At Least 120 Dead in Paris Attacks

[Daw]

It only takes a few dozen trained jihadis guerrilla saboteurs of any flavor with a support network to bring ordinary life to a stop in a major city.

I felt it needed a correction.

I have a Muslim neighbor (who's views are flexible enough for him to smoke though), so I see him once in every while when I go out to have a cigarette. Yesterday night his voice trembled as he said, "I don't understand..."

So it's not about being Muslim or not. It's about being radical or not. Radicalism comes in many flavors. Always bad anyway.

 

[AdrienIer]

Wow the article is truly the biggest piece of garbage I've read in a long while. The ZUS are not no-go zones, only a very small percentage of those are really problematic. This one for example is in the center of Paris, and I've been there at night numerous time because a friend lives there.

Also, what the hell, you really think 1% of muslims would actively support a terrorist ? And you dare say that as if you were kind to them to only say 1% ? If it's 0.05% I'd be surprised. 3000 people sounds like a possible number, albeit a bit high.

 

[Lillefix]

Also, what the hell, you really think 1% of muslims would actively support a terrorist ? And you dare say that as if you were kind to them to only say 1% ? If it's 0.05% I'd be surprised. 3000 people sounds like a possible number, albeit a bit high.

According to an ICM Research poll in 2006, 20% of British Muslims felt sympathy with the July 7 terrorist bombers' "feelings and motives", although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.[24] In another poll by NOP Research, almost one in four British Muslims believe that the 7/7 attacks on London were justified.[25]

In a Pew Research study from 2006, at least 1 in 4 respondents in the Muslim nations surveyed, except Turkey, had at least some confidence in Bin Laden. Confidence in Bin Laden was 16% or less among Muslims in the four European nations surveyed.[26]

In a 2007 Pew Research poll in response to a question on whether suicide bombing and other forms of violence against civilian targets to defend Islam could be justified,[27] in Europe:

64% of Muslims in France believed it could never be justified, 19% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
70% of Muslims in Britain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 12% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
83% of Muslims in Germany believed it could never be justified, 6% believed it could be justified rarely, 6% sometimes, and 1% thought it could be justified often.
69% of Muslims in Spain believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 10% sometimes, and 6% thought it could be justified often.
In mainly Muslim countries:

45% of Muslims in Egypt believed it could never be justified, 25% believed it could be justified rarely, 20% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
61% of Muslims in Turkey believed it could never be justified, 9% believed it could be justified rarely, 14% sometimes, and 3% thought it could be justified often.
43% of Muslims in Jordan believed it could never be justified, 28% believed it could be justified rarely, 24% sometimes, and 5% thought it could be justified often.
28% of Muslims in Nigeria believed it could never be justified, 23% believed it could be justified rarely, 38% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.
69% of Muslims in Pakistan believed it could never be justified, 8% believed it could be justified rarely, 7% sometimes, and 7% thought it could be justified often.
71% of Muslims in Indonesia believed it could never be justified, 18% believed it could be justified rarely, 8% sometimes, and 2% thought it could be justified often

To me it seems that one percent is actually quite low.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: What you might think Muslims should do in response to terrorism is off-topic for this thread. If you wish to discuss that topic, do so in a new thread.

Similarly, a general discussion on the link between Islam and terrorism is off-topic for this thread. This thread is about a particular series of events in Paris. If your post has no direct relation to that topic, it is not on-topic. You may discuss the broader context, but only insofar as your posts still directly relate to the topic of the Paris attacks, as opposed to terrorism more broadly.

 

[Atticus]

Almost ten percent of the population of France is Muslim. Let's say only 1% are radicalized enough to support or provide assistance to terrorist organizations. This is forty to sixty thousand people that France has to identify and keep from carrying out attacks. This is not counting the fact that the French state is losing control over Muslim suburbs entirely.

Most people would conclude that since France isn't all the time a battleground, the estimate 1% is too high.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

So, now that the topic of the thread has again been clarified (hopefully for the last time), did anyone want to thoroughly contest this point?

Our governments and judicial systems have decided that it's more important to safeguard their boring internet and phone conversations than prevent such attacks. In many cases, the intelligence that we used to rely on to protect us from such things is no longer available.

Did the attacks happen since French authorities had no way of keeping track of any communication between people residing in the country?

 

[Synobun]

Did the attacks happen since French authorities had no way of keeping track of any communication between people residing in the country?

Barring invincible surveillance equipment in every inhabited building and area, it is impossible to fully safeguard against terror attacks. France has a decent track record with foiling plots and even with the attacks taking place in recent years they usually end up less severe than originally planned.

It is outright impossible to have a 100% success rate in stopping terrorism.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I would imagine though that big, coordinated attacks such as this would have many tell-tale signs that would push it through the threshold for being detected most of the time.

 

[Akka]

I didn't answer such cretinous line of thought because I hold as obvious that becoming an Orwellian nightmare of thought control isn't really what I would call "winning".

 

[Synobun]

I would imagine though that big, coordinated attacks such as this would have many tell-tale signs that would push it through the threshold for being detected most of the time.

Is it as big as originally planned, however?

You're right that it's comparatively well-coordinated when put alongside the previous terror attacks in France, but is that a result of intelligence failure? Would it not be also valid to consider that, maybe, this attack had the original intention of being significantly larger than it ended up being?

Furthermore, with attacks like this, coordination is not that big of a task. The largest hurdle in this attack seems to be the bomb-making. Everything else was rather straight forward and would not have required a ton of brainstorming.

And along those same lines... these people could have simply discussed their plans in a dark room with no electronics. No amount of phone or web tapping will ever be able to tell you what people not using either of those mediums are thinking or saying.

 

[Takhisis]

Is Paris still under curfew?

Oh yeah, I thought you meant necessary as in "it's necessary that Muslims be targeted"

Sorry, terrorism has a way of screwing with people's heads and I'm not sure whether you're still sane. I wasn't sure if I was sane myself earlier today.

Yeah, they do that kind of thing to people's minds.

Seems that this will become the new normal. I suspect the attacks on weekend places young people congregate was not so random.

Of course not. The young are supposed to be more liberal, tend not to want to go to war, etc. These attacks are meant, in part, not to radicalise the perpetrators' supporters, but their chosen opponents.

btw there was also an IS-arranged bombing in Beirut yesterday:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/isil-claims-suicide-bombings-southern-beirut-151112193802793.html

Yeah, well, that's like, their problem, man.

Biometrics. We used it extensively in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US has even started using it at the Mexican border to stop criminals from coming in.

What biometrics other than fingerprinting do you lot use?

Barring invincible surveillance equipment in every inhabited building and area, it is impossible to fully safeguard against terror attacks. France has a decent track record with foiling plots and even with the attacks taking place in recent years they usually end up less severe than originally planned.

It is outright impossible to have a 100% success rate in stopping terrorism.

No, but their funding should be cut. They sell oil, don't they? Where do they export it through? Turkey? Jordan? ISIS/ISIL don't have access to the sea on their own, so that source of income should be closed for them. Then, I wonder why they have all these nice weapons… someone on the line has diverted weapons to them or allowed them to smuggle those weapons. Someone on ‘our’ side is selling us out.

 

[Akka]

And along those same lines... these people could have simply discussed their plans in a dark room with no electronics. No amount of phone or web tapping will ever be able to tell you what people not using either of those mediums are thinking or saying.

Or they could just leave letters at designated places, or even with electronics use basic steganography or coded phrases which are completely inoccuous but can manage to send signals just as well.

 

[Synobun]

No, but their funding should be cut. They sell oil, don't they? Where do they export it through? Turkey? Jordan? ISIS/ISIL don't have access to the sea on their own, so that source of income should be closed for them. Then, I wonder why they have all these nice weapons… someone on the line has diverted weapons to them or allowed them to smuggle those weapons. Someone on ‘our’ side is selling us out.

War profiteering is an industry with no sides. Cutting off the Islamic State from the global economy would involve cutting off the entire Middle East and portions of North Africa from the global economy. They thrive off of shackling innocents to their sins, "hitting them where it hurts" directly involves hitting everyone else where it hurts, too.

Edit: Adding that I am in support of not sending arms to the Middle East. Just not in support of isolating the region in the name of quelling the Islamic State.

 

[Zkribbler]

Did the attacks happen since French authorities had no way of keeping track of any communication between people residing in the country?

The attack appears to come out of Belgium. Two of the terrorists have been identified as Belgium. Belgium police have made arrests in connection with this attack. A VW Polo was used to transport terrorists to the Bataclan concert hall. It was rented in Belgium; the person who rented it was arrested when he tried to cross back into Belgium driving another car.

As I understand things, one of the terrorists was from southern Paris. One was found with a Syrian passport and one with an Egyptian passport, but the authorities believe the passports are forgeries.

 

[Zkribbler]

I would imagine though that big, coordinated attacks such as this would have many tell-tale signs that would push it through the threshold for being detected most of the time.

 

[Synobun]

The attack appears to come out of Belgium. Two of the terrorists have been identified as Belgium. Belgium police have made arrests in connection with this attack. A VW Polo was used to transport terrorists to the Bataclan concert hall. It was rented in Belgium; the person who rented it was arrested when he tried to cross back into Belgium driving another car.

As I understand things, one of the terrorists was from southern Paris. One was found with a Syrian passport and one with an Egyptian passport, but the authorities believe the passports are forgeries.

I'd love to see a source for this. While the idea that they came from Belgium doesn't surprise me (my native land, woo), I don't want to let my bias against the place convince me to believe this without first seeing evidence.

 

[AdrienIer]

Is Paris still under curfew?

There never was, and it will not happen. I think there has been a mixup : when Hollande declared a "state of emergency" it meant that he had the authority to install a curfew if needed (among other things), not that Paris would be under curfew. It's amazing how fast false information can travel.

 

[Arwon]

So, now that the topic of the thread has again been clarified (hopefully for the last time), did anyone want to thoroughly contest this point?


Did the attacks happen since French authorities had no way of keeping track of any communication between people residing in the country?

I'm not sure we should be surprised when any given small group of people willing to die manages to successfully inflict violence on society. Even something like this where it's a handful of people rather than one.

Anyone with a little engineering knowledge can build bombs, guns can always be sourced by the determined, and it's not difficult to hide communications either by staying offline or by using encrypted methods.

We are mostly kept safe by the small numbers of people willing and sane enough to carry out such attacks. If even 200 people are willing to do this sort of stuff you've got something close to a guerilla war on your hands. If a couple of thousand people are, then you've basically got post-Hussein Baghdad.

(That's incidentally why the idea that any detectable population in France supports it is stupid - if they did France would be actually at war with an insurgent force, not just rhetorically at war.)

It's never been easy to stop - it's an age-old issue of asymmetric warfare and the odds are in the willing-to-die determined individual's favour, not the state's. The state in trying to prevent individuals frin doing the thing they're determined to do is big, lumbering, frequently counterproductive and often hurts heaps of the wrong people in the attempt. It's very difficult and a panopticon state wouldn't actually help much.

 

[Daw]

In fact, I tend to think somehow that the two safest places on Earth currently are Paris and Sharm El-Sheikh airport. That occurs to me because of the combination of a) security measures are currently at their most in both places, and b) I doubt that it is terrorist tactics to hit same spot twice.

 

[Takhisis]

War profiteering is an industry with no sides. Cutting off the Islamic State from the global economy would involve cutting off the entire Middle East and portions of North Africa from the global economy. They thrive off of shackling innocents to their sins, "hitting them where it hurts" directly involves hitting everyone else where it hurts, too.

The oil goes out via pipelines. Those are managed by someone, so it should be easy and not a mere gesture to cut off that source of finance for these terrorist organisations.

Edit: Adding that I am in support of not sending arms to the Middle East. Just not in support of isolating the region in the name of quelling the Islamic State.

Of course not, I've already posted about not falling into the attackers' trap.

There never was, and it will not happen. I think there has been a mixup : when Hollande declared a "state of emergency" it meant that he had the authority to install a curfew if needed (among other things), not that Paris would be under curfew. It's amazing how fast false information can travel.

I missed the ‘if needed’ part then.

In fact, I tend to think somehow that the two safest places on Earth currently are Paris and Sharm El-Sheikh airport. That occurs to me because of the combination of a) security measures are currently at their most in both places, and b) I doubt that it is terrorist tactics to hit same spot twice.

Lightning doesn't hit the same spot twice either.