Terror attack in Paris

[Vort]

Rational : based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings

 

TFP, it is obvious that I am not understanding you. Is God's plan for us and the blessings we derive therefrom a rational thing? Because it is certainly based on his emotions and/or feelings for us. Is the atonement of Christ rational?

[Doriette]

The latest report gives us the horrible figure of 129 dead and 352 injured, dozens still in danger. These people will not have the same life as before. The families of deceased victims will never cry enough to revise the people they loved. I do not understand the attacks, because in the Koran VI, 151: Do not kill the human person as Allah said. So why say that they act in the name of Allah ???

[David13]

The latest report gives us the horrible figure of 129 dead and 352 injured, dozens still in danger. These people will not have the same life as before. The families of deceased victims will never cry enough to revise the people they loved. I do not understand the attacks, because in the Koran VI, 151: Do not kill the human person as Allah said. So why say that they act in the name of Allah ???

 

I think you need to read more of the Quran.

dc

[Guest]

... 

 

They need to be stopped, of course.  This is war, of course.  But, as yjacket pointed out earlier (and I actually agree for once), do we really have to demonize them, call their perspective irrational, in order to do so?

 

Sun Tzu:                            Rouse your troops to anger.

Shakespear/Henry V:        Take on the aspect of the tiger. (Once more into the breech speech).

Stripling warriors:               We would not fight our brothers if they would leave us alone...

                                          They did fight like dragons.

[The Folk Prophet]

TFP, it is obvious that I am not understanding you. Is God's plan for us and the blessings we derive therefrom a rational thing? Because it is certainly based on his emotions and/or feelings for us. Is the atonement of Christ rational?

 

This just doesn't strike me as that complicated.

 

If an act is based on sound logic and is reasonable it is rational. If an act is based on bad logic and is unreasonable it is irrational.

 

I will grant that there is some logic to terrorism as a tactic. I will not grant that it is reasonable.

[NeuroTypical]

Reasonable: adjective.  1. Agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical:

 

Goal: Get Spain to pull out of the Iraq coalition in 2004.

Facts: Spain's popular opinion is split down the middle about involvement.

Tactic: Terrorist bombing of train right before close elections.

Result: 191 people dead, 1800 injured.  4% increase in voter turnout, Aznar's Popular Party, expected to win by 5%, loses by 5%.  Zapateros Socialist Party pulls troops out of Iraq a month earlier than his campaign promise.

 

What's not reasonable here?  

 

Geopolitics, including the nasty bloody deadly kind,  is always eminently reasonable.

Edited November 17, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[The Folk Prophet]

Reasonable: adjective.  1. Agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical:

 

Sound: adjective

 

1

a :  free from injury or disease

 

b :  free from flaw, defect, or decay

2

:  solid, firm; also :  stable

3

a :  free from error, fallacy, or misapprehension <sound reasoning>

 

b :  exhibiting or based on thorough knowledge and experience <sound scholarship>

 

c :  legally valid <a sound title>

 

d :  logically valid and having true premises

 

e :  agreeing with accepted views :  orthodox

4

a :  thorough

 

b :  deep and undisturbed <a sound sleep>

 

c :  hard, severe <a sound whipping>

5

:  showing good judgment or sense <sound advice>

 

 

Aren't semantic debates fun? :)

[NeuroTypical]

Yes, especially when I'm right and the other person is wrong. :)

 

Sound: adjective

a :  free from injury or disease

Doesn't seem to apply here.  It's not 'sound heart' or 'sound health', it's 'sound judgment'

 

b :  free from flaw, defect, or decay

The judgment was terrorism could sway an election, and get a country to leave Iraq.  Since it worked, the judgment was free from flaw, defect, or decay.

 

:  solid, firm; also :  stable

"If we kill them, they'll lose resolve and leave Iraq".  Solid reasoning.  Firm reasoning.  Stable reasoning.

 

a :  free from error, fallacy, or misapprehension <sound reasoning>

They might as well put 'spain terrorist boming plotter' as the picture in the dictionary for this one.  Because he was right, not in error, had no fallaciousness in him, nor misapprehension.

 

b :  exhibiting or based on thorough knowledge and experience <sound scholarship>

The history of geopolitics is full of endless examples of people killing other people to get their way.  Plenty of knowledge to hold and experience to draw from here.  Exhibited in the action of bombing a train to get Spain to leave Iraq.  Which worked.  Because the judgment was sound.

 

c :  legally valid <a sound title>

Doesn't apply.  Not talking about a title or legal claim or lawsuit-related issue here.

 

d :  logically valid and having true premises

Logically valid: - If we bomb them, they'll lose resolve and leave Iraq.

- We bombed them.

- They lost resolve and left Iraq.

- Therefore, our belief was logically valid

(It's been a while since my symbolic logic class in college, but I think that's right.

 

True premesis: You can sometimes get people to do (or stop doing) what you want them to do (or stop doing) with the measured use of deadly force and geopolitical terrorism.

 

e :  agreeing with accepted views :  orthodox

Depends on whose orthodoxy you're talking about here.  Theirs?  Yes indeed - sound applies.

 

a :  thorough

Can't get much more thorough than a terrorist bombing.  Can't get much more realized benefits than a swayed election and soldiers going home.

 

b :  deep and undisturbed <a sound sleep>

Doesn't apply here.

 

c :  hard, severe <a sound whipping>

Ditto.

 

:  showing good judgment or sense <sound advice>

Good judgment - kill 'em and they'll leave Iraq.  It worked.

 

Honestly, TFP, I think the word you're looking for here is moral or ethical or godly or good.  You're going to keep getting beaten like a drum as long as you continue to cling so tenaciously to the notion that people can't have reasonable reasons to commit horrible acts of evil violence.  

Something to consider: Who do you think this stuff is reasonable to?  Humans, right?  What are humans?

[Vort]

Aren't semantic debates fun? :)

 

Semantic debates are tedious. But in this case, TFP, it's your chosen debate, You claimed that certain actions were "irrational". Not "reprehensible" or "evil" or "unjustifiable" -- all of which we would agree with -- but "irrational". Several have pointed out that the actions are perfectly rational. If you accept the premises of the actors, their actions fall right into place. That doesn't mean it's OK that they did it, or that God doesn't hold them accountable, or that we shouldn't. It simply means that their actions were indeed rational within their framework.

[The Folk Prophet]

You're going to keep getting beaten like a drum as long as you continue to cling so tenaciously to the notion that people can't have reasonable reasons to commit horrible acts of evil violence.  

 

Haha. First of all...beaten like a drum? According to you perhaps. But I don't think so.

 

Second, I have never said that people can't have reasonable reasons to commit horrible acts of violence ("evil" is non quantifiable, really here). I consider, for example, Nephi's killing of Laban perfectly reasonable.

[The Folk Prophet]

Semantic debates are tedious. But in this case, TFP, it's your chosen debate, You claimed that certain actions were "irrational". Not "reprehensible" or "evil" or "unjustifiable" -- all of which we would agree with -- but "irrational". Several have pointed out that the actions are perfectly rational. If you accept the premises of the actors, their actions fall right into place. That doesn't mean it's OK that they did it, or that God doesn't hold them accountable, or that we shouldn't. It simply means that their actions were indeed rational within their framework.

 

You do not understand what I am saying. And I am, frankly, too lazy to dig into it deeply enough to clarify. So I'm just going to step away (particularly where I sense that the overall conversation is teetering on becoming offensive to me.)

 

Bottom line is, I don't particularly care if you and others consider terrorist acts rational.

Edited November 18, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

Why is it important whether their actions were rational? Because if they were irrational, then they were simply the actions of madmen. They are probably not predictable, and there is no really good countermeasure except to kill everyone who looks like a terrorist. (Which means you had better be darn good at telling what a terrorist looks like.) But if the actions were rational, then there is hope that we can discover the rationale and influence its course.

[Byron]

Question: Where or what tribe do the Muslims come from? I know that Muslims trace their lineage to Ishmael. I have often wondered, are they the descendants of the people God ordered the Israelites to wipe out? We know that the Israelites did not obey God on this and this angered God.

Does anyone know scripture that may support this theory? I may be trying to fit the issue into a box that would later justify waging war on Islam but it would be so much easier to deal with this issue knowing we are fulfilling a mandate from God rather than responding with hatred and vengeance.

And yes, it is very difficult for me to not feel hatred towards Islam.

[Just_A_Guy]

I could be wrong, but I believe Ishmael's descendants settled in the Arabian Peninsula, not Canaan.  Thus they weren't really in direct contact with Israel during Moses' and Joshua's leadership.

 

And IMHO, following up on three-thousand-year-old scripturally-recorded grudges is a terrible reason to go to war.

[Traveler]

Question: Where or what tribe do the Muslims come from? I know that Muslims trace their lineage to Ishmael. I have often wondered, are they the descendants of the people God ordered the Israelites to wipe out? We know that the Israelites did not obey God on this and this angered God.

Does anyone know scripture that may support this theory? I may be trying to fit the issue into a box that would later justify waging war on Islam but it would be so much easier to deal with this issue knowing we are fulfilling a mandate from God rather than responding with hatred and vengeance.

And yes, it is very difficult for me to not feel hatred towards Islam.

 

Only Arabic Muslims trace their lineage to Ishmael.  Many Muslims are Asian, African and Persian that converted to Islam.  As for Israel - they were commanded to destroy the Canaanites.  It was the religion (Paganism) of the Canaanites that Islam first dealt with in war and Israel and Islam were allies in that conflict - until a misunderstanding - mostly on the part of Islam.

 

On a side note - I have posted on a few occasions - It appears to me that ISIS meets the prophetic (symbolic) reference to Gog and Magog of ancient scripture reference to what many Christians believe to be the Anti-Christ in the Last Days.  But I do not see anyone making this connection??? other than me?????  I think it is because many Christians believe they will be saved by the Rapture and not have to deal with Gog and Magog.

[Blackmarch]

These attacks are logical. Terrorism is not what you think it is. These people have declared war on the west but simply don't have the means to wage it effectively.

 

If you provided tanks, jets, drones and nuclear weapons, I promise you they would not be using suicide bombers any more.

 

There are reasons for why groups like ISIS hate the west, but I will illustrate this in a historical context.

 

In ancient Rome, their civilization was borne on the backs of the military. Early Rome had citizens passionate about expanding the power of Rome and believed very firmly in the superiority of Rome.

 

Later, Romans became lax about their support of Rome. Nobody wanted to fight in the army any more, so Rome used its considerable wealth to hire mercenaries to fight and die on their behalf. Those mercenaries eventually saw fit to loot Rome.

 

 

Draw that analogy to the US. The US became Empire on the back of its workers. The West(And the US in particular) did not win World War 2 because its soldiers were braver or better trained or its equipment was superior in technology. The US simply outproduced them. Due to greed and a simple unwillingness to do certain jobs, much of the US's production capabilities have been stripped bare. This is compounded with the US's simple weariness and the reduction in nationalism in the US.

 

Like Rome, many of the US citizens do not see the US as a beacon of civilization and morality and so the sacrifice that was expected in the past is simply not coming now.

 

Instead, the US has turned its production(Its source of power, similar to the Roman's military) to external sources.

 

We are not more enlightened than the Romans were even if we'd like to think so. And the terrorists are just Huns and Visigoths doing exactly what those Huns and Visigoths do.

 

Do they have reasons for what they do? Sure. So did the Huns. That doesn't make much difference to the average Western citizen just like it didn't make much difference to the average Roman citizen.

 

Because of this, there are only three basic things you can do:

 

1) We can do what the Romans did and ignore it. Some day, maybe in a single night of a massive terrorist strike or maybe over generations of decline, we fall and the next Empire takes its place.

 

2) We can decide enough is enough and become brutal like Russia. Vladimir Putin dealt with Chechnya using overwhelming violence and civil rights violations. While this would stop the Terrorists, it would destroy everything the West has stood for. Civil liberties and rights would be destroyed, but the Terrorists wouldn't win. Tyranny would. This would either be by stripping all citizens of rights and privacies or simple draconian enforcement.

 

 

3) We can become Isolationists. Overnight, things we take for granted would no longer be affordable. The world economy would crash with all the pain and universal heartache that would cause.

 

 

That's it - Those are our choices: Do nothing, become tyrants or remove ourselves from the game entirely. Terrorists do not have a central command. They do not have supply lines. There is no way to know if you've won the war on terror because there is no one to sign the peace treaty. They hide in groups of innocents.

The scary thing is: We are utterly impotent at stopping a terrorist strike. If someone wants to kill a bunch of people, they will. Draconian gun laws didn't save Paris from the shootings. Americans with lax gun laws didn't stop the Oklahoma City bombings or the various mass shootings that have occurred, either.

.... and with how everything has become globalized you can't really remove yourself from the game entirely.

[Ironhold]

By now, you've likely seen reports that Anonymous has vowed to help ferret out ISIS' internet efforts and shut them down.

Well, I'm seeing scattered reports that ISIS has responded to Anonymous' statement.

...by insulting them.

I think ISIS just picked a fight they're not going to be able to win.

[Guest Godless]

it would be so much easier to deal with this issue knowing we are fulfilling a mandate from God rather than responding with hatred and vengeance.

It is astounding how often people have used the former as a scapegoat for the latter throughout the course of history. JAG is right, it's a horrible basis for foreign policy.

And yes, it is very difficult for me to not feel hatred towards Islam.

So you hate (nearly) 25% of the world's population?

[Guest]

By now, you've likely seen reports that Anonymous has vowed to help ferret out ISIS' internet efforts and shut them down.

Well, I'm seeing scattered reports that ISIS has responded to Anonymous' statement.

...by insulting them.

I think ISIS just picked a fight they're not going to be able to win.

 

You sure have a lot of faith in Anonymous.

 

How much good is a hacker group going to do against a low tech adversary?

[NeuroTypical]

ISIS is doing a crapton of social media recruiting all over the world.  Their online presence is substantial, and if anonymous can kill off their twitter and facebook accounts and other recruitment channels, it would be a substantive blow.

 

Whereas Anonymous is usually my enemy, today the enemy of my bigger enemy is my friend. 

[cdowis]

3 Nephi 21 [11] Therefore it shall come to pass that whosoever will not believe in my words, who am Jesus Christ, which the Father shall cause him to bring forth unto the Gentiles, and shall give unto him power that he shall bring them forth unto the Gentiles, (it shall be done even as Moses said) they shall be cut off from among my people who are of the covenant.

[12] And my people who are a remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles, yea, in the midst of them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he go through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.

[JojoBag]

Now the French government is saying that the hospitals will have a supply of atropine just in case the terrorists use sarin gas.  What a crock!  If you get a snoot full of sarin, you will live approximately one minute depending on the dose.  By the time you realize that you've been exposed to sarin, you won't have enough time to dial 911, let alone get to a hospital.  The only way to survive a gas attack is to have the atropine auto injectors on your person.  This announcement was only to make the population feel better.