Latest French Attacks: updates (in English)

[chefist]

If you're going to post scary stuff like that, I'm going to have buy Depends Maximum

Well kudos to those Honduran immigration officers!

[chefist]

People over here will always claim that the BBC has a left-wing bias. It's almost impossible to present news without opening yourself up to that kind of charge because people are too often irrational about emotional topics and hear what they want to hear. In times of war, for example, what is measured and judicious reporting can be seen as insufficiently patriotic and therefore biased. What people mean when they accuse an organisation of bias is not having the same view as them and reacting against it.

The BBC is clearly left...

Most Fox viewers think it is "fair and balanced".... No, it is right...

Same with lefties and the NYT or NBC...

When you agree with a political view, you don't think it is biased...you think it is "correct"...

[GravitySucks]

The Russians were just as bad. They loved their vacuum tube technology. Especially Roscosmos. RKK Energia didn't finally eliminate tubes from Soyuz until 2010. It wasn't just economics either, if you asked them why they were still using tubes they'd cite Soyuz's safety record.

The MiG25 Foxbat that was flown by the defector Belenko into Japan had so many vacuum tubes were suspecting it was all a fake defection.

[SciFiAuthor]

It depends on whether you consider Hitchens as being of the left in his final years. The left certainly saw him as an apostate, and he was very chummy with people life Wolfowitz and was very keen on the War on Terror. His brother Peter, very right-wing, was very anti-war. It gets very confusing when you see all of this as a right-left thing.

I think he was still on the left, or at least considered himself so, but became more pragmatic and questioning of the left's standard positions. It's actually really odd, if you look at people like Wolfowitz their ideology, the infamous neoconservatism, isn't very right wing in its origins and arose over a perceived failure of liberalism itself. Maybe that's where Hitchens' thinking was heading. He may have come to believe that the left could not effectively counter the threat of religious-motivated terrorism. Hard to say.

But then again, never trust an author. They're a shifty bunch.

[SredniVashtar]

I think he was still on the left, or at least considered himself so, but became more pragmatic and questioning of the left's standard positions. It's actually really odd, if you look at people like Wolfowitz their ideology, the infamous neoconservatism, isn't very right wing in its origins and arose over a perceived failure of liberalism itself. Maybe that's where Hitchens' thinking was heading. He may have come to believe that the left could not effectively counter the threat of religious-motivated terrorism. Hard to say.

But then again, never trust an author. They're a shifty bunch.

There is certainly a tendency to hedge questions about religious violence on the left, instead of simply saying "this is bullshit". I think his views were shaped by the Satanic Verses fatwa on his friend Salman Rushdie, where Rushdie was hung out to dry for simply writing a book that offended Muslims, most of whom never read a word of it. There's a real sense of loss when you hear former colleagues talk about Hitchens, as though he died to them many years before he died in fact.

[albrecht]

People over here will always claim that the BBC has a left-wing bias. It's almost impossible to present news without opening yourself up to that kind of charge because people are too often irrational about emotional topics and hear what they want to hear. In times of war, for example, what is measured and judicious reporting can be seen as insufficiently patriotic and therefore biased. What people mean when they accuse an organisation of bias is not having the same view as them and reacting against it.

It depends on the show but even the choice of what stories to air can show political bias. My point is not that BBC is bad, or good, but it shouldn't be getting government since have a political slant. Neither should our public radio and tv stations, which I think have even more bias than the BBC. But I agree that for many people they want to watch something that they agree with, which can be a dangerous thing actually.
Obviously the latest France attacks will make news but where was the news with the other problems the "refugees" cause on a daily basis? Rapes, no-go zones for police, riots, honor killings, sex trafficking, bilking tax-payers from public funds, attacks on homosexuals, disruption in public schools, etc?

[VtaGeezer]

I think he was still on the left, or at least considered himself so, but became more pragmatic and questioning of the left's standard positions. It's actually really odd, if you look at people like Wolfowitz their ideology, the infamous neoconservatism, isn't very right wing in its origins and arose over a perceived failure of liberalism itself. Maybe that's where Hitchens' thinking was heading. He may have come to believe that the left could not effectively counter the threat of religious-motivated terrorism. Hard to say.

But then again, never trust an author. They're a shifty bunch.

Hitchens wasn't the only lefty to lurch right after 9/11.  Who'd have guessed that Dennis Miller would end up Bill O'Reilly's lefty-bashing sidekick on Fox News.

[albrecht]

There is certainly a tendency to hedge questions about religious violence on the left, instead of simply saying "this is bullshit". I think his views were shaped by the Satanic Verses fatwa on his friend Salman Rushdie, where Rushdie was hung out to dry for simply writing a book that offended Muslims, most of whom never read a word of it. There's a real sense of loss when you hear former colleagues talk about Hitchens, as though he died to them many years before he died in fact.

Many of the Muslims have likely not even read the Koran, Hadith, etc but take their religious education  and direction from crazed Imams, youtubes, and schools funded by the Saudis. One of the many problems is there is no central leader or accepted doctrine and no reformation or new convent so the pious Muslim is stuck with pre-modern constant-war "justice" system and rules.

[SciFiAuthor]

There is certainly a tendency to hedge questions about religious violence on the left, instead of simply saying "this is bullshit". I think his views were shaped by the Satanic Verses fatwa on his friend Salman Rushdie, where Rushdie was hung out to dry for simply writing a book that offended Muslims, most of whom never read a word of it. There's a real sense of loss when you hear former colleagues talk about Hitchens, as though he died to them many years before he died in fact.

I wouldn't doubt it, Rushdie to this day still gets a threatening Christmas card from the Iranians to remind him that they haven't forgotten about him.

Hitchens wasn't the only lefty to lurch right after 9/11.  Who'd have guessed that Dennis Miller would end up Bill O'Reilly's lefty-bashing sidekick on Fox News.

There were a few, though most seemed to want to stick their head in the sand. The right just wanted to go to war, but they ended up picking the wrong countries. That was a real head-scratcher of a time period for me. It was like the entire political spectrum was bound and determined not to properly think the whole thing through and just went  on instinct.

One of the many problems is there is no central leader or accepted doctrine 

The problem is that when they do have a central leader, it gets even worse. That's what ISIS is, a caliphate ruled old-style by a strong, singular ruler holding absolute civil and religious authority. He is basically claiming to be the pope of Islam.

[albrecht]

The problem is that when they do have a central leader, it gets even worse. That's what ISIS is, a caliphate ruled old-style by a strong, singular ruler holding absolute civil and religious authority. He is basically claiming to be the pope of Islam.

Have a point there, I was meaning a central leader with some sanity or decency. Actually I like ISIS's call that all Muslims need to move to the new caliphate. I wish they would.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

The MiG25 Foxbat that was flown by the defector Belenko into Japan had so many vacuum tubes were suspecting it was all a fake defection.

Ha, that was one of my frames of reference. I was literally writing my post while watching a Mig-25 documentary on Youtube.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

With all due respect, how many blacks are in the streets protesting black violence? How many Jews are in the streets protesting economic speculation? How many latins are in the street protesting drug cartels? How many Christians are in the street protesting gay bashing? Every sect and group of people will have it's inherent level of bullshit.

I'm just confused what Islamic folks are supposed to do? 99% of them are sitting at home watching these idiots on the other side of the world do stupid shit because they believe in the same book as the folks sitting at home.

With that I said, I say fuck immigration. Why do we want war refugees in this country? Grab the smart ones and send the rest to Europe.

[paladin1991]

How'd that work after 9/11?

Baaaaaaaaaaaaa.    Baaaaaaaaaaaa.

[TheMan WhoFell ToEarth]

8 arrested in Texas, 5 here in Ohio. Be safe out there, folks.

[VtaGeezer]

8 arrested in Texas, 5 here in Ohio. Be safe out there, folks.

The eight in TX were two families of four ea. who walked up to the POE in Laredo and apparently requested asylum.
DHS press release:
"DHS confirms that on Tuesday, members of two Syrian families, two men, two women and four children, presented themselves at a port of entry in Laredo. They were taken into custody by CBP and turned over to ICE for further processing. The two adult women and four children were transferred to the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, Texas. The two men from these families are being held at the South Texas Detention Center in Pearsall Texas. Due to privacy issues, no additional information will be provided at this time."

Be afraid America! 

[TheMan WhoFell ToEarth]

http://time.com/4114189/mastermind-behind-paris-attacks-previously-interviewed-by-isis-magazine/

Guy behind Paris attack had bragged previously about hiding in plain sight under the guise of immigration.

[FightTheFuture]

And more...

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

[VtaGeezer]

And more...

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

FBI surveillance?  BS!  Why weren't they immediately deported?

[albrecht]

If the terrorist Muslims were smarter they would know show up at the border and say there name is Pedro. Then they would likely get a free trip to whatever city they wish by Obama and he might even throw in a few EBT cards to them.

[chefist]

If the terrorist Muslims were smarter they would know show up at the border and say there name is Pedro. Then they would likely get a free trip to whatever city they wish by Obama and he might even throw in a few EBT cards to them.

I live 40 miles from Nogales, AZ...almost 1/3 of the CBP are bilingual Spanish speakers...that's how they caught them...

[FightTheFuture]

FBI surveillance?  BS!  Why weren't they immediately deported?

Watch the video, Clouseau.

[Meister_000]

I am not going to question any of the points you have made here, since you clearly know more about this than I do. The trouble is, I don't think you can make a war against a religion any more than you can make a war against any other idea, in military terms. All you can hope to do is neutralise the worst elements without at the same time encouraging even more people to follow in their footsteps. I think the idea that we can fight this by ordering in air strikes is going to be a failure just like all the other times we have tried it. You end up killing off one layer while growing several heads back at the same time, when you consider that these people will have families - young children who you can guarantee will be radicalised if they weren't already.

One thing that is pretty clear is that the most staunch opponents of the west hate the idea of any kind of freedom for their own people, and by acting as the aggressor all the time we play into their hands. I don't mean play cutesy-poo with the worst murderers, but trying to recognise that there will be a bedrock of solid types who want to get on with their lives, if we let them. Then perhaps we can slowly mix into their cultures the more lasting values of tolerance and respect for others which is so signally lacking. The trouble is, you won't get that from most politicians, who are too fond of acting as the tough guy to actually do anything to address the problem. This might sound like woolly liberal thinking, but really I am more interested in getting to the root of the problem than some sort of grandstanding that gets us nowhere and will only inevitably lead to more attacks within a matter of months or years.

Hi SV, sorry about the delay. I generally don't like doing things half-assed so I try to give sufficient thought, time, and energy to them -- if I do them at all.

Since last posting I've spent a dozen hours and a few different approaches to a responce to your reply, writing different drafts, etc. In the end, I've decided to take an entirely other approach from the one I began with -- because I can, and because I think you can, and because it's ultimately more where my heart is.  I will begin here with a particular quote, not to be self-serving but in order to link forward towards the new direction, and also to put a few more teeth into the interpretation of the quote, the meaning it might covey, by putting forward my own personal experience and views as further example and demonstration of its implications. The quote in question is this:

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time.”  [F. Scott Fitzgerald’s formula, from his essay “The Crack-Up”, 1945].

That quote was brought to light again while deliberating about what direction to take with you and the coincidence that one of the books I will suggest you read opens with that very quote and uses it in context of discussing the exact same issues we're dealing with here. The author of the book in question, (I respectfully suggest), probably had an all-together too-romantic a notion of the idea that Fitzgerald was driving at. My own take on the matters currently on the table, and the position which that puts me in, better-demonstrates, I think, the depth of "conflict" and the implications thereof  that Fitzgerald really had in mind. The author of the book I'm refering to is decidedly more romantic, sentimental, feel-goody, and apologetic towards Islam than I am. As you've already seen, I have a deep-seated and hard-gotten loathing of much that has to do with things Mohammedan. But in the end, I have one of three choices ultimately: to either ignore the whole thing, contemplate genocide and armageddon, or thirdly, something closer to, as you say; ". . . slowly mix into their cultures the more lasting values of tolerance and respect for others which is so singly lacking."

Granting that this later approach would be preferable if possible, the next question is HOW? Is there a way, and what is that way. We are in luck, astoundingly good luck, in this regard because such a way _does_ exist, the only tough question is, IS THERE ENOUGH TIME?

We couldn't ask for a better way, a better vehicle, to carry and drive home an alternate message and future outlook than that which history already provides us with. We are fortunate that during the last 15 years a number of books have been published dealing with a particular time and place in world history most central and relevant to our needs now, and that is, in particular, Medieval Spain, broadly 10th -13th century, and the particular version and flavor of culture that thrived there, if only briefly, and under the umbrella (of all things) of an Islamic Caliphate!

Without further delay, then, here is book-one, of a must read selection of titles, that one must obtain and consume, if one has any hopes whatsoever of pursuing a solution-path to "The Muslim Problem" other than that of blood-shed.

"The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain"; 2003, by Maria Rosa Menocal -- $10 or less, including shipping, @Amazon.

Amazon USA
http://www.amazon.com/Ornament-World-Christians-Tolerance-Medieval/dp/0316168718/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1447914388&sr=1-1&keywords=the+ornament+of+the+world+by+maria+rosa+menocal

Amazon UK
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ornament-World-Christians-Tolerance-Medieval/dp/0316168718/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1447989641&sr=1-1&keywords=the+ornament+of+the+world+by+maria+rosa+menocal

So, what is this book about? This book is one way of telling and learning about, in quick and easy fashion,  the debt that The West and the world at large will forever owe to Islam no matter what happens in future. Ultimately, it involves the too-little known story of the West having quite literally lost the majority of it's own intellectual history and record during the middle ages, the majority of Classical Greek Philosophy and Science that is, and would not have it today to take for granted were it not for it's recovery in the 12th and 13th centuries. This recovery operation was via Arabic language manuscript copies held in massive Muslim Libraries in cities like Cordoba and Valencia Spain during the Western Caliphate Muslim occupation of the better part of the Iberian peninsula, aka in Al Andalus, and the West's subsequent re-taking of  those lands (The Reconquista) and in the process capturing these same libraries and their unimaginably stunning and vast contents.

There would have been no continued and renewed Western Civilization anything close to what he know today if not for these recoveries. The real and actual European "Renaissance" was due directly to _these_ intellectual recoveries, and did not consist merely of the visual Arts, the new painting, sculpting, and architectural activities that occurred later during the Italian Renaissance. "Classical Revival" happened there, in Medieval Muslim Spain.

There's much more to the story than this one book alone can tell, but it's a good start. The point of all this is that, we must find a way to return to them (modern day Muslims) this chapter of their own history -- and that, "by force" if need be, i.e. by whatever means necessary. Only then will they be able to throw off the yoke of "Religion", and the particularly nasty version of religion they currently are imprisoned by and consequently are no small threat to the rest of the world because of.

More later . . .

[PING]

Now these terrorist assholes have REALLY pissed me off. Do NOT fuck with my pro rasslin'!

http://www.ibtimes.com/anonymous-says-isis-plans-attacks-against-paris-world-sunday-2194926

[popple]

Russia offers puppy to France to replace police dog killed in Paris terrorist attacks

[Meister_000]

Russia offers puppy to France to replace police dog killed in Paris terrorist attacks

Puppies Are Cute-- there oughta be a campaign!   

But seriously, the 2-month-old Alsatian (i.e. German Shepherd) puppy, was named "Dobrynya" after Dobrynya Nikitich, a Russian folk hero famed for his strength, goodness and courage.

[Yorkshire pud]

Now these terrorist assholes have REALLY pissed me off. Do NOT fuck with my pro rasslin'!

http://www.ibtimes.com/anonymous-says-isis-plans-attacks-against-paris-world-sunday-2194926

Yeah, that'll have em shitting their pants.

[SredniVashtar]

Hi SV, sorry about the delay. I generally don't like doing things half-assed so I try to give sufficient thought, time, and energy to them -- if I do them at all.

First of all, thanks very much for your long and interesting response, and the book recommendation, which I will make a point of looking into. I can certainly testify to the lack of information most people have about the influence of Islamic culture - I have heard of Averroes, and places like Cordoba and Granada, but my knowledge of them is miniscule. You tend to accept that the beginnings of modern thought began from about the time of Dante, and everything before it was a blank after the collapse of Imperial Rome. Civilisation practically stopped during the Dark Ages, and I have usually heard its survival ascribed to the actions of a few Celts hiding away off the Irish coast, so the role of Islam should probably be better known. I think it would help to create some kind of connection between the two cultures, because at the moment there is no common ground at all, with both sides seeing the other as guilty of barbarism, albeit expressed in differing ways.

If I had to guess, I would say that the growth of militant Islam came about in the same way that the Puritans got a grip of England after the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods. Equally, it reminds me a little of the way that the Reformation followed - and ran parallel to - some of the great achievements of the Italian Renaissance. They might not be exact comparisons, but in each case there was a flowering of intellectual growth and achievement, together with a distinct atmosphere of decadence and corruption. You might get Shakespeare, but you also get the stews, bear-baiting and religious genocide (to name just a few horrors), while a flick through "Il Principe" shows you that - for all of its achievements in the visual arts and humanism - you were basically living through a Renaissance version of the Godfather, with people like Ludovico Sforza and Cesare Borgia doing what they liked and usually getting away with it.

I think we saw this reaction in miniature with the rise of Savonarola in Florence. There comes a time when people take all of the things in their culture for granted and want to throw out the baby with the bathwater and pursue some kind of militant austerity instead. It didn't last very long in his case, but I think most periods in history have seen a giant leap forward slowly being clawed back by people who see intellectual advancement as coterminous with luxury and every conceivable form of villainy. That's where religion usually comes in, because it is the universal bromide when it comes to stopping people advancing  beyond a certain stage of development. You will wish away any kind of achievement or intellectual ambition as long as you have a book of rules on your bedside table that gives you the freedom to not think about anything.

That's why I don't think any kind of diktat is going to work here. Any attempt to impose a solution on people will simply confirm what they already believe. You somehow have to detach the extremist types, who are beyond hope, from those who might still be capable of being saved. Islam seems (from my deep ignorance, admittedly) to be the religion where it is hardest to keep two sets of books. Most religions allow a certain latitude for people when it comes to observance (nobody, unless they are insane, is going to obey all the strictures of the Bible, for example) but Islam wants total surrender and negation.

I don't think it is going to work to tell every Muslim that their faith is shot through with corruption and needs to be junked. But you might have more success in stressing the achievements of Muslim culture (before its decline) while downplaying the fairy stories that surrounded them, and the brutal world they lived in. People don't have any trouble acknowledging the achievements of Latin authors, for example, despite their ludicrous polytheism; or decry Fifth Century Athens for its pederasty and slave culture. Sometimes we are unaware of great figures purely due to accidents of history, in the way that Spaniards say that Lope de Vega was the equal of Shakespeare but is less known due to the decline of the Spanish Empire.

What people like ISIS are opposed to, more than the US or anything else, is independent thought. Bombing people - which is all politicians seem capable of offering us these days - doesn't win any war of ideas. That doesn't mean accepting immoral or criminal behaviour, by the way. It's not an answer that will appeal to many people either because it isn't a panacea - and I am sure it is far from a total solution - but if people don't look beyond the borders of their own culture I don't know where they are going to go.

I have only heard about one book that is addressing these different issues. I haven't read it yet, but it might be of interest to people who want to find some kind of bridge between the two before it is too late.

http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Future-Tolerance-A-Dialogue/dp/0674088700

[UnscreenedCaller]

That's why I don't think any kind of diktat is going to work here. Any attempt to impose a solution on people will simply confirm what they already believe. You somehow have to detach the extremist types, who are beyond hope, from those who might still be capable of being saved. Islam seems (from my deep ignorance, admittedly) to be the religion where it is hardest to keep two sets of books. Most religions allow a certain latitude for people when it comes to observance (nobody, unless they are insane, is going to obey all the strictures of the Bible, for example) but Islam wants total surrender and negation.

.

What people like ISIS are opposed to, more than the US or anything else, is independent thought. Bombing people - which is all politicians seem capable of offering us these days - doesn't win any war of ideas. That doesn't mean accepting immoral or criminal behaviour, by the way. It's not an answer that will appeal to many people either because it isn't a panacea - and I am sure it is far from a total solution - but if people don't look beyond the borders of their own culture I don't know where they are going to go.

I have only heard about one book that is addressing these different issues. I haven't read it yet, but it might be of interest to people who want to find some kind of bridge between the two before it is too late.

http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Future-Tolerance-A-Dialogue/dp/0674088700

It might be time to re-read Hannah Arendt and her work of political philosophy, particularly on the nature of evil. She observed Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem and noted the banality of a man who didn't engage in critical thought, who lived a "normal" life while committing atrocities because he was "just following orders". The more I read about the Paris bombings, the more it strikes me that the mastermind who was killed in St-Denis and his female cousin fit this profile. He had gotten into petty trouble with the police. She had affection deficit disorder, was a product of the foster care system, drank, smoke and was a party girl who began wearing the hijab and then a full face veil two weeks before the attacks. Somehow, he had been turned to the extent that he could pose, smiling, while dragging mutilated bodies behind. Neither of them were religious or were versed in or practiced any form of Islam until they were turned.  This is not to excuse them. Like Eichmann, the world is better off without them, but the insidiousness of the "surrender" part of Islam can't be overestimated, nor the psychology of people Arendt identifies as those who never made the choice to be good, nor the skilled predators who look for the morally vacuous, disconnected and marginalized and turn them into willing suicide bombers and mass murderers. 

I don't know what the solution is. I don't think the world has learned much after the  concentration camps, Cambodia, Rwanda or the disappeared in Latin America and Mexico, but the madness that leads to mass slaughter by ordinary people is a phenomena that resurfaces with sickening regularity. That old sci fi gem, Quatermass and the Pit, in retrospect was a masterpiece of prescience.

[Yorkshire pud]

It might be time to re-read Hannah Arendt and her work of political philosophy, particularly on the nature of evil. She observed Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem and noted the banality of a man who didn't engage in critical thought, who lived a "normal" life while committing atrocities because he was "just following orders". The more I read about the Paris bombings, the more it strikes me that the mastermind who was killed in St-Denis and his female cousin fit this profile. He had gotten into petty trouble with the police. She had affection deficit disorder, was a product of the foster care system, drank, smoke and was a party girl who began wearing the hijab and then a full face veil two weeks before the attacks. Somehow, he had been turned to the extent that he could pose, smiling, while dragging mutilated bodies behind. Neither of them were religious or were versed in or practiced any form of Islam until they were turned.  This is not to excuse them. Like Eichmann, the world is better off without them, but the insidiousness of the "surrender" part of Islam can't be overestimated, nor the psychology of people Arendt identifies as those who never made the choice to be good, nor the skilled predators who look for the morally vacuous, disconnected and marginalized and turn them into willing suicide bombers and mass murderers. 

I don't know what the solution is. I don't think the world has learned much after the  concentration camps, Cambodia, Rwanda or the disappeared in Latin America and Mexico, but the madness that leads to mass slaughter by ordinary people is a phenomena that resurfaces with sickening regularity. That old sci fi gem, Quatermass and the Pit, in retrospect was a masterpiece of prescience.

'Normality.'  SS style...Sunbathing and frivolity at a death camp..

[UnscreenedCaller]

'Normality.'  SS style...Sunbathing and frivolity at a death camp..

Exactly. It's all the more grotesque and horrifying that human beings were being gassed and cremated just yards away. It makes you wonder at the human capacity for disassociation and compartmentalism of the worst kind of moral barbarity.