At Least 120 Dead in Paris Attacks

What is it that we are dealing with?

Low-frequency low-cost terror attacks by small bands of people claiming one banner.

It's partly that, which makes the idea of 'defeating IS' a bit ridiculous - you may as well try to 'defeat' anti-westernism or Communism by bombing people.

More than that, though, it's easy for us to view 'the enemy' as psychopaths, something less than human - the classic rabid dog analogy. I know, however, that kind, decent people can be convinced that it is right to kill other people. We have been saying for generations that this comes above our own lives - greater love hath no man, dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. I've had conversations on this forum where members - again, decent, intelligent, well-adjusted people, not psychopaths - have said that there are situations in which military forces can justify killing civilians for military gain, or to protect their own lives. Put all of those three together, and I am absolutely convinced that a good person of sound mind can be convinced to become a suicide bomber, given the right situation and the right people to bring him to that point. It's not simply a question of there being a finite number of natural, inevitable terrorists in the world, who will go away if only we can kill them all. To get to that point, we would have to kill everyone, and every bomb we drop - especially when it lands on someone's home, or a school, or a hospital - tips decent people a little further towards the edge to violence.
 
A main issue with this kind of event is that if we assume it is possible to be materialised by a few isis people, then it follows it is very obviously more than just possible, ie it is pretty easy, for this to be organised by actual nations or secret services.

It is irrational to think that only isis/al-qaeda-ted bundy/al bundy/whatever are willing to do such things, while there are no creeps or murderers on the pay roll of actual govs, including western ones. I mean those nice folk torturing at Gitmo likely would have no issue with organising such an event if they had reason to (either money or idealism of some twisted sort).

Personally i fear we are sinking deeper into the downward spiral, at the bottom of which the Charybdis of ww3 will just devour this little ongoing post-ww2 charade.
 
A main issue with this kind of event is that if we assume it is possible to be materialised by a few isis people, then it follows it is very obviously more than just possible, ie it is pretty easy, for this to be organised by actual nations or secret services.

It is irrational to think that only isis/al-qaeda-ted bundy/al bundy/whatever are willing to do such things, while there are no creeps or murderers on the pay roll of actual govs, including western ones.
I mean those nice folk torturing at Gitmo likely would have no issue with organising such an event if they had reason to (either money or idealism of some twisted sort).

Personally i fear we are sinking deeper into the downward spiral, at the bottom of which the Charybdis of ww3 will just devour this little ongoing post-ww2 charade.
[Responding to the underlined portion above]

Yes and no Kyriakos.

Yes in the sense that a government may have more resources and assets that a small group to pull off an attack like that.

No in the sense that a government would have more people involved in such an operation, more bureaucracy involved in approving it and setting it up, and therefore more people in the loop that could either object to such an operation or to expose the operation either before it happened or afterwards.
 
[Responding to the underlined portion above]

Yes and no Kyriakos.

Yes in the sense that a government may have more resources and assets that a small group to pull off an attack like that.

No in the sense that a government would have more people involved in such an operation, more bureaucracy involved in approving it and setting it up, and therefore more people in the loop that could either object to such an operation or to expose the operation either before it happened or afterwards.

There can be ways around that. Eg very very few gov/secret service people working with renegades and/or actual idealists of different type. For all one knows a gov agency can infiltrate and provide resources to some aspiring western muslim who would be thinking they do this for isis, when they do this for x western gov secret service.

Issue is we have no direct info. It *could* all be a game. Yet we have no info for it being 'isis funded/organised' either. I doubt the latter is real, though. Isis doesn't gain anything through this. Literally.
 
I don't think that's what we're dealing with, though.
The latest reports are that they got themselves hopped up on Captagon (an amphetamine) before setting out to kill the unbelievers. How do we even classify these people?
 
Hopping people up on amphetamines to increase focus or deal with the mundane is becoming a Westernized norm. At least here it is. Should we classify them as: "becoming more like us?"
 
The latest reports are that they got themselves hopped up on Captagon (an amphetamine) before setting out to kill the unbelievers. How do we even classify these people?

If anything, that's a good sign - would it not be worse if they could go and blow themselves up in a normal frame of mind?
 
They do that on orders. There's someone up in the hierarchy who is so cold-blooded that he even takes away the will of his agents so that they can't have second thoughts. The soldiers of ISIL in their war against the world are their victims, too.
 
Yes - perhaps I should have been clearer; I was in no way saying that the people who created and lead IS are probably decent people. However, most people involved in terrorism are not the fanatical masterminds at the top. An analogy might fairly be drawn to the Nazi armed forces, which included an awful lot of decent, noble men among a critical mass of evil people.
 
…and who were also on amphetamines, which I didn't want to bring up so as to avoid falling under Godwyn's Law.
 
Yes - perhaps I should have been clearer; I was in no way saying that the people who created and lead IS are probably decent people. However, most people involved in terrorism are not the fanatical masterminds at the top. An analogy might fairly be drawn to the Nazi armed forces, which included an awful lot of decent, noble men among a critical mass of evil people.

There are many differences between ISIS and the Nazis--for a start, the overwhelming majority of ISIS fighters are volunteers who have abandoned their lives and traveled great distances at no small cost to join a cause that advertises itself through televised crimes against humanity, whereas most Nazi troops were locals serving in their own country's military, and many were conscripts. Not to mention the fact that the Nazis did what they could to conceal the awful truth of what they were doing.
 
There are undoubtedly differences.

(No Nazi ever had a twitter account for instance. As far as I know.)

Nonetheless, there are still some interesting parallels to be drawn. Total commitment to the cause, for example.
 
There are many differences between ISIS and the Nazis--for a start, the overwhelming majority of ISIS fighters are volunteers who have abandoned their lives and traveled great distances at no small cost to join a cause that advertises itself through televised crimes against humanity, whereas most Nazi troops were locals serving in their own country's military, and many were conscripts. Not to mention the fact that the Nazis did what they could to conceal the awful truth of what they were doing.

That's true, but I know many people who left their homes and volunteered to undergo hardship in order to join an organisation that specialises in killing people. I'm one of them. You don't have to be a psychopath to be a suicide bomber: you just need the right circumstances and the right person offering you the 'solution' to those. After all, I have seen decent people convinced to kill for a cause, to die for a cause, and say that civilian lives can be written off as 'worth it' to achieve military ends. There's a suicide bomber in there somewhere, even in a non-specific situation. Throw in an invading power that bombed your kids in their school, or your parents in hospital, and I can see a lot of people deciding that they deserve whatever comes to them.

…and who were also on amphetamines, which I didn't want to bring up so as to avoid falling under Godwyn's Law.

Ah, I remember hearing that. That said, the British Army officially experimented with various psychoactive substances a few years back (and soldiers have always trod the line between 'super-charged coffee' and 'toned-down crack' when it comes to staying awake), so it's perhaps not a surprise.
 
That's true, but I know many people who left their homes and volunteered to undergo hardship in order to join an organisation that specialises in killing people. I'm one of them. You don't have to be a psychopath to be a suicide bomber: you just need the right circumstances and the right person offering you the 'solution' to those. After all, I have seen decent people convinced to kill for a cause, to die for a cause, and say that civilian lives can be written off as 'worth it' to achieve military ends. There's a suicide bomber in there somewhere, even in a non-specific situation. Throw in an invading power that bombed your kids in their school, or your parents in hospital, and I can see a lot of people deciding that they deserve whatever comes to them.
Did you sign up because you heard about how the British Army was committing crimes against humanity, reintroducing slavery, and proudly showing videos of Irish Catholics having their heads sawn off? And do you think that most members of ISIS go on to fight the West? Most of their targets are Syrian rebel groups, the Syrian and Iraqi governments, the Kurds, and religious minorities like Christians and Yazidis. And everyone knows this when they sign up. And ISIS is proud of its atrocities. You cannot in good conscience claim that the rebel groups, Kurds, Christians, or Yazidis were oppressing those who joined ISIS, especially since the vast majority of them appear to be foreigners. There's a lot of false equivalency here.
 
Also I should point out that getting high is supposed to be haram.
 
Did you sign up because you heard about how the British Army was committing crimes against humanity, reintroducing slavery, and proudly showing videos of Irish Catholics having their heads sawn off? And do you think that most members of ISIS go on to fight the West? Most of their targets are Syrian rebel groups, the Syrian and Iraqi governments, the Kurds, and religious minorities like Christians and Yazidis. And everyone knows this when they sign up. And ISIS is proud of its atrocities. You cannot in good conscience claim that the rebel groups, Kurds, Christians, or Yazidis were oppressing those who joined ISIS, especially since the vast majority of them appear to be foreigners. There's a lot of false equivalency here.

I can imagine a situation in which a decent person might be driven to think that 'the enemy' deserve to have their heads sawn off and be made into slaves. I've heard posters on here say that it's acceptable to shell civilians in Iraq or Syria if it saves the lives of our troops and helps to kill the enemy: is it really all that far from there to beheading them in order to help our cause and damage the enemy? Personally, I don't think so. I saw that process develop in Ireland, incidentally, where people start thinking of 'enemy' civilians, then 'oh well, just another Mick', which soon becomes 'they're all terrorists anyway, I'm not taking any chances'. I never saw that last stage, but it happened all too often. It has also happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, these aren't the thoughts of psychopaths - they're decent people, who want to do the best for their comrades and their country.
 
I recall one poster writing off the deaths of some children in a cruise missile strike on the grounds that 'they'd only grow up to be terrorists anyway'. Our civilisation is said to be three meals from barbarism, I sometimes suspect it is a lot closer.
 
…The expendable attackers are meant to die.

On the run from Isis: Jihadists ‘targeting Paris attacker Salah Abdeslam for chickening out of killings’

He said he regretted his part in the attacks, which had 'gone too far'

The architect of the Paris attacks, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, is confirmed dead. Attention now shifts to the suspected terrorist who has been on the run since the night of the killings and is the most-wanted man in Europe - Salah Abdeslam.

He added that he dared not give himself up – as his brother has urged – because he feared Isis would take revenge against his family. Although based on the evidence of one unnamed source, this account fits the growing conviction of investigators that Abdeslam panicked on 13 November and did not complete the savage tasks, including his own “martyrdom”, allocated to him by Isis.

Investigators have established that Abdeslam – previously known mostly as a small-time Brussels criminal – wandered the Paris area for seven hours on Friday night and in the early hours of Saturday before fleeing to Belgium. Police have traced a mobile phone call that he made at 10.30pm – while the slaughter at the Bataclan concert hall was still in progress – asking friends to drive the 200 miles from Brussels to rescue him.

Half an hour earlier, at around 10pm, he had dropped his older brother, Ibrahim, on boulevard Voltaire, near the Bataclan. Ibrahim, a small-time criminal and Brussels bar owner, with vague links with radical Islam, immediately blew himself up outside the Comptoir Voltaire bar. He caused no more than minor injuries to passers-by.

“Nothing [in Abdeslam’s movements] answers the description of a pre-planned escape,” one French police source told The Independent. “It is possible he panicked or chickened out of killing himself. It is possible that he was disgusted by what he had been involved in or that his explosive suicide belt failed to detonate.”

Abdeslam is known, from CCTV images, to have been the driver of a black Seat which carried one of the three gangs of terrorists who struck on in Paris on 13 November. It was the car from which two gunmen – including his brother – emerged to machine gun people on the terraces of bars in the 11th and 11th arrondissements. After dropping his brother just before his self-inflicted death, Abdeslam and an unidentified “ninth” attacker, drove east to the hard-scrabble suburb of Montreuil just outside the city boundary. The Seat was found abandoned there on early on 14 November.

He then appears to have doubled-back into Paris. Mobile telephone records show that he called two friends in Brussels from the Barbes area of the 18th arrondissement, not far from the Gare du Nord, at 10.30pm. He asked them to come and fetch him.

They arrived at around 5am. Their Brussels-bound car was pulled over by gendarmes on the A2 motorway, near Cambrai, later that morning. Abdeslam showed the officers his Belgian ID card. He was allowed to go on because his connection with the Paris massacres did not emerge until later that day when it was found that cars used in the attacks had been hired in his name.

The two young Belgians who came to fetch him, Hamza Attou and Mohammed Amri, are in custody. Belgian officials say they deny all other connection with the Paris atrocities. Two other facts deepen the mystery. In its first statement claiming responsibility for the Paris outrages on 14 November, Isis said that there had also been attacks in the 18th arrondissement. There were none.

On 17 November, a black Clio with Belgian number plates was found abandoned in the 18th. It had also been hired by Abdeslam. Was he supposed to have carried out attacks in which never happened? If he had another car, why did he need to call friends in Belgium to make his getaway?

It is also unclear what happened to the “ninth” attacker captured by security cameras with Abdeslam in the Seat as he left his brother to his death on boulevard Voltaire. According to the website of the Belgian magazine, La Capitale, Abdeslam was in Molenbeek-Saint Jean in the Belgian capital on the evening of 17 November. The magazine said that Abdeslam had asked a friend to meet him to pass a message to his family – and warn the friend against being drawn into radical Islam.

“He told me that he had gone too far. He was overwhelmed by what had happened,” the unnamed friend told La Capitale. But he could not give himself up… there might be consequences for his family.”

Flyers displaying his face are posted in every town in France. Investigators believe, however, that Abdeslam - the “eighth attacker” in the Paris massacres - may also be on the run from Isis. A Belgian website has reported that the only identified Black Friday attacker still alive approached a friend in Brussels on 17 November. He said he regretted his part in the attacks, which had “gone too far”.​
 
Top Bottom