In response to EmpirezTeam
Glad to see I'm not the only one subscribed to Kurtzgehsagt.
Apparently, ISIS has now claimed responsibility.
If there is one thing that being in the Skype group has influenced upon me most, it is that the world is a far more violent place than the niche I exist in. Friends dropping out of calls and coming back two hours later saying "Sorry there was a shooting on my campus", others saying houses across the street got set on fire by arsonists.

"War" might be on the downfall, as countries as a union is more effective than simply bulldozing another and taking it over, but the power of a single few radical individuals will never fall, so long as access to tools they can use to spread fear is so easy.

Step it the fuck up, rest of the world, there hasn't been a major shooting incident in England for almost a decade, whilst America seems to get one every other week, and other places of the world are even worse.

People need to come to terms with the fact that the nature of humans to do unspeakable things will always exist, and the only solution is to limit their access to tools which can allow them to accomplish such tasks.
I'm guessing the attack was intentionally carried out during the game because they knew there'd be less cops around. It's the same here in Nashville. Whenever we have some stupid football game going on, there's like 20 cop cars near the football stadium. My Dad and I joke from time to time about us probably being able to pull off a bank robbery with ease due to the fact that all the cops are occupied with checking people's purses at the stadium rather than making sure crime isn't happening elsewhere in the city. Maybe if people gave more shits about world issues and less about men kicking a ball around we'd be able to see things like this coming and be more prepared for it.

The reports state that the game wasn't even immediately stopped when the explosions were first heard. In other words, they were still more concerned with the men kicking balls around than finding out what the hell that noise was.
In response to EmpirezTeam
Not a whole lot better here in Chattanooga when the Riverbend Music Festival rolls around.

I've always been extremely mixed on the gun control debate, but if looking at the history of gun control in other countries and the arguable success they've had, at least it's opened my eyes to a much broader picture. I used to deny gun control hard, but now it really comes down to the question of, "Will gun control FOR SURE drastically reduce violent crime in the US?" If the answer is yes with no question, then I think for the sake of the greater good, it's best to do so.

The conservative party here has done such a good job of scaring people into believing that if they didn't have their guns, the US would be able to rise up and turn into a dictatorship. That's always got to me, as if Joe Bob and his hillbilly band of NRA members would have any snowballs chance in hell against the firepower of the most powerful military ever soldiered in the history of mankind.

Like, seriously? No one thinks that the neighborhood watch would just get blown to hell the instant shots started firing out? It's laughable to think otherwise.
The problem with weapons is that even if you give them to good people with no background of violence or mental issues, it still doesn't mean they will use the guns properly.

So for example. You're sitting in a restaurant. Some retard runs into the restaurant screaming "Allah Akbar" with an AK47. You have a pistol, you have a clear shot, you take it and kill the idiot. This is acceptable use of the weapon.

However, say you come home one day and some prick runs out your backdoor with an important family heirloom. Enraged at the fact that he had the audacity to break into your house and steal something of importance from you, you pull out your pistol, aim for his head, and kill him. There's two things wrong with this:

1. If someone is running from you, your life isn't in danger so this isn't self defense.

2. If you MUST shoot the guy, there's no reason to aim for a kill shot. Part of gun ownership is knowing how and when you need to shoot to kill or shoot to disable.

But as you can see from police, people clearly have issues thinking in the heat of the moment like this. I don't think more guns in the hands of Americans would result in more mass shootings, but I am concerned about people immediately resorting to their weapons in situations where they don't truly have to. The gun on your hip is supposed to be the last resort, you should only be grabbing it when there are no other options available to you and the person absolutely needs to be shot.

A person should not have died in this situation:

Even other cops find it hard to get behind and justify what was done there. And these are people who are supposed to be more trained with weapons and handling volatile situations than the rest of us. Imagine if regular citizens got into conflicts as often as these people did. I think we'd see similar results. Reaction in these situations just requires a certain level of mental preparedness that I just don't think everyone has right now.
In response to Metamorphman
Metamorphman wrote:
Apparently, ISIS has now claimed responsibility.

I don't get that. Didn't they not take credit initially? I wonder if it's just convenient for them for the publicity or something. ISIS should have much bigger things to focus on back home than organizing terrorist attacks in France of all places. ISIS needs to gain and maintain territory. I don't see why they'd organize that attack. It seems like we forget that other extremist groups still exist that definitely would organize shootings like this. They may support ISIS, but ISIS isn't just a blanket statement for terrorists.
When I first heard about the attacks, I was just browsing Reddit, and it was right there, staring me in the face.

My heart goes out to the innocent people who lost their lives, and those who kept their lives, but lost everything. This shouldn't have happened anywhere in the world, to anyone, but especially not a place as nice, and as loved as Paris. I just hope that everyone there can pick up the pieces, and help each other through this mess. Something tells me that they may need the support of the world around them.
Maybe they were waiting for the dust to settle, in case any following events prompted a change to the released message.

As for why they'd organize the attack: check out the link to Maajid Nawaz' piece on the last page. He reasons that the ensuing anti-muslim bigotry will serve as fuel for the extremist's narrative of muslim victimhood, giving them more ideological ground for recruitment. Both extremes of this debate are fuelling the cycle.
In response to Metamorphman
Metamorphman wrote:
Both extremes of this debate are fuelling the cycle.

This is an awesome statement, when you really think about it.

People do things we don't like, so we retaliate, which in turn gives them what they want. I'm sure you've been told by your parents to "Just ignore them" before, when it boils down to it, isn't this the same thing?

Either we attack back, and they can feel victimized and levvy more radicals to their cause, or we can not, and instead we simply suffer losses but it eventually fizzles out. Obviously attacking back is the better of two evils, but it's so paradoxical in nature, that there is no solution, aside from winning the conflict, quickly. Which in turn will probably cause other countries to get angry at you, and thus the cycle starts again.

There is no way to stop conflict, no perfect solution. Be them Muslim, male, female, or dinosaurs. "Make Love, not war" is myth. People will fight so long as they believe they are fighting for the right cause, and the moment you try to stop them, others will believe you're the bad person for it.
Eh, I don't think the upshot is so much to ignore it, but to take a more graded view. I.e. To say that islam/religion has nothing to do with it or that all muslims are terrorists essentially are two sides of the same coin. So instead, we support the liberal muslims in challenging islamic extremism, with the eventual goal of shutting off both anti-muslim bigots and islamic radicals from taking the field.
ISIS wants to be ignored. The less attention they have, the more successful their civil war becomes. The more interference from outside nations to come to the aid of Iraq and Syria, the harder it becomes on them to claim the states under their control.

Yes, they want to make attacks, they want to send a message, but this is a case of ISIS trying to have their cake and eat it. Unless we're able to somehow find a way to install a single, democratic government in the territory, this cycle is just going to keep happening as it's been doing for the last millennium or more.

Either way, the territory has proven that it is simply not capable of governing itself. The only way to end the violence, sadly enough, is to basically conquer the area and baby sit them like the children they act like. That's the last option I would ever resort to and it's something that would cause issues in its own right, but if handled properly, I don't think it's exactly the worst option there is.
In response to Kats
Kats wrote:
Either way, the territory has proven that it is simply not capable of governing itself. The only way to end the violence, sadly enough, is to basically conquer the area and baby sit them like the children they act like. That's the last option I would ever resort to and it's something that would cause issues in its own right, but if handled properly, I don't think it's exactly the worst option there is.

But aside from military action, it's also (maybe more) important to recognize the ideological bases from which ISIS grew, and nip it in the bud. A feat Muslims themselves have to take the lead in. At least, that's Nawaz' view.
Page: 1 2