French church attacked by terrorists

[angrysoba]

I'm not saying that. It looks to be general terrorism as prescribed by ISIS but without the high number of victims. This was probably meant to be a specific target with any collateral victims as a bonus.

The motive is the ongoing radical Islam jihad. They kill for Allah.

I think theprestige was being sarcastic.

 

[caveman1917]

I haven't done anything rigorous. But I have looked at Wikipedia and news sources to see if they simply slot into a pattern.

Wikipedia just combines media reports, you can't use it to test for different media coverage.

Actually, a few of these recent attacks (in the last couple of years) have no post-war precedents in terms of numbers of people killed - recent attacks in France, Japan and the US are worse in terms of numbers than in many decades.

That may all be true, but the question was increased media coverage during the past few weeks. I can imagine that relatively minor hostage situations, such as the topic of this thread, happen fairly regularly but that the media over the past few weeks is more likely to make a "big deal" out of them whereas they used to pass by more quietly.

 

[Craig B]

The ISIS call to attack civilians of countries participating in the campaign against them seems to be giving a motive, or some kind of imagined justification, to insane and bigoted people who feel inclined to commit horrors of this kind. In this case there is some suggestion of possible prior contact with ISIS, because the perpetrators were already known to the French police; so we may find out if this atrocity was ordered or planned by ISIS in advance.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Question is .. is there a solution to this ? I mean if we stop people from entering the country, if we can't even deport them, and if we can't jail them for life based on what they might do ..

 

[Giz]

The ISIS call to attack civilians of countries participating in the campaign against them seems to be giving a motive, or some kind of imagined justification, to insane and bigoted people who feel inclined to commit horrors of this kind. In this case there is some suggestion of possible prior contact with ISIS, because the perpetrators were already known to the French police; so we may find out if this atrocity was ordered or planned by ISIS in advance.

I feel there might be another common denominator you are missing... Methodism? Buddhism? Something...

 

[mbp]

I can imagine that relatively minor hostage situations, such as the topic of this thread, happen fairly regularly

Seriously?

 

[Craig B]

I feel there might be another common denominator you are missing... Methodism? Buddhism? Something...

You think I believe this organisation, thrice named by me, to be Methodist or Buddhist?

... ISIS ... ISIS ... ISIS ...

So what's your problem? Ah, I see! I've attributed these crimes to some group within Islam. That won't do, will it? To keep you happy I must attribute it simply to "Islam".

 

[caveman1917]

Seriously?

2 people take 5 hostages, kill one of them and are then in turn killed themselves by police? Yes I can imagine this happens fairly regularly "under the radar" in the same sense that, say, bank robberies happen fairly regularly "under the radar" with about the same number of people taking place and/or getting killed.

 

[Craig B]

2 people take 5 hostages, kill one of them and are then in turn killed themselves by police? Yes I can imagine this happens fairly regularly "under the radar" in the same sense that, say, bank robberies happen fairly regularly "under the radar" with about the same number of people taking place and/or getting killed.

I don't think cutting a priest's throat during a religious service, and then taking congregants hostage, are as common or uninteresting crimes as you are suggesting.

 

[Giz]

You think I believe this organisation, thrice named by me, to be Methodist or Buddhist? So what's your problem? Ah, I see! I've attributed these crimes to some group within Islam. That won't do, will it? To keep you happy I must attribute it simply to "Islam".

No... just pointing out that your sentence "insane and bigoted people who feel inclined to commit horrors of this kind" should probably read "insane and bigoted Muslims who feel inclined to commit horrors of this kind" because it ain't Methodists, however troubled, who read about ISIS atrocities and say 'hey, I'd like to get in on that'.

Note: That's very different to simply attributing it to Islam.

 

[theprestige]

The ISIS call to attack civilians of countries participating in the campaign against them seems to be giving a motive, or some kind of imagined justification, to insane and bigoted people who feel inclined to commit horrors of this kind.

This makes sense as far as it goes, but doesn't explain where all these insane and bigoted people were before the rise of ISIS. Are we supposed to believe it's a coincidence that the number of people willing to act on such inclinations has increased just now?

 

[caveman1917]

I don't think cutting a priest's throat during a religious service, and then taking congregants hostage, are as common or uninteresting crimes as you are suggesting.

Did you know that we can make it as uncommon as we want by making even more extra specifications? Such as "an 84 year old priest" or anything else.

 

[metacristi]

Standard day in the daily grind of man's inhumanity to man. It should not surprise you.

Mediated by religion. Namely islam. What hypocrisy to talk about 'radicalisation' as if this is something mysterious. It's not I'm afraid. Classical islam has always been islamist at the core and modern Islamism has many points in common with it (albeit deviating from the jihad of tradition* in some aspects, among others it became much more violent against the 'infidels' who are considered 'free meal' now**). If only 5% of muslims in a society advocate violent jihad now then we have a problem if the number of muslims reach a 'critical mass' (around 10% of population in France) and nothing is done at the ideological level to limit the influence of islam over the minds of common people. Islam’s ‘Rule of Numbers’ seems to work as predicted.

In reality it's rather how Wafa Sultan puts it 'The problem with Christians is they aren't as good as Jesus. But thank God most Muslims are better than Muhammad [at the moment]'. Ignore the role of islam in creating this problem and you have the perfect recipe to perpetuate violent jihad for a long time (History proves plenty that islam has always had a violent 'tail', only the strong pressure of the European Powers made jihad basically impossible and thus we had a few hundred years when it went largely dormant; no more it seems).


* i'm afraid evidence shows that there are much more muslims which are not violent now but who are supporters of jihad 'at the right time when the right authorities declare it'' A lot of 'friends' of the West indeed.

**unlike the conquered non muslim populations in the past today's infidels are no more at the mercy of their muslim masters, it's the other way around, offering thus sufficient 'grievances' to fight all-out jihad against them

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Question is .. is there a solution to this ? I mean if we stop people from entering the country, if we can't even deport them, and if we can't jail them for life based on what they might do ..

I believe there are three areas to work on:

1. Covering narratives and social approval
2. Access to resources
3. Triggering event; moral outrage

There are currently many covering narratives that dehumanize opponents, several come from Islam, others from other religions, more often than not Christianity-related, and several from political ideologies. They share an absolute take on truth, meaning it scales infinitely in the mind when weighing against other explanations or values. Social approval is important, but I'll leave it out for now; pretty obvious. (ETA: Not much to do wrt the mentally unstable except restrict access to firearms.)

Resources are important for the large scale attacks with guns or bombs, which ostensibly is sensitive to some forms of surveillance. The number one resource is information, the how-to's, access to which should be curtailed when legal to do so. Cyberwarfare, passive and active surveillance, border control (non-Trumpian).

There is very little to do about triggering events that tip the hand, such as a friend of the Afghani youth who committed the train stabbings dying back in Afghanistan. As to the moral outrage, if peaking in response to situations, more will decide to carry out attacks. The response here is multifaceted, including not entering into military action needlessly (lesson learned, too late now), proactive outreach to speak about and deal with events, and work on the part of religious and lay people. (I still need to get a handle here and hope to learn more about the dynamics involved).

Moral outrage is also part of the overall alienation, stemming from contrasting social mores. This is going to require a dialog that actually elicits some form of tacit nod that everyone must agree to disagree in some meaningful and repetitive way, such that it becomes cultural DNA. In the very short term, I would like to see all licensed political parties and religious establishments in the EU sign an affidavit swearing conformity with Article 54 of the European Charter on Human Rights.

 

[dudalb]

Did you know that we can make it as uncommon as we want by making even more extra specifications? Such as "an 84 year old priest" or anything else.

Nice verbal gymnastics to try to avoid the fact that Islamic Extremist killed somebody because he was of another religion.

 

[dudalb]

I believe there are three areas to work on:

1. Covering narratives and social approval
2. Access to resources
3. Triggering event; moral outrage

There are currently many covering narratives that dehumanize opponents, several come from Islam, others from other religions, more often than not Christianity-related, and several from political ideologies. They share an absolute take on truth, meaning it scales infinitely in the mind when weighing against other explanations or values. Social approval is important, but I'll leave it out for now; pretty obvious. (ETA: Not much to do wrt the mentally unstable except restrict access to firearms.)

Resources are important for the large scale attacks with guns or bombs, which ostensibly is sensitive to some forms of surveillance. The number one resource is information, the how-to's, access to which should be curtailed when legal to do so. Cyberwarfare, passive and active surveillance, border control (non-Trumpian).

There is very little to do about triggering events that tip the hand, such as a friend of the Afghani youth who committed the train stabbings dying back in Afghanistan. As to the moral outrage, if peaking in response to situations, more will decide to carry out attacks. The response here is multifaceted, including not entering into military action needlessly (lesson learned, too late now), proactive outreach to speak about and deal with events, and work on the part of religious and lay people. (I still need to get a handle here and hope to learn more about the dynamics involved).

Moral outrage is also part of the overall alienation, stemming from contrasting social mores. This is going to require a dialog that actually elicits some form of tacit nod that everyone must agree to disagree in some meaningful and repetitive way, such that it becomes cultural DNA. In the very short term, I would like to see all licensed political parties and religious establishments in the EU sign an affidavit swearing conformity with Article 54 of the European Charter on Human Rights.

THat is the kind of solution that sounds great in a college seminar, but has real problems working in the real world.
Problem is people are not to going to turn the other cheek to these attacks while your long term solution works.

 

[Belz...]

Question is .. is there a solution to this ?

1) Do nothing. That's the price of life in the modern world. Not very satisfactory althought it might, mathematically, lead to fewer deaths.
2) Bomb the middle east into oblivion, removing their ability to either fight or use the internet to recruit these idiots. Might create more problem than it solves.
3) Colonise the middle-east and change the culture. An expensive proposition if ever there was one.
4) Close all borders and expell Muslims or foreigners or whatnot. A slippery slope that'll most probably just hurt more people than it will save.
5) Tighten the borders and kick out only certain types, concluding that some cultures just aren't compatible with the west. Complex, but somewhat feasible, though it doesn't remove the very strong possibility of radicalised locals making such attacks, as these often are.
6) ETA: Make sure no one in our countries is forsaken to the point where they are easy pickings for these groups. Might not be entirely feasible but I'm sure we can work on that.

I don't know.

 

[dudalb]

No... just pointing out that your sentence "insane and bigoted people who feel inclined to commit horrors of this kind" should probably read "insane and bigoted Muslims who feel inclined to commit horrors of this kind" because it ain't Methodists, however troubled, who read about ISIS atrocities and say 'hey, I'd like to get in on that'.

Note: That's very different to simply attributing it to Islam.

Some people are so afraid of being labeled "Anti Muslim" or "Islamophobe" that you have to use a tractor to drag any criticism of Islamic Extremism out of them.
Although,given history, The Christians don't have any business pointing fingers in a self righteous matter at Islam as being a inherently violent religion,it is foolish and stupid to pretend that Islam at the moment is having a much greater problem with violent extremism then Christrianity is. Yes, there is plenty of stupidity and bigotry on display in Fundie Christianity,but ,so far, they have not produced anything close to ISIS or Al Qaeda in terms of Scale of vioilence.

 

[dudalb]

Seriously?

Check caveman's posting history...

 

[dudalb]

Wikipedia just combines media reports, you can't use it to test for different media coverage.



That may all be true, but the question was increased media coverage during the past few weeks. I can imagine that relatively minor hostage situations, such as the topic of this thread, happen fairly regularly but that the media over the past few weeks is more likely to make a "big deal" out of them whereas they used to pass by more quietly.

And no doubt they are making a "Big Deal" out of them at the orders of the evil Capitalists as part of some vast,evil scheme....