it's a different situation, with ISIS consisting mostly of foreigners and mercenaries from Libya, Chechnya, Gulf countries, western jihadis etc. Even devout muslim Syrians resent them, as they are perceived as tools of foreign agendas with dubious theology.
ISIS in Syria would fold like a cheap tent if their foreign funding ended. The NATO bombing campaigns have been ineffective by design, they would blow up the occasional building while there are parallel supply drops and trade lines set up to keep them going.
Most of the land in Syria east of the coastal mountain range is open land, arid plains that are quite vulnerable to aerial assault, yet those bearded retards are out there parading in their spotless tanks and camo pickups month after month, after month. A Warthog squadron could take them out in one week, or at the very least cut off their supply lines. Putin took out their entire tanker truck fleet in a couple of days. Makes you wonder why NATO (with better planes and local logistics) didn't do that earlier...
Quote:
As for the rest of your post, thank you. There seems to be some consensus among the less rabid news sites that this man suffered mental problems for which he sought and received psychiatric treatment and wasn't considered religious by his neighbours as he drank, ate pork and didn't attend a mosque. And because it seems necessary to point out that relating possibly 'more factual' information doesn't equate to being an apologist, I don't consider any of the above to justify the attack in any way, shape or form.
In practice mental problems or the lack thereof means relatively little when it comes to judging terrorist organizations. Cults, terrorist cells, intelligence services, etc. have a set of personality traits that they look for in what the Soviets call "useful idiots". Some forms of mental illness fall into that category. You frequently won't know until after the fact which was cause and which was effect.
Quote:
Oh, get lost. It's true that some Christians have behaved badly, and still do. But when have I done any of those things, or my parents, for that matter? And yet you call the people who have worked their asses off to make our country prosperous again after the war dogs. People like my parents, who have done nothing but work hard to provide for their families and rebuild our country from the rubble. That's low behavior, dude...
Don't even bother trying to argue with him. (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Zero_(political_notion)) He's what we refer to as the "Year Zero" crowd.
SubJeff on 17/7/2016 at 00:11
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
You are an apologist.
You're an idiot.
As soon as I see evidence I'll revise my opinion, because that's what logical and sensible people do. I'm no apologist for terrorism and if you'd ever read anything else I've posted on the subject you'd know that. You, however, ARE a knee-jerk twatknacker.
Do actually understand what "apologist" means?
I beginning to wonder if you understand much at all tbh.
Muzman on 17/7/2016 at 05:30
Quote Posted by nickie
It doesn't make sense to me that any efficient terror group would send someone to commit this atrocity with, apparently, one automatic pistol, one fake automatic pistol, 2 replica assault rifles and a dummy grenade.
As for the rest of your post, thank you. There seems to be some consensus among the less rabid news sites that this man suffered mental problems for which he sought and received psychiatric treatment and wasn't considered religious by his neighbours as he drank, ate pork and didn't attend a mosque.
It's one of the more distressing and yet fascinating aspects of this whole thing. IS are sufficiently happy to 'inspire' rather than organise in any traditional sense, as far as a lot of these remote actors goes. AQ did a bit of this too, being keen on "franchising". But IS have even stepped it back further. (and their genesis is apparently in the AQ in Iraq that had a lot of disagreements with AQ command over targeted effort v. random horror and chaos).
These guys who lived rather less than devout lives most of the time suddenly lurching into being willing to kill and be killed for this cause turn up all the time now and they defy all attempts at prediction that we can currently conceive of (well, short of good old fashioned racism and xenophobia. Assuming anyone with an islamic or middle eastern/north african background is a potential terrorist would get you some distance. But even then you're not going to get them all. Jake Bilardi springs to mind.)
So we're going to get a lot of people saying "they're all terrorists from IS you terrorist apologists!" and other such stupidity, chiefly for their own self importance (like it really matters what pile you put people in).
But this stuff defies categorisation. If you hit that 'inspiration' sweet spot you barely have to do anything with a lot of these folks.
There's historical precedent for this kind of thing, but we haven't dealt with it for a long time. And either way it remains pretty baffling. An organised 'army' bent on destruction, territory whatever, we get. Can be as cruel and seemingly self defeating as you like. This, we end up casting around for any sort of logic or "reason" to explain it, but most of it fails.
It probably wasn't the intended take-away from their work, but after listening to people like Scott Atran and other terrorism researchers the summary for me was that in any given population there's a certain percentage of people, chiefly young males but others too, ready and waiting for an excuse to kill. The Venn diagram of low income, mental illness, unemployment, culture, circle of friends, lack of friends etc applies (ie you'll generally find at least some of these things) but doesn't help prediction that much. There's always someone who's disaffection with the world can be turned in just the right way at just the right time.
There's the soldier types, like Charlie Hebdo and Battaclan to some degree, and then there's guys like this. And even then it's not clear cut. Some of the 'soldiers' are inspired randoms, and some of the random chaos bombers are 'organised' and targeted attackers.
Given all of this it makes particularly little sense to see the sort of fights over who's an apologist for not categorising an event "properly", or using this sort of event to try and shame their putative opposition locally (or on the internet). Nothing is clear cut in all this.
Nicker on 17/7/2016 at 07:02
Muzman and nickie. Spot on.
Also, YouTube is already festooned with False Flag Hoax videos. Only a hair's breadth above terrorists, IMO.
EDIT: Perhaps that wasn't very clear. What I meant was that the people who make an industry of false flag allegations, are enormous assholes.
faetal on 17/7/2016 at 07:37
Nice to see some sense creep into this thread.
Tony_Tarantula on 17/7/2016 at 12:06
Quote Posted by Muzman
So we're going to get a lot of people saying "they're all terrorists from IS you terrorist apologists!" and other such stupidity, chiefly for their own self importance (like it really matters what pile you put people in).
But this stuff defies categorisation. If you hit that 'inspiration' sweet spot you barely have to do anything with a lot of these folks.
I think you're missing the point. He isn't saying we're "terrorist apologists", he is saying that we're apologists for the existence of religion....because without religion the world would be a much better place and no violence like this would ever happen.
Quote:
Also, YouTube is already festooned with False Flag Hoax videos. Only a hair's breadth above terrorists, IMO.
I actually doubt that most of these are "false flags" because that would be a false flag by an astroturf organization....so a double false flag.
It's already massively well known that ISIS exists because of Western support and aid to the point that I don't even feel any need to cite it. Why would you need to have a "false flag" event when you've already got people under your influence who are perfectly eager to execute real attacks? False flag event implies that each one of these events is carefully scripted when it seems much more like a result of stupidity on the part of Western heads of state who never expected ISIS to bite the hand that feeds and completely forgot that religious extremists like ISIS are best compared to rabid dogs.
Manwe on 17/7/2016 at 14:27
And another resounding success for the French government. Make the poor white people angry at the poor coloured people to divert their attention from the real enemy. There will be other attacks, and they'll be able to extend the state of emergency until the next presidential election, probably much longer. No need for conspiracies or anything of the sort, that's the beauty of it. They've got a whole army of degenerate thugs who hate the West and its symbols, ready to do their dirty work for them. Here's how it works for those who don't understand:
* Bring a first wave of migrants from the colonies, park them in slums and treat them like slaves.
* When they have children start telling these young people that they're special snowflakes, that they should hate France because of the way it treated their ancestors, that instead they should be proud of their country and religion of origin (all the while keeping them parked in slums of course).
* At the same time, try to make the indigenous populations of the country feel guilty about their racist past and create a lot of resentment towards this foreign population.
* Encourage the radicalization of these young immigrants by the more radical branch of Islam (Wahhabism).
* In foreign policy, make sure you destroy all the secular and moderate Arab countries in the Middle East (Irak, Syria, Libya, soon Iran) and ally yourself with the more radical ones (Saudi Arabia, Qatar).
* Then, when you've got enough veiled women in the streets, start raising the spectre of "nazislamofacism".
Tadaa! You've got a country torn in half, with a schizophrenic population that's on the verge of civil war. At this point you're free to do pretty much anything you want: declaring a state of emergency, restricting the liberties of the population, rewriting the constitution, destroying all the social benefits acquired over centuries, bombing and invading random countries, etc.
These people are very good at what they do. It's funny that, after promoting multiculturalism in the 80s, they should be the ones to single out Islam and Arabs as the big enemy of our time. Why, it's almost like they wanted such an enemy...
