Paris Attacks

[glunn]

 

So rather than going through all the BS to rewrite borders....why don't we just pass them a note during math that it's on for realsies in Syria as soon as the bell rings?

I'm joking, but while all the extra crap if you want boots on the ground too? They won't give back territory, if you want to force their apocryphal battle....why not just show up in mass force at their doorstep? It seems to be basically the same idea, unless I'm missing something.

 

I would like to rewrite borders (and build them an airport) to get as many of them as possible in the same place (and away from us).  And I want boots on the ground only in a conventional battle that fulfills their prophecy -- on an open plain between conventional armies (with us having our best tanks as well as control of the air).  I don't want to lose tens of thousands of troops fighting village to village and building to building.  

 

Their religion predicts the major battle on open plains between large armies.  They think that Allah will help them win this.  I would like to get them all there then roll those dice.  It seems like a win-win that they might be crazy enough to accept.

[Squirrel]

 

I would like to rewrite borders (and build them an airport) to get as many of them as possible in the same place (and away from us).  And I want boots on the ground only in a conventional battle that fulfills their prophecy -- on an open plain between conventional armies (with us having our best tanks as well as control of the air).  I don't want to lose tens of thousands of troops fighting village to village and building to building.  

 

Their religion predicts the major battle on open plains between large armies.  They think that Allah will help them win this.  I would like to get them all there then roll those dice.  It seems like a win-win that they might be crazy enough to accept.

I think we should also round up all the conservative Christians who believe in a 'final, apocalyptic battle' and find a place for them, too. Maybe they can share the space and kill each other. Yeah, that sounds like a plan!

[formerly33]

 

In my experiences, Parisians are just like New Yorkers, they are perfectly nice etc as long as you respect them and their customs. It's when an overweight family from Wisconsin (stereotyping!) goes to a restaurant or bar and bitches about the cooking/no ketchup/no bud light.

 

I think its basically going to come down to if the museums etc are going to be open or not when we arrive. I emailed the lady who owns the apartment that we are going to rent and she suggested we still come (though there are about 1600 reasons why she might say that regardless)

 

Seriously though you have some good advice, I appreciate it. And I do care how people view me (though I don't really care about random people on a Twins message board  who may think I am some douche because I have some hot sports opinions about our beloved team, live and let live etc)

Somehow you made that feel personal.

 

Sorry for my overblown stereotype...and if you're nice and respectful and at least make attempts at speaking your rudimentary French rather than heading to the local Starbucks and expecting everyone to speak English, then I think your qualms about going should be far and few between. I also doubt that anyone will think that you went over to check them out, and if someone does...well, it won't exactly be a Twins message board, but they will be random. They won't know you personally, and you won't need to take it personally.

[glunn]

 

I think we should also round up all the conservative Christians who believe in a 'final, apocalyptic battle' and find a place for them, too. Maybe they can share the space and kill each other. Yeah, that sounds like a plan!

 

I am not in favor of rounding anyone up, but I would happily pay for their one way airfare.

[formerly33]

 

I think we should also round up all the conservative Christians who believe in a 'final, apocalyptic battle' and find a place for them, too. Maybe they can share the space and kill each other. Yeah, that sounds like a plan!

I take it you're being sarcastic.

 

I also have a very hard time agreeing with Glunn. Think, for instance, of all the innocent people who would literally be locked in there...women who are victims of crazed, maniacal religious nuts whose end goal is to kill any and all "infidels." We don't need to make life any harder for them...it's bad enough as it is. In fact, I'm not sure it could get worse, but my point is, we don't need to help the bastards.

 

I personally find the "Let them escape while the getting's good" comment to be rather callous.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I understand this portrayal and, to be honest, it may be as right as the counter-theory I'm suggesting because these issues run deep in the region.

This doesn't strike me as downtrodden citizens finding a cult of Islam to devote themselves too. Rather, the Wahabism these guys openly promote found influence in precisely the resources you cited. The Saudi oil boom allowed them to buy almost complete control of the legal and educational systems and promote their medieval interpretations and hyper violent approach across the Muslim world.

No, I think this has more to do with a powerful religious message that is actively attracting people to do horrible things not because of frustration with their plight in life, but out of total devotion to what they think their god commands of them.

We have seen how dangerous that is many times in the past from many religions.

Why can't it be both?  In order for that religious message to have affect, there must be conditions that make such a message compelling.  I don't think the phenomenon is unique to Islam, though it's recent history might make a better vessel than any number of other ideologies.  

[TheLeviathan]

 

Why can't it be both?  In order for that religious message to have affect, there must be conditions that make such a message compelling.  I don't think the phenomenon is unique to Islam, though it's recent history might make a better vessel than any number of other ideologies.  

 

It might be both, that's true.  But it's also a bit of a different question:  Are people drawn so strongly to these extreme versions of their religion because of their poverty or because of their religion?

 

As you said, the recent history of Islam coupled with the fact that the religion has struggled to modernize for several centuries makes me wonder.  To put it another way: peasant Christians didn't violently rally behind their religions out of some hope of improving their place in the world...they rallied behind their religion because it was their religion.  

[formerly33]

 

Are people drawn so strongly to these extreme versions of their religion because of their poverty or because of their religion?

Neither. There will always be bad people (I'm too much of a pessimist to believe we can ever be a truly utopian society). The thing is, certain bad people use their religion as an excuse since it makes them feel good. That's all.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Neither. There will always be bad people (I'm too much of a pessimist to believe we can ever be a truly utopian society). The thing is, certain bad people use their religion as an excuse since it makes them feel good. That's all.

 

I doubt you truly believe religion is some sort of neutered, powerless effect.

 

Start talking about people's eternal damnation or salvation and you rile the folks up real quick.  Yes there are bad people, but there is little else in the world with the capacity to command the same kind of mindless zealotry as a religion can.

 

(And no, I don't think religions are bad, they're just really powerful at making people do all sorts of crazy, stupid, weird, violent, nasty ****)

[Craig Arko]

Indeed, even the Buddhists have a militant wing.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/world/asia/extremism-rises-among-myanmar-buddhists-wary-of-muslim-minority.html?_r=0

[formerly33]

 

I doubt you truly believe religion is some sort of neutered, powerless effect.

 

Start talking about people's eternal damnation or salvation and you rile the folks up real quick.  Yes there are bad people, but there is little else in the world with the capacity to command the same kind of mindless zealotry as a religion can.

 

(And no, I don't think religions are bad, they're just really powerful at making people do all sorts of crazy, stupid, weird, violent, nasty ****)

I guess you're right....

 

Wait, no, hold on a minute. What about sports?

 

I think it's just that crazy people do crazy things about the things they're passionate about. Since most people are "religious" in one way or another, it so happens that a large percent of these idiots are religious wackos. And like I said, they're using it as an excuse. I guess that's what makes them wackos in the end.

 

Believe me, I know. Maybe not everyone, but if you'd stop and think about how good these people must feel about themselves, what else could it be? (And why else would they do it, anyway?)

[ashbury]

I see a few important differences from appeasing Hitler.  

 

First, Iraq was controlled by the Sunnis until we took out Saddam, then they had to endure brutal repression and humiliation at the hands of their most hated enemies, the Shiites.  Unlike Germany, the Sunnis actually had their backs against a wall. 

I wouldn't attempt to draw exact parallels. It's sometimes said that History does not repeat itself but it often rhymes. I'm just looking to the past for guidance.

 

I'll note, though, that the unpleasantness in 1930s Europe arose from a previous war that Germans felt they were continuing to be punished over. Unjust humiliation when destiny should instead have them on top was a significant motivating factor.

 

I'm not against trying to placate those who can be. But this outfit sounds implacable. When the initial negotiating stance is "we want you praying daily facing toward Mecca, or else dead," compromise is difficult (to paraphrase Golda Meir's famous line).

 

But speaking of repeats, I bet ISIS hopes to replicate this 7th century success:

 

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

 

Believe me, I know. Maybe not everyone, but if you'd stop and think about how good these people must feel about themselves, what else could it be? (And why else would they do it, anyway?)

 

This "religion is an excuse" talk drives me up the wall.  It's what people say when they're defensive and they don't want their religion being talked down about.  

 

Look, I bet you think your religion of choice has inspired some truly amazing things.  And I bet it has.  Countless things I'm sure.  I'm an advocate of keeping religion around, I don't think getting rid of it fixes anything and I think it does often provide good for humanity.

 

But holy schnikes man....comparing the zealotry of religion over human history to sports is just so flimsy an analogy I don't know where to start. 

 

Besides, what does it get you if I agree that it's an "excuse".  When someone helps someone because they're a Christian, was their religion just an "excuse" for their good deed as well?  Or, in a way that perhaps better reflects human behavior, is religion a very powerful cheese?

 

Believe me, I know. Maybe not everyone, but if you'd stop and think about how good these people must feel about themselves, what else could it be?

 

 

Um....how about that you think you're doing the bidding of your all-powerful god that grants you access to your heaven?

[Craig Arko]

Religion + Sports...

 

http://www.ancient.eu/article/604/

[TheLeviathan]

 

Religion + Sports...

http://www.ancient.eu/article/604/

 

Playing for some real stakes in that one.....

[Craig Arko]

Religion + Sports...

http://www.ancient.eu/article/604/

And http://www.olympic.org/content/olympic-games/ancient-olympic-games/history/

 

And http://www.roman-empire.net/society/soc-games.html

 

Theology, war, and sports have a long, linked, history. What they have in common is, of course, power.

[PseudoSABR]

 

It might be both, that's true.  But it's also a bit of a different question:  Are people drawn so strongly to these extreme versions of their religion because of their poverty or because of their religion?

I'd think of their poverty as a spiritual poverty as much as very real one.  Diaspora doesn't quite describe the phenomenon, as it refers to loss of cultural identity among dominant culture.  But there's a diaspora of sorts at work in their own country.  Where the lack of spiritual-meaningful opportunities gets filled by this penchant for radicalism.  

 

I don't want to invoke Godwin's law; but German Christians were swept up by radical aryansim after WWI for perhaps many of the same reasons.  

[twinsnorth49]

Off topic a bit. My GF and I are actually scheduled to fly out to Paris this upcoming Saturday for 8 days (has been planned for several months)

 

I'm not worried about safety or anything (NYC basically desensitizes you to such things) and things will be on high alert in Paris.

 

What I am concerned about is it appropriate to go and "vacation" in a place that just had such a terrible event happen at it?

 

I'm not a big fan of the "don't let the terrorists effect our plans, then they win!" Idea, I'm just curious on how the parisans and the city are going to be in the next couple weeks.

 

We are 50/50 at this point (I am pushing for us to keep the trip as is) so any thoughts are encouraged.

Go, I think Paris is the greatest city in the world and Parisians are very interesting to talk with. The would still be as proud to have you in their city, I can't imagine this event would diminish that, it may even strengthen it. There might not be a more fascinating time to go and listen to what they think.

[formerly33]

 

Religion + Sports...

http://www.ancient.eu/article/604/

Craig, your posts very rarely fail to put a smile on my face.

[jimmer]

Go, I think Paris is the greatest city in the world and Parisians are very interesting to talk with. The would still be as proud to have you in their city, I can't imagine this event would diminish that, it may even strengthen it. There might not be a more fascinating time to go and listen to what they think.

I feel horrible for the French over this,  ISIS needs to be taken out, but I lived in a country that borders France for a couple years, and spoken to plenty of Parisians, and I never even had the desire to go to Paris.  Sort of like I have no desire to go to NY.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

I think we should also round up all the conservative Christians who believe in a 'final, apocalyptic battle' and find a place for them, too. Maybe they can share the space and kill each other. Yeah, that sounds like a plan!

You are getting at one of the big beefs I have with the Atlantic article. The author continually, and solemnly, stresses how ISIS takes the Koran at its literal word, and how ominous this is for the rest of the world. Yet, the author does not once (except for parenthetically) even hint or suggest that there are Christians here in the United States who do the same, and with the same conviction and violence. 

 

Very well written and researched article, but like most writings could do with about a 20-30% edit of material to tighten it up. (just my opinion)

[TheLeviathan]

If the author had spent any time diverting his attention to annoying literal American Christians....I hope it was his editor who kept him on track.  It wasn't about religions extremism.  It was about ISIS.  

 

And as annoying as those people are here in the US it is absolutely preposterous to say that they are "doing the same, with the same violence and conviction"

 

Seriously, preposterous is as nicely as I can describe that notion.  It's not even remotely the same.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

If the author had spent any time diverting his attention to annoying literal American Christians....I hope it was his editor who kept him on track.  It wasn't about religions extremism.  It was about ISIS.  

 

And as annoying as those people are here in the US it is absolutely preposterous to say that they are "doing the same, with the same violence and conviction"

 

Seriously, preposterous is as nicely as I can describe that notion.  It's not even remotely the same.

It was about ISIS, but the author often drifted into a "history of the Middle East" discourse to make his point or perhaps bolster his credibility. If he and his editor agreed to write the article so broadly, they could certainly have found room to briefly mention the United State's own mass shooters, whose victims end up just as dead and families just as destroyed.

[twinsnorth49]

I feel horrible for the French over this, ISIS needs to be taken out, but I lived in a country that borders France for a couple years, and spoken to plenty of Parisians, and I never even had the desire to go to Paris. Sort of like I have no desire to go to NY.

Well, I guess I must be wrong then....

[jimmer]

 

Well, I guess I must be wrong then....

no, no.  You gave your opinion on the place, I gave the opinion that I have no interest in the place.  No wrong opinions

[Squirrel]

no, no.  You gave your opinion on the place, I gave the opinion that I have no interest in the place.  No wrong opinions

Well, I think you're wrong!

 

Heh.

 

I know Paris isn't for everyone, but I never tire of it. New York I tire of, but Paris? Just not possible!

[TheLeviathan]

It was about ISIS, but the author often drifted into a "history of the Middle East" discourse to make his point or perhaps bolster his credibility. If he and his editor agreed to write the article so broadly, they could certainly have found room to briefly mention the United State's own mass shooters, whose victims end up just as dead and families just as destroyed.

So American mass shooters are equivalent to ISIS?

 

Oy vay.....

[PseudoSABR]

 

So American mass shooters are equivalent to ISIS?

Oy vay.....

The radicalism to which they aspire may have quite a bit in common.  I also think there's also a shared meaninglessness at the root of both's radicalism.  There's certainly a similarity in the radical violence and the targeting of seemingly innocent people. 

[Willihammer]

 

What exactly are our interests in Syria or Iraq at this point?

Anyone?

[glunn]

 

 

I also have a very hard time agreeing with Glunn. Think, for instance, of all the innocent people who would literally be locked in there...women who are victims of crazed, maniacal religious nuts whose end goal is to kill any and all "infidels." We don't need to make life any harder for them...it's bad enough as it is. In fact, I'm not sure it could get worse, but my point is, we don't need to help the bastards.

 

I personally find the "Let them escape while the getting's good" comment to be rather callous.

 

I feel sorry for all of the innocent people who live in ISIS territory.  I also feel sorry for the hundreds of thousands of veterans who suffer PTSD from the recent wars.   http://www.politifact.com/iowa/statements/2015/nov/14/bernie-s/sanders-says-500000-troops-came-back-ptsd-tbi/  I oppose any further boots on the ground, mainly because I don't want to sacrifice more soldiers (and civilians) on an effort that seems doomed to fail.

 

I admit to being callous about people who remain in ISIS territory, because I see no clear path to helping them, because many of them don't want our help and because I think that we should be devoting most of our effort to feeding starving children, not invading in the Middle East.