Happy Face

I listened to five live for an hour last night and it was almost exclusively Muslims they were interviewing who were condemning it unanimously.

But ISIS reach is bounded; there are no more areas in which it can extend by claiming to be a defender of Sunni Arab populations. To the north, there are Kurds; to the east, Iraqi Shiites; to the west, Alawites, now protected by the Russians. And all are resisting it. To the south, neither the Lebanese, who worry about the influx of Syrian refugees, nor the Jordanians, who are still reeling from the horrid execution of one of their pilots, nor the Palestinians have succumbed to any fascination for ISIS. Stalled in the Middle East, ISIS is rushing headlong into globalized terrorism. The attack against Hezbollah in Beirut, the attack against the Russians in Sharm el Sheikh and the attacks in Paris had the same goal: terror. But just as the execution of the Jordanian pilot sparked patriotism among even the heterogeneous population of Jordan, the attacks in Paris will turn the battle against ISIS into a national cause. ISIS will hit the same wall as Al Qaeda: Globalized terrorism is no more effective, strategically, than conducting aerial bombings without forces on the ground. Much like Al Qaeda, ISIS has no support among the Muslim people living in Europe. It recruits only at the margins. The question now is how to translate into action the outrage sparked by Fridays attacks in Paris. A massive ground operation by Western forces, like the one conducted in Afghanistan in 2001, seems out of the question, if only because an international intervention would get mired in endless local conflicts. A coordinated offensive by local powers seems unlikely, given the differences among their goals and ulterior motives: It would require striking a political agreement among regional actors, starting with Saudi Arabia and Iran. So the road ahead is long, unless ISIS suddenly collapses under the vanity of its own expansionist aspirations or tensions between its foreign recruits and local Arab populations. In any event, ISIS is its own worst enemy. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/17/opinion/the-attacks-in-paris-reveal-the-strategic-limits-of-isis.html?_r=0&referer=

TV satirist John Oliver responds to Paris attacks with 'a moment of premium cable profanity' http://flip.it/J51VP

I concur.

Night

Hate to go back to the religion debate, old news, but an interesting read on what mi5 see having looked at hundreds of case studies. You'd think they know better than us... Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/aug/20/uksecurity.terrorism1 Well worth reading the whole report which emphasises the inability to point at any one factor that's predominant in those that allow themselves to become radicalised.

It's the most easily understood example (as requested by redfern) for the difference between agreeing with motive and not method. Not in any way a comparison of the causes.

Nelson Mandela was the head of UmKhonto we Sizwe, (MK), the terrorist wing of the ANC and South African Communist Party. At his trial, he had pleaded guilty to 156 acts of public violence including mobilising terrorist bombing campaigns, which planted bombs in public places, including the Johannesburg railway station. Many innocent people, including women and children, were killed by Nelson Mandelas MK terrorists Now a global icon. You can agree with his motives while disagreeing with his earlier actions.

It is interesting to read the questions NJS linked to and note the turns of phrase used. Also note that the most interesting question isn't asked outright. "Is killing people justifiable?"

I like your raw days better than the filtered radio 4 report.

You've phrased that wrong, but here's the report... http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/bbc-radio-4-today-muslim-poll/

Remember Madeline Albright saying in 1996 the deaths of half a million children were "worth it" Sometimes the mask slips and the collateral damage is revealed for the inhumanity it is.

Gut feeling then. Not sure whether to quote you or CTs cab poll in future debates. They seem contradictory.

You have to remember that 99% of people will just nod along with a cab driver and think of something else until it's over.

I thought you were differentiating between muslims that support violence (dangerous because of their religion) and non-muslims (just sociopaths on Twitter). If that's not the case and you're just comparing numbers, How are you quantifying that? Gut feeling? Renton has provided numbers about the (larrge) minority of muslims sympathising earlier, The only numbers I can find that might provide some indication on non-muslims are that a two thirds majority of UK/US public support drone attacks that we know kill innocent civilians in 90% of fatalities. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-air-strikes-on-syria-public-back-bombing-campaign-by-margin-of-two-to-one-says-poll-10428064.html Happy to be shown a more indicative poll than that though, as it's clearly not representing exactly what you're talking about.

What is the difference please? Genuinely not following you. Clearly the support for violence against innocent people is what makes someone sociopathic. It doesn't make sense to me that you say loads of muslims are like that, but not many from other groups...but then dismiss the abundant number of non-muslims expressing those hideous view as distinct from that. These ARE the corresponding examples on the other side, aren't they? I think the difference is that we see any muslim expressing these repellent views as a potential terrorist. With the might of the multi-trillion westerm military complex pointed the other way, non-muslims expressing such views offer no such concern. If you want a more mainstream look at the western apologists for violence in the middle east than Twitter, just look at reaction to the Kunduz hospital strike a few weeks back. A sustained apache helicopter attack on a hospital full of citizens greeted throughout the mainstream media with justification (they were harbouring the enemy) excuses (it was all just an accident) and resignation to it being an intentional attack (ah well, the fog of war eh).

Really? I frequently hear "Turn the whole fkin place to glass" Here's a few from the last few hours... https://twitter.com/EntropicDissent/status/665966627289210880

I'm sure you'll have read this one before... http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/3662a707-0af9-3149-963f-47bea720b460

Dr G said the first reaction has been to blame last night;s atrocities on UK/US foreign policy My first sentence was in reference to reports that the attackers shouted "this is for Syria". http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/paris-attacks-gunman-shouted-this-6830096 What I meant by this was rather than making the argument that UK or US foreign policy was "to blame" for attacks in France, you would think someone making the retaliation case would look at the foreign policy of the nation being attacked. Given reports that attackers did indeed refer to Syria and the fact that France has been involved in Syria, then it's not at all controversial to discuss French foreign policy and why an attacker might see it as a target, without justifying the act. My second sentence referred to the fact that the motives described by the vast majority of terrorists involved in attacks (failed and successful) are that their target has been engaged in middle eastern aggression Boston The two suspects in the Boston bombing that killed three and injured more than 260 were motivated by the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, officials told the Washington Post. "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 'the 19-year-old suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings, has told interrogators that the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated him and his brother to carry out the attack,' the Post writes, citing 'US officials familiar with the interviews.'" Northwest Airlines "I had an agreement with at least one person to attack the United States in retaliation for US support of Israel and in retaliation of the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Palestine, especially in the blockade of Gaza, and in retaliation for the killing of innocent and civilian Muslim populations in Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and beyond, most of them women, children, and noncombatants." Times Square "If the United States does not get out of Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries controlled by Muslims, he said, 'we will be attacking US', adding that Americans 'only care about their people, but they don't care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die' . ."As soon as he was taken into custody May 3 at John F. Kennedy International Airport, onboard a flight to Dubai, the Pakistani-born Shahzad told agents that he was motivated by opposition to US policy in the Muslim world, officials said." the drone hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don't see children, they don't see anybody. They kill women, children, they kill everybody. It's a war, and in war, they kill people. They're killing all Muslims. . . . "I am part of the answer to the US terrorizing the Muslim nations and the Muslim people. And, on behalf of that, I'm avenging the attack. Living in the United States, Americans only care about their own people, but they don't care about the people elsewhere in the world when they die." NYC Subway "Your Honor, during the spring and summer of 2008, I conspired with others to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban and fight against the U.S. military and its allies. . . . During the training, Al Qaeda leaders asked us to return to the United States and conduct martyrdom operation. We agreed to this plan. I did so because of my feelings about what the United States was doing in Afghanistan." I realise that you've already said You know, I don't really give a shit what they say their motives were, these people clearly hate western secular democracy and are out to destroy it from within So clearly there will be no convincing you otherwise. I would ask you though, why do you think there is such widespread public support (or ambivalence) in the west for violent incursions into numerous middle eastern countries? It's clear that westerners are understandably hurt and angry at the relatively minor attacks we have suffered. People who have no qualms about our 15 year bombing campaign that has killed so many innocent brown people feel threatened, insecure, and full of rage at the people that make them feel like that. I understand this desire for retribution on both sides. Why would that feeling be felt any less in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and that? Countries that have suffered FAR more from the war on terror than ours. I see no reason whatsoever to doubt them when they state it as one of their motives. Then you have the other scenarios where the stated motives are not retaliation against violence, but against just insulting the religion. The ones that spring to mind are Charlie Hebdo, the Danish Cartoons and that mad head American bloke who made a film. In these situations I blame the religion fairly and squarely, 100%. But those are distinct. I don't bundle all of these things into one group and dismiss them all as having the same motivations despite the evidence and stated aims of the attackers. Because to dismiss the entire thing as one homogenous religious problem is to diminish the responsibilities of our leaders and their capacity to do anything whatsoever about it. Neither Corbyn or Cameron could do much about retaliation to offensive cartoons, and nor would I want them to. I have MUCH more faith in Corbyn to do something about retaliation to global violence though. That's why I think it's dangerous to tell people it's all the same thing and all caused all caused by religion. It's a largely solvable problem for us in the west to restrict muslim violence to the few cases where they don't like a cartoon, rather than the more frequently cited response to violence.

So why's there been such opposition to the post from SEW? Glad we're all agreed

SEW made a clear and unambiguous point about his big racist mate wanting to close the borders. His mate wants to persecute victims of ISIS for the acts of ISIS. This got misrepresented as if he was saying all criticism of religion is racist. Does criticism of religion no favours to defend those knackers.

Mostly spot on. I hold my own values above many state laws too though. I think the majority do. Speeding, drug use, many gay laws until recently. Disagreeing with the state is not in itself a violent or dangerous act. I encourage it in liberal cases, so have to accept it will be widespread among those with beliefs that run counter to mine too.

The above didn't really reflect my point. I like Dawkins and his criticism of all religions, the ideas that hold their followers back, the homophobia, sexism and all that. That is completely distinct from from using Friday's attacks to persecute uninvolved Muslims, to deny them rights, to stop showing then support or sympathy. To defend the latter and justify it as the former is misguided.

It wasn't criticism of a belief that he thought was racist though, was it? It was the notion that we should close the borders to people fleeing ISIS because they're all potential terrorists. It's not even a nuanced difference it's clear as day. Criticism of religious dogma and persecution is brilliant and should be encouraged. Persecution of whole populations of people based on their religion or that of their leaders is heinous and SHOULD correctly be called out.

Thoughts keep returning to the Hunter S Thomson piece 24 hours after 9/11. You keep hoping he can be proven wrong even while resigned to the fact he was as spot on as ever.