• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Paris terrorist attacks

So you can only understand the situation of people who are 'good'. You really need to stop being so narrow minded.

I haven't said I respect these people ir owt btw. Im just not stupid enough to believe in good or bad people. We're all just a product of our circumstances, life, society, background etc.

Fuck empathy, maybe I should hate all the drug addicts and abusers out there. The junkie scum should all be locked up and their kids taken off them. You yourself will admit there's a lot of negative shit to do with junkiedom. Should I have no empathy here either because they're doing something 'wrong'?

It's got nothing to do with 'good' or 'bad', or 'right' and 'wrong', which are after all only relative terms (and ones I didn't even mention btw). I personally am just not capable of feeling empathy for a group with such a totally alien mindset. They may as well be invaders from another galaxy intent on destroying the Earth.

One dictionary I consulted states: 'Empathy is a distinctly human capability'. To my mind, ISIS ceased to be human as soon as they started slaughtering innocent people in cold blood, so I'm pretty damn sure your empathy is not reciprocated.

I'm all for tolerance and allowing people their beliefs, but when they decide to forcibly impose those beliefs on everyone else, especially in such a spectacular fashion, then they have gone too far and must be stopped by any means possible. ISIS are even more of a threat to the world than the Nazis were - at least they only craved global domination, not annihilation. Can you feel empathy with them as well?
 
Surely you can see that due to other nations imposing their beliefs, ideals and wants on Islamic states for, what, centuries they are just kicking back as a result.

This is a consequence of our cushy lives. Whilst it's absolutely abhorrent what they do, what our governments have done is probably more abhorrent.. you reap what you sow.
 
Centuries ay ?

The crusades are still relevant?

We've had plenty of wars with the French but if someone felt strongly about the battle of Hastings to blow up a train would you see that as 'reaping what you sew' ?

How far back are you prepared to look ?

Shall we start blowing up Italians? Strike back at the Roman oppressors?
 
I'm all for tolerance and allowing people their beliefs, but when they decide to forcibly impose those beliefs on everyone else, especially in such a spectacular fashion, then they have gone too far and must be stopped by any means possible.

totally agree, these Daesh pricks blowing up ancient syria historical sites is a crime against everyone on the planet too. Ceasfire and dialogue and reflection and analysis of what has led to the situtation where these nutters have their own little playground of brutality and the consequences. are what is needed now - from all the worlds superpowers and the regional players too. Governments in the west need to admit they played a role in creating this situation, made mistakes, and need a new strategy of cooperativion and no bullshit behind the scenes agendas either. Will that happen? I sincerely hope so, because dropping more bombs in syria is not going to help, feeding more arms to the bad guys is not gonna help, destablising states for strategic gain is not gonna help, There has to be a solution found where we just reject these Daesh blokes, ignore them, be better than them in our response to their stupid terrorist acts, and show that globallly we cannot tolerate this kind of bullshit happening and therefore have the duty to work to solve the whole array of factors involved accepting our mistakes etc etc.

Thought I'd end the stim rant there ;)
 
Centuries ay ?

The crusades are still relevant?

We've had plenty of wars with the French but if someone felt strongly about the battle of Hastings to blow up a train would you see that as 'reaping what you sew' ?

How far back are you prepared to look ?

Shall we start blowing up Italians? Strike back at the Roman oppressors?

You've actually taken the words right out of my mouth there Bummer.
Apparently we should also feel guilty for having such 'cushy lives'. Perhaps we should aspire to a return to the dark ages as well, that'll stop 'em won't it? ;)
 
And now Mali.

Where the fuck does this end?

Oh, and for anyone wondering; yes, the security forces were well aware of the attacks in advance, but apparently telling your neighbouring countries, particularly the 25 anyone can freely wander into Visa-free, is a little too advanced.
Here.
 
totally agree, these Daesh pricks blowing up ancient syria historical sites is a crime against everyone on the planet too. Ceasfire and dialogue and reflection and analysis of what has led to the situtation where these nutters have their own little playground of brutality and the consequences. are what is needed now - from all the worlds superpowers and the regional players too. Governments in the west need to admit they played a role in creating this situation, made mistakes, and need a new strategy of cooperativion and no bullshit behind the scenes agendas either. Will that happen? I sincerely hope so, because dropping more bombs in syria is not going to help, feeding more arms to the bad guys is not gonna help, destablising states for strategic gain is not gonna help, There has to be a solution found where we just reject these Daesh blokes, ignore them, be better than them in our response to their stupid terrorist acts, and show that globallly we cannot tolerate this kind of bullshit happening and therefore have the duty to work to solve the whole array of factors involved accepting our mistakes etc etc.

Thought I'd end the stim rant there ;)

great post. They even beheaded the aged caretaker of the sacred historical sites who stood his ground to the end, refusing to flee the incoming "soldiers", presumably wanting to try reasoning with them to save his beloved ancient ruins. That didnt go so well for him did it:\ I'm all for open mindedness but the expression "beyond the pale" exists for a reason. Otherwise there would be no moral consenus of right and wrong. How could we exist without some sort of moral compass:?
 
I'm all for open mindedness but the expression "beyond the pale" exists for a reason. Otherwise there would be no moral consenus of right and wrong. How could we exist without some sort of moral compass:?

Oh dear.

You really need to look up where 'beyond the pale' comes from.

Clue. It's racism against the 'uncivilised Irish'.

You really could have picked a better example for a moral compass.
 
Centuries ay ?

The crusades are still relevant?

We've had plenty of wars with the French but if someone felt strongly about the battle of Hastings to blow up a train would you see that as 'reaping what you sew' ?

How far back are you prepared to look ?

Shall we start blowing up Italians? Strike back at the Roman oppressors?

I don't feel any guilt about things which I have no control over. My point is that if you grew up in a house being told that the US/UK were murdering bastards and then you watched troops rock up in your country - as far as I'm concerned, illegally - and start blowing shit up. Shit being, your family and friends, schools, etc then you'd probably get a little pissed off. It would certainly reinforce the stories passed down from the elders.

As I said, it's abhorrent, the whole lot, on both sides.. I certainly know the answer to it is not more bullets and bombs.. 10+ years in Afghan, what did that achieve, a bigger problem from where I'm standing.
 
Centuries ay ?

The crusades are still relevant?

We've had plenty of wars with the French but if someone felt strongly about the battle of Hastings to blow up a train would you see that as 'reaping what you sew' ?

How far back are you prepared to look ?

Shall we start blowing up Italians? Strike back at the Roman oppressors?

Stop being an arse, you know what he means. We don't have to go back 'centuries'.

The west armed the Mujahadeen because 'my enemies enemy is my friend'.

That went well didn't it? Gave us the Taliban. Which gave us AQ. Which gave us ISIS.

Not content with that, we decided to invade and destabilise Iraq. Just to give them a nice solid home they'd never had before. Then we helped fuck up Libya and Colonel Q. Then we did what we could to unseat Assad in Syria. Because 'my enemies enemy..'. Fuck. You get the picture.

No need to trivialise this with the Battle of Hastings.

Western aid to fundamentalist nutters plus direct intervention equals the shit you have today.

You reap what you sew.
 
What Stone said... Truth be told I don't know as much about all the conflicts as I should do. I do know that our nations actions today, a week ago, a year ago, a century ago and no doubt tomorrow was and will be the catalyst for more of the same..
 
Technically the mudjahiadin became the northern alliance not the talliban who were mainly from the pastun lands around kandahar and helmand in the south. Although afghans change sides more often than they change their socks so the difference may be nominal.
 
There was no Northern Alliance. It was totally a made up name, made up by the west. Pretty much like Cake was a made up drug. Not one Afghani ever saw themselves as 'Northern Alliance'.

If you're getting technical like...
 
There was no Northern Alliance. It was totally a made up name, made up by the west. Pretty much like Cake was a made up drug. Not one Afghani ever saw themselves as 'Northern Alliance'.

If you're getting technical like...

Semantics... It was still an 'alliance' between tejaks and Uzbekis and others from Northern Afghanistan. Although there was more than one group the one lead by Massood (sp? ) being the most well known. And anyway cake is class a.... Everyone knows that :)
 
And the Taliban still came from the Mujahadeen...one branch (and I'll certainly give you the swapping sides bit)...which then gave us AQ...ISIS (ISIL? Daesh?).

Muslims are confusing aren't they? Couldn't they have stuck with Sunni and Shia? Sonny and Cher?

Waha(y!)bi!
 
Stop being an arse, you know what he means. We don't have to go back 'centuries'.

The west armed the Mujahadeen because 'my enemies enemy is my friend'.

That went well didn't it? Gave us the Taliban. Which gave us AQ. Which gave us ISIS.

Not content with that, we decided to invade and destabilise Iraq. Just to give them a nice solid home they'd never had before. Then we helped fuck up Libya and Colonel Q. Then we did what we could to unseat Assad in Syria. Because 'my enemies enemy..'. Fuck. You get the picture.

No need to trivialise this with the Battle of Hastings.

Western aid to fundamentalist nutters plus direct intervention equals the shit you have today.

You reap what you sew.
Brilliant post.

<3
 
Stop being an arse, .

Be careful you may get an official warning for that :D hehehe be nice now ;) Nah that only happens when members want u published, i joke, i joke ;) )

Stop being an arse, you know what he means. We don't have to go back 'centuries'.

The west armed the Mujahadeen because 'my enemies enemy is my friend'.

That went well didn't it? Gave us the Taliban. Which gave us AQ. Which gave us ISIS.

Not content with that, we decided to invade and destabilise Iraq. Just to give them a nice solid home they'd never had before. Then we helped fuck up Libya and Colonel Q. Then we did what we could to unseat Assad in Syria. Because 'my enemies enemy..'. Fuck. You get the picture.

No need to trivialise this with the Battle of Hastings.

Western aid to fundamentalist nutters plus direct intervention equals the shit you have today.

You reap what you sew.

Agreed. Good post :)

Evey
 
Last edited:
I don't understand why being sceptical of the story handed to us about what's going on and looking at the complex causes of the situation is construed as empathising or apologising for ISIS (either with us or against us?). Can i accuse people who say this of empathising/apologising for governments/states too much? (when did the governments earn that trust?). Equally i don't see why standing against the obvious push towards militarism and fear coming from the meeja should be thought of as disrespectful to any victims: surely it's more respectful to try and understand what's really happening now rather then in an inquiry in 15 years time. How many times in quick succession can we be steamrollerd into wars/laws using emotional blanket media coverage taking the place of any sort of rational debate, followed by years of 'what went wrong' when the fit hits the shan [by the way i do actually empathise with every living being - that's what was written on the packet when i bought my empathy (just doing the non-evil people is way too easy]

The elite are now using their media across the world to create a 'consensus' for war of some sort (preferrably somewhere far away against shepherds): don't be fooled that this really has anything to do with morality or justice (even a stopped clock and all that) - they wanted to have a war all the way through but the blasted public wouldn't play ball; cameron's wanted to bomb syria since they tried the vote in parliament (only then they'd have been on the same side as ISIS bombing assad ("as long as we use plenty of bombs (bought from my mate's arms company using tax money), i'm not fussy - ooh is that a pork scratching")

Craig Murray says it better than me:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2015/11/thrashing-not-swimming/

Thrashing Not Swimming

by craig on November 18, 2015 12:28 am in Uncategorized

David Cameron relies on the complicity of mainstream media and the gullibility and disinterest of the British public to get away with an extraordinary switch. Two years ago he was strongly urging military action in Syria against the forces of President Assad. Now he urges military action against the enemies of President Assad. That includes against groups and individuals who were initially armed and financed by western intelligence agencies, and are still being financed by our Saudi “allies”.

Indeed one of the many extraordinary features of this fervid political period is that the neo-cons (be they Tory or Blairite) who are so actively beating the drum for war, are the ones who absolutely refuse to acknowledge that the source of the poison is Saudi Arabia. Cameron today told Westminster that the head of the snake is in Raqqa. That is plainly untrue. The head of the snake is in Riyadh. But if your God is Mammon, that is blasphemy.

It is also fascinating that the same people who triumphantly warned Putin he would get blowback from bombing the Islamists in Syria, deny that our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and bombing of Libya have any blowback effect or in any way cause terrorism in the West. The hypocrisy would be hilarious were it not so serious.

The French are pounding the city of Raqqa as I write and the truth is, whatever the propaganda, that they have already killed more entirely innocent civilians in their bombing than were killed in the horrible atrocity in Paris. The killing on both sides is mindless. The majority of those the French are bombing into oblivion in Raqqa are people horrified at being occupied by ISIL, just as the people killed by ISIL in Paris were ordinary people as powerless as the rest of us to affect the way the elite run our foreign policy. Those who believe that the random killing of bombing is the solution to random killing are crazy.

I was terribly, terribly sad for the victims of Paris and their loved ones. But I could not help but note that we did not fly flags at half mast or illuminate buildings in the rather lighter tones of red white and blue that could have marked Russia losing nearly twice as many dead in a related terrorist atrocity just a few weeks before.

For the terrorists themselves, I have no sympathy. To kill entirely innocent people is indefensible in any circumstances. To believe that religious kudos can be gained from killing the innocent is incredibly sick. [shouldn't need emboldening, but there it is...]

I have often argued that it is actually not difficult to commit a terrorist attack. If I wanted to kill people next week, did not care who I killed, and was prepared to die myself, I could most certainly do so successfully. The key point is of course that in reality there are very, very few people deranged enough to carry out such atrocious acts. Any rational analysis shows this is not an existential threat. Terrible as these attacks were, they killed 0.01% – that’s one in ten thousand – of the population of Paris. They increased the tiny chance of being murdered in France by only 20%. There are over 600 murders a year in France. Many more people die every year in traffic accidents in Paris than were killed in this atrocity.

I am not trying to mitigate the evil or atrocity, I am trying to put it in context. The drama of the incident is used vastly to exaggerate its impact and to justify those moves which the Establishment had up their sleeve anyway as the vast and growing disparity between rich and poor calls for more weapons of social control. These include massive surveillance of the population, larger and more intrusive security services, aggressive policing, an institutional system of informers in education, a new crime of “non-violent extremism”, and of course yet more wars in the Middle East –

The sad thing is of course that the terrorists are so stupid as to increase the powers of the very forces in society whose policies they purport to be fighting, while the only people they kill are also those getting the short straw of society’s gross inequality. I suspect the leadership knows this. Of course, if you are a Saudi prince, then right wing, highly authoritarian western governments hostile to economic equality are exactly what you want too. It makes your lifestyle in London, Paris and Monte Carlo so much easier.

Meanwhile David Cameron thrashes about. The only way he can see to look credible is to go and bomb someone, even if it is the opposite side he wanted to bomb last time. It won’t stop terrorism, but it will be good for the arms manufacturers and security industry. It will help stoke the jingoism that is so useful in enabling the wealthy to maintain their firm grip on political power.

Actually stopping terrorism would of course do none of those useful things for the Establishment. I do not claim that the Establishment deliberately employs a Middle Eastern policy that promotes and exacerbates terrorism. But their policy has that effect, and they use its consequence in their own interest in retaining a firm grip on political power. It helps further ensure that political power will not be employed to reorder society upon more egalitarian lines.
 
Last edited:
Top