Islamist Terrorism in the West

[George S.]

How about a cluster of bunker bombs.With these babies you can level a whole mountain.
With france its not the afterthoughts but they were warned that something was coming.
To be forwarned iusto be forarmed.They must have known who cares about excuses.

[Karposh]

I do agree with some of the sentiments being posted here about the current situation with ISIS being a by-product of the west sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong. However, I also think that people have to acknowledge, especially Muslims, that something isn’t quite right with Islam itself.

Every time terrorists go on the rampage in the name of Allah, the Muslim spin-doctors come out and tell us “Hey, don’t blame us, we’re not the terrorists”, “Islam is a religion of peace”, “Islam means peace” and, the biggest zinger of all, “When someone kills one person, it is like they have killed the whole of humanity”. Such profound words of wisdom but, unfortunately, these lines are getting a bit worn and stale.
How does one reconcile the notion of the “peaceful” religion of Islam and terrorists believing that they are doing “God’s good work” by killing infidels?

Politicians and police are very mindful not to inflame matters with knee-jerk and unconsidered statements so they choose their words very carefully. Their press conferences after each, sadly and worryingly, all too frequent terrorist attack around the world, are always meticulously stage managed for fear of saying something inflammatory. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. No one wants another Cronulla riot from occurring as a result of irresponsible loose canons, of the Alan Jones type, shooting their mouths off. They are being justifiably responsible.

However, I also think that Muslims need to take responsibility as well and not hide behind ready-made catch phrases and clichés. I saw some footage the other day of the brother of one of the Paris terrorists making a statement to the assembled reporters outside his home. Apparently, “neither he nor his family could have imagined that they were involved with the Paris attacks”. That’s all well and good and there’s probably no reason to doubt the guy but what annoys me most is the obligatory cop-out line that always follow such events. “Oh, he was always such a nice boy. He must have been radicalised somewhere. However, we have no idea when and where or by whom”. Well, I’m sorry but that’s not good enough.

This is what I can’t fathom and what absolutely terrifies me. It’s that unknown factor. Who will be the next nice boy that gets radicalised and decides to buy himself a one way ticket to paradise? Will it be the misguided young Ahmed from the down the road. Not him surely? His family is such a nice and progressive family.

I don’t pretend to have the answers. I’m just pointing out the problem the way I see it. It’s for Muslims to look inside themselves, their own communities and their religion to find the solutions. No western anti-radicalisation programs, seminars or conferences will help, I’m afraid.

[Gocka]

Some good points, but I have a few questions.

Do you feel the need to justify the innocence of your race, and or religion, every time a white guy who may or may not be a Christian commits murder?

It does sound like a cop out but there are over a billion Muslims in the world, many of them dont even live in or near the middle east. Its a bit unfair to try and look at them all as one big group.

The problem is more so that the regions that Muslims live in are generally totally destitute and hopeless, and perfect breeding grounds for violence. The middle east has been under perpetual war for decades now, that does things to people.

What are your thoughts on other violent groups around the worlds like, war lords in Africa, Monks in Myanmar, the KKK in the USA, the Nazis in Germany, Apartheid in South Africa, Neo Nazis all over Europe, etc etc. How many millions of deaths was Germany and Russia responsible for, not even 75 years ago.

I do agree that Islam, at least in this century, seems to be more easily bastardized than other religions, but if you go back one or two centuries, the crimes committed in the name of Christianity will make you want to throw up. The simple fact is that Christians have moved past that stage for the most part, while clearly Muslims are a bit behind.

I do agree with some of the sentiments being posted here about the current situation with ISIS being a by-product of the west sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong. However, I also think that people have to acknowledge, especially Muslims, that something isn’t quite right with Islam itself.

Every time terrorists go on the rampage in the name of Allah, the Muslim spin-doctors come out and tell us “Hey, don’t blame us, we’re not the terrorists”, “Islam is a religion of peace”, “Islam means peace” and, the biggest zinger of all, “When someone kills one person, it is like they have killed the whole of humanity”. Such profound words of wisdom but, unfortunately, these lines are getting a bit worn and stale.
How does one reconcile the notion of the “peaceful” religion of Islam and terrorists believing that they are doing “God’s good work” by killing infidels?

Politicians and police are very mindful not to inflame matters with knee-jerk and unconsidered statements so they choose their words very carefully. Their press conferences after each, sadly and worryingly, all too frequent terrorist attack around the world, are always meticulously stage managed for fear of saying something inflammatory. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. No one wants another Cronulla riot from occurring as a result of irresponsible loose canons, of the Alan Jones type, shooting their mouths off. They are being justifiably responsible.

However, I also think that Muslims need to take responsibility as well and not hide behind ready-made catch phrases and clichés. I saw some footage the other day of the brother of one of the Paris terrorists making a statement to the assembled reporters outside his home. Apparently, “neither he nor his family could have imagined that they were involved with the Paris attacks”. That’s all well and good and there’s probably no reason to doubt the guy but what annoys me most is the obligatory cop-out line that always follow such events. “Oh, he was always such a nice boy. He must have been radicalised somewhere. However, we have no idea when and where or by whom”. Well, I’m sorry but that’s not good enough.

This is what I can’t fathom and what absolutely terrifies me. It’s that unknown factor. Who will be the next nice boy that gets radicalised and decides to buy himself a one way ticket to paradise? Will it be the misguided young Ahmed from the down the road. Not him surely? His family is such a nice and progressive family.

I don’t pretend to have the answers. I’m just pointing out the problem the way I see it. It’s for Muslims to look inside themselves, their own communities and their religion to find the solutions. No western anti-radicalisation programs, seminars or conferences will help, I’m afraid.

[Karposh]

Do you feel the need to justify the innocence of your race, and or religion, every time a white guy who may or may not be a Christian commits murder?

It does sound like a cop out but there are over a billion Muslims in the world, many of them dont even live in or near the middle east. Its a bit unfair to try and look at them all as one big group.

The problem is more so that the regions that Muslims live in are generally totally destitute and hopeless, and perfect breeding grounds for violence. The middle east has been under perpetual war for decades now, that does things to people.

What are your thoughts on other violent groups around the worlds like, war lords in Africa, Monks in Myanmar, the KKK in the USA, the Nazis in Germany, Apartheid in South Africa, Neo Nazis all over Europe, etc etc. How many millions of deaths was Germany and Russia responsible for, not even 75 years ago.

Gocka, as far as I know, the west isn't blasting middle eastern countries in the name of Jesus. They are motivated by other factors. But I take your point, Muslims associate this as a some sort of crusade against them which is a worrying development. The whole religious undertones of us against the infidels is obvious to everyone.

Most of the African warlords are affiliated to various Muslim jihadi splinter groups. As for the examples of the past that you provide they were state sponsored, murderous oppressions. I'm sure you'll agree this is different. This is religious extremism with terrorism as the weapon of choice. Again, the billion Muslims around the world are not to blame but the point I was making was that westerners can't change the mindset of a radicalised young Muslim with a death wish to go and slaughter innocent people. It is up to Muslims to rein them in.

[Philosopher]

Ignorance and bigotry breed the same, but I suppose you wouldn't know anything about that.

Thank you Gocka for your enlightenment response.

It was a simple question, but a cheap-shot response.

I've come to expect that from you.

[Philosopher]

Some good points, but I have a few questions.

Do you feel the need to justify the innocence of your race, and or religion, every time a white guy who may or may not be a Christian commits murder?

It does sound like a cop out but there are over a billion Muslims in the world, many of them dont even live in or near the middle east. Its a bit unfair to try and look at them all as one big group.

The problem is more so that the regions that Muslims live in are generally totally destitute and hopeless, and perfect breeding grounds for violence. The middle east has been under perpetual war for decades now, that does things to people.

What are your thoughts on other violent groups around the worlds like, war lords in Africa, Monks in Myanmar, the KKK in the USA, the Nazis in Germany, Apartheid in South Africa, Neo Nazis all over Europe, etc etc. How many millions of deaths was Germany and Russia responsible for, not even 75 years ago.

I do agree that Islam, at least in this century, seems to be more easily bastardized than other religions, but if you go back one or two centuries, the crimes committed in the name of Christianity will make you want to throw up. The simple fact is that Christians have moved past that stage for the most part, while clearly Muslims are a bit behind.

It is fairly obvious from your response, and indeed many of your responses on this forum in regard to these types of issues, that you do not have the faintest understanding of Christianity, Islam, or their histories.

You can claim I'm a bigot and ignorant, but in reality the ignorance is all yours.

One, naturally, must distinguish between the teachings of Christ, as found in the Gospels and the New Testament, from the actions of alleged Christians. Surely you would know this, being the great enlightenment individual that you are. And please do not hint at colonialism or the crusades in some pathetic defense either.

[Gocka]

You can close your eyes all you want and pretend that people have never done anything bad in the name of Christianity, but its just not true. You dont have to go all the back to the Crusades, you can go back a few years when a maniac in Norway killed 80 children and teens in an act of terror. Despite that, none of that matters, the reason people kill is not important. There are parts in the old testament that encourage violence, and some people interpret it that way and others dont, every religion is that way. I judge people based on their actions.

When people commit horrific acts, I dont look at them and try to find some general trait that I can use to blame others for that individuals acts. This is the basis of personal responsibility. You dont need to know anything about any religion to know that it is unfair to blame and condemn a billion people for the acts of thousands.

The same logic hold true when you talk about black slavery in the USA. The guilty party is generally just "white people". Are all white people at fault for slavery? They were Christians too, are all whites and or Christians at fault? The Nazis were German and white, are all Germans or all white people responsible for Nazism? Most mass murderers are white in the USA, and most drug dealers are black. Most illegal immigrants in the USA are Latino, are all Latinos illegal immigrants? In an of these other cases generalizing and blaming the entire group for the actions of a few would be seen as bigotry, but I guess religion as always gets a special pass?

I dont care what the Koran says, I care what a person does, and if a billion people choose to practice Islam peacefully, than that is all that matters.

I apologize for the cheap shot. Lets try and reconcile. If you dont mind, explain to me your point of view, what am I missing and where am I mistaken?

It is fairly obvious from your response, and indeed many of your responses on this forum in regard to these types of issues, that you do not have the faintest understanding of Christianity, Islam, or their histories.

You can claim I'm a bigot and ignorant, but in reality the ignorance is all yours.

One, naturally, must distinguish between the teachings of Christ, as found in the Gospels and the New Testament, from the actions of alleged Christians. Surely you would know this, being the great enlightenment individual that you are. And please do not hint at colonialism or the crusades in some pathetic defense either.

[Philosopher]

You can close your eyes all you want and pretend that people have never done anything bad in the name of Christianity, but its just not true. You dont have to go all the back to the Crusades, you can go back a few years when a maniac in Norway killed 80 children and teens in an act of terror. Despite that, none of that matters, the reason people kill is not important. There are parts in the old testament that encourage violence, and some people interpret it that way and others dont, every religion is that way. I judge people based on their actions.

Again, I do not deny at all that people have done bad in the name of Christianity. I absolutely agree. But I feel it is imperative to distinguish between the teachings of Christ and the actions of so-called Christians. Reading the New Testament, there is no notion whatsoever of killing others or forcing others to convert to Christianity. There is no notion of violence at all.

So if I profess to be a Christian and go and blowup a coffee shop, it can be easily proven that such actions are un-Christian from the New Testament.

The same cannot be said about the Quran.

So the question is, when Muslims commit acts of violence, are they following the teachings of the Quran, or are they perverting it. I would argue the former.

Yes, not all Muslims are violent. And yes, one cannot blame all Muslims collectively for the alleged actions of some. We must assign blame to individuals. However, one must also consider the foundational dogmas of the collective group, and evaluate it in a non-politically correct manner. What this means is that if Islam is not a religion of peace, and indeed a dangerous religion, one should beware of the potential dangers this group pose to society as a whole.

Islamic apologists are very dishonest in their presentation of history and of their religion itself.

I apologize for the cheap shot. Lets try and reconcile. If you dont mind, explain to me your point of view, what am I missing and where am I mistaken?

Well first let me state that I find it doubtful that the terrorist attacks in Paris was the result of IS or Islamic terrorists. And while I believe Islam is not a religion of peace, I do not believe the various acts of terrorism are necessarily the works of Islamists.

Suffice to say that blowback is a very real possibility, but I do not dismiss alternative explanations like so many analysts do today.

What we do know, from the information already published online, is that French Jews were warned on Friday (the day of the attack) of terror attack chatter. The Bataclan theater in Paris (which was owned by a Jew) was also sold two months ago prior to the attack. This is significant because this previously Jewish owned theater has been theoretically targeted for terrorist attacks in the past for being Jewish owned. But curiously, it was only targeted after it was sold. And this after many years of terror plots and chatter. And yet, to this day, IS has never attacked Israel.

The French government was warned by Turkey, Iraq, and other governments of a planned attack. The CIA Director met with the Director of French intelligence prior to the attack. There was a terrorist drill on the day of the attack. What is also known is that the Syrian passport found in the scene of the crime is a plant. From whom, it is speculation. But it is a plant. It boggles the mind why a terrorist would bring a passport (an alleged fake one) on a suicide mission. The immediate reaction was to close the French border (something all of Europe is now considering). The Islamic migrants were responsible. Or so it was alleged. Now information is emerging suggesting that the terrorist attacks were the products of home-grown terrorists (Europe).

We also know the former head of the DIA General Michael Flynn has publicly stated that the rise of ISIL was a willful decision of the US government.

Now none of this may make sense to some, but consider the words of Plato. In the Republic, he warned that when the tyrant disposes of an enemy, he is always looking for a new enemy to rally the people behind him.

So what have we learned from all this?

That Snowden's leaks are responsible (because terrorism didn't exist prior to Snowden's leaks); that Western governments are demanding more emergency powers; that the lives of Parisians are more valuable than Russians, Lebanese, and Palestinians; and that alleged Islamic terrorists love carrying government issued identification cards with them on suicide missions (Charlie Hebdo, Paris attacks, etc).

[Gocka]

What about the old testament? Is it not also part of the bible, and thus part of the basis of Christianity? Radical Christians typically refer to the Old Testament when they call for some kind of violence, is this not a fact?


Over the centuries the Christian church has refined the bible and the interpretations of it to suit the times. The Church removed and added books that they thought were relevant/proper. People committed all sorts of horrors in the name of Christ (wrongfully so) but they still did. The religion has evolved and is today for the most part (not in Africa) a force for good. To draw a straight line from the time of Christ to today, and say it was all smooth sailing is nothing short of a lie. The bible was written in Hebrew, then translated to Greek then Latin, then German, then English. Over the centuries it has changed significantly. Some translations are a couple thousand years old, are they guaranteed to be 100% accurate today after a 100 translations? There are many teachings in the old testament that would justify death for certain sins, we know its there, but we choose to ignore them today as Christians. Its no different than Islam, I'm sure there are questionable things in the Quran, I'm sure there are violent calls to action, but its up to the Muslim community at large to decide what they agree with, and for the most part they decide on peace.

From a practical point of view, what do you suggest should be done? Should be ban the practice of Islam? I didn't really see a definite plan to your statements. Do you care to elaborate a little more on how non Muslims should conduct themselves.


For the second part, are you suggesting that Jews are the ones orchestrating these attacks in France? I also got the notion you were suggesting that ISIL is not a real group of radical terrorists, but a creation of the USA and or Israel? Again feel free to elaborate you have me intrigued. In your opinion what is going on the middle east and with these terrorist attacks?

Again, I do not deny at all that people have done bad in the name of Christianity. I absolutely agree. But I feel it is imperative to distinguish between the teachings of Christ and the actions of so-called Christians. Reading the New Testament, there is no notion whatsoever of killing others or forcing others to convert to Christianity. There is no notion of violence at all.

So if I profess to be a Christian and go and blowup a coffee shop, it can be easily proven that such actions are un-Christian from the New Testament.

The same cannot be said about the Quran.

So the question is, when Muslims commit acts of violence, are they following the teachings of the Quran, or are they perverting it. I would argue the former.

Yes, not all Muslims are violent. And yes, one cannot blame all Muslims collectively for the alleged actions of some. We must assign blame to individuals. However, one must also consider the foundational dogmas of the collective group, and evaluate it in a non-politically correct manner. What this means is that if Islam is not a religion of peace, and indeed a dangerous religion, one should beware of the potential dangers this group pose to society as a whole.

Islamic apologists are very dishonest in their presentation of history and of their religion itself.



Well first let me state that I find it doubtful that the terrorist attacks in Paris was the result of IS or Islamic terrorists. And while I believe Islam is not a religion of peace, I do not believe the various acts of terrorism are necessarily the works of Islamists.

Suffice to say that blowback is a very real possibility, but I do not dismiss alternative explanations like so many analysts do today.

What we do know, from the information already published online, is that French Jews were warned on Friday (the day of the attack) of terror attack chatter. The Bataclan theater in Paris (which was owned by a Jew) was also sold two months ago prior to the attack. This is significant because this previously Jewish owned theater has been theoretically targeted for terrorist attacks in the past for being Jewish owned. But curiously, it was only targeted after it was sold. And this after many years of terror plots and chatter. And yet, to this day, IS has never attacked Israel.

The French government was warned by Turkey, Iraq, and other governments of a planned attack. The CIA Director met with the Director of French intelligence prior to the attack. There was a terrorist drill on the day of the attack. What is also known is that the Syrian passport found in the scene of the crime is a plant. From whom, it is speculation. But it is a plant. It boggles the mind why a terrorist would bring a passport (an alleged fake one) on a suicide mission. The immediate reaction was to close the French border (something all of Europe is now considering). The Islamic migrants were responsible. Or so it was alleged. Now information is emerging suggesting that the terrorist attacks were the products of home-grown terrorists (Europe).

We also know the former head of the DIA General Michael Flynn has publicly stated that the rise of ISIL was a willful decision of the US government.

Now none of this may make sense to some, but consider the words of Plato. In the Republic, he warned that when the tyrant disposes of an enemy, he is always looking for a new enemy to rally the people behind him.

So what have we learned from all this?

That Snowden's leaks are responsible (because terrorism didn't exist prior to Snowden's leaks); that Western governments are demanding more emergency powers; that the lives of Parisians are more valuable than Russians, Lebanese, and Palestinians; and that alleged Islamic terrorists love carrying government issued identification cards with them on suicide missions (Charlie Hebdo, Paris attacks, etc).

[Karposh]

It’s admirable Gocka that you can push past the current goings on in the world as the act of a few deranged individuals and not as the act of the Muslim majority. And, just so there’s no confusion, I’m not being sarcastic when I say that. I sincerely mean it. I just wish I could be as liberal and open-minded as you seem to be. But, I’ll be honest, I’m not.

There’s a saying that has been thrown around in the media lately with regard to Islamic terrorism and that is “The Genie has been let out of the bottle”. My fear is that this genie will not be put back in its bottle for quite some time to come. I’m talking generations to come. The majority of Muslims are indeed not part of the world wide terrorist network, however, and maybe this is the bigot in me thinking this, there is quite approval of what is going on by this “peaceful” majority. And, yes, it is a network and it has gone global. You would be naïve to think otherwise.

I don’t think anyone is disputing that white people have been responsible for some horrific acts of terrorism over the years, decades and centuries. As you say, the Norway massacre comes to mind, mass shootings in America, Oklahoma City bombing, IRA attacks, ETA attacks, heck even our very own Salonika Terrorists of 1903, not to mention IMRO actions during the 1920’s and 1930’s. I can go on and on but I think we get the picture.

What is different about this current situation is that it is happening now and affects all of us. The call to arms by ISIS to Muslims around the world for a holy war is that it affects every western country in the world where Muslim communities have migrated to and currently co-exist with the rest of us. I don’t think you, me, or anyone else would be so liberal-minded if, God forbid, some recently radicalised lunatic decided to strap on a bomb and blow him/herself up on a packed train or bus here in Australia. I would be even less tolerant if a single hair was hurt on any of my loved ones that happened to be on that train or bus.

The peaceful Muslim majority will not send their armies, navies or air forces to attack us. They will continue to be peaceful. It’s the random nature of the unknown radical that could be activated at anytime that gives a whole new horrifying dimension to this type of extremist terrorism.

Your point about the Old Testament is not valid. It is something that is often thrown around by people who want to make the point you are trying to make. As Christians, we follow the teachings of the New Testament and not the Jewish Torah, which is basically the Old Testament. Anyone who picks up the sword in the name of Christianity is not a Christian. That is not what Jesus taught. The reason we have the Old Testament as part of the Christian Bible is because Christians believe that everything that happened before Christ paved the way for his arrival on earth and needs to be included.

I’ll concede that atrocities things have been done in the name of Christ. The Spanish Inquisition, attacks on presumed heresies (often unproven), Catholic Vs Protestant wars, etc. I made the point in an unrelated thread about the Greek atrocities against Muslim Turks in Attica and Peloponnese during the Greek War of Independence. While I’m in the Balkans, I might as well give the Catholic Croatian Ustasha a dishonourable mention with the slaughter of Orthodox Serbs during WWII. The list goes on and on.

You are slowly turning this thread into a theological debate which is beginning to get off-topic and your problem seems to be with religion itself as the source of all evil and trouble in the world. Perhaps we can discuss this on a different thread because if we’re looking for precedence into the sins of the Church we could probably go back all the way to original sin itself when Eve offered Adam the forbidden fruit. I am a Christian and I don’t apologise for that. The sins of so-called Christians that did all these bad things in the name of Christ will be held to account when the day comes.

Would I be mistaken to presume that in your eyes the ideal or utopian world would have no God or religion at all? If that is the case, then I do not want to belong to such a world. The fact is that most people around the world have indeed abandoned God and are hardly practicing “Christians”. They are Christians in name only. Everything you have said has been said and adopted by the people who share your views. The modern and enlightened world has given rise to a new form of religion, Humanism and it has been popularly embraced. Not to be mistaken with being humane, Humanists put themselves first, that is to say, the worship of one ’s self. And Hedonism is their philosophy or mantra. Do whatever you feel like and whatever feels good. There shall be no “Thou shall not”, only “Do what you want to do and don’t let anyone else tell you otherwise.”

In a world obsessed with the most current fad or trend doing the rounds, Christianity has become an out-dated thing of the past, even a dirty word. The current Humanist movement is preaching a new gospel to the masses and slowly suffocating 2000 years of Christian traditions. Ironically, Christians have become the new bad guys today while homosexuals and other degenerates have been elevated to martyr-like status in their “good fight” for equality. It’s not just homosexuality that Humanism is pushing forward. Promiscuity is being promoted, even celebrated, as is superficial vanity, materialism, greed, being unfaithful, etc.

True Christians are well aware that when you take God out of the equation, society quickly begins to erode away at the edges and this is evident for all to see. Broken families, disrespectful kids and teenagers, aggression, alcoholism, drugs…The list goes on and on. You don’t need God to behave conscionably, Humanists will tell you. No, Humanists are happy to set there own moral compass and calibrate their own individual behavioural gauges to suit. Therein lays the problem with Humanism, however. With Humanism, you can set your own individual behavioural gauge as low as you like before you can start to feel responsible for your own actions. It’s up to the individual to decide right from wrong as he sees fit.

[Philosopher]

What about the old testament? Is it not also part of the bible, and thus part of the basis of Christianity? Radical Christians typically refer to the Old Testament when they call for some kind of violence, is this not a fact?

You have brought up a number of issues, which as Karposh wrote, cannot possibly debated here. Suffice to say I disagree with much of what you wrote.

From a practical point of view, what do you suggest should be done? Should be ban the practice of Islam? I didn't really see a definite plan to your statements. Do you care to elaborate a little more on how non Muslims should conduct themselves.

No, Islam should not be banned. Individuals who practice Islam and use it to violate laws should be punished, and the same applies to people of all religions.

Muslims should be afforded the same rights and freedoms as all people. In a free and open society, it is important to allow everyone to practice their religion so long as religion is not used as a cloak for criminal acts.

All I'm arguing is that Islam is a dangerous religion, but most Muslims are nominal, and don't live by the Quran. And even the ones that do are not likely to commit acts of terrorism for fear of criminal consequences. However, one should be aware of political Islam and its aspirations. Islamists will use tolerance (which is a good thing) against the West until they gain power, in which case no tolerance will be extended to us. This may never happen, but it may happen, and in either instance it is important to know the foundational beliefs of Muslims.

For the second part, are you suggesting that Jews are the ones orchestrating these attacks in France? I also got the notion you were suggesting that ISIL is not a real group of radical terrorists, but a creation of the USA and or Israel? Again feel free to elaborate you have me intrigued. In your opinion what is going on the middle east and with these terrorist attacks?

No, “Jews” are not the ones orchestrating terrorist attacks in France. All I'm arguing is that just because the government in France says IS is responsible does not mean that it is. What I'm hinting at is that intelligence agencies use black-ops, which can make it appear like it was one group when it was another. When state-issued identification cards are left on the scene of the crime, especially when there is no reason for ID cards to be even present, it is usually indicative of what is known in the intelligence community as a “false-flag”. They're plants. You frame your political enemies. So in this instance, it is possible, and probably even likely, that the Paris attacks are not as they appear.

[Gocka]

Its not too much too much. Is the old testament open to interpretation that can encourage violence against certain sinners? Yes or no?


If the attack in Paris are no as they seem, and it is not IS, who was it and why?

You have brought up a number of issues, which as Karposh wrote, cannot possibly debated here. Suffice to say I disagree with much of what you wrote.






No, “Jews” are not the ones orchestrating terrorist attacks in France. All I'm arguing is that just because the government in France says IS is responsible does not mean that it is. What I'm hinting at is that intelligence agencies use black-ops, which can make it appear like it was one group when it was another. When state-issued identification cards are left on the scene of the crime, especially when there is no reason for ID cards to be even present, it is usually indicative of what is known in the intelligence community as a “false-flag”. They're plants. You frame your political enemies. So in this instance, it is possible, and probably even likely, that the Paris attacks are not as they appear.

[Tomche Makedonche]

If the attack in Paris are no as they seem, and it is not IS, who was it and why?

I agree, some assistance in joining the dots on this alternate theory would be appreciated

[Philosopher]

Its not too much too much. Is the old testament open to interpretation that can encourage violence against certain sinners? Yes or no?

To be fair, I spoke about the words of Christ and the New Testament. Not the Old Testament. However, I will play ball. Yes, the Old Testament can be construed to encourage violence against certain sinners. No question. I would add that a misunderstanding of the Old Testament (which is very common in Christendom) is largely responsible for a number of problems in the world today, and in particular the Middle East. Israel and Jewish worshiping Christians are a large part of that.

But also to be fair, it is called “Old Testament” for a reason, as there is a New Testament. Moreover, Old Testament Israel was a theocracy, and its main objective was to prepare the coming of Christ and the New Testament.

Again, much can be said about this, and I feel your understanding (no disrespect intended) is rather shallow on this topic.

If the attack in Paris are no as they seem, and it is not IS, who was it and why?

Well, that is a good question.

The attacks in Paris appear to be by professionals, similar to the Charlie Hebdo attack, which evidently was the work of the Israeli Mossad.

I would not discount a black-ops from French, English, US, and of course, Israeli intelligence.

Here is an article which I think provides fairly good analysis.

[Philosopher]

Washington Refines Its False Flag Operations — Paul Craig Roberts

Washington Refines Its False Flag Operations
Paul Craig Roberts

Washington and its French vassal have refined how they conduct their false flag operations. With the Charlie Hebdo operation, they knew to immediately set the story in stone in order to avoid any questions from the print and TV media and in order to use the set story to take the place of an investigation.

The set story made it unnecessary to explain the mysterious “suicide” of one of the main police investigators while engaged in the investigation of the event. The set story also made it unnecessary to explain why it was necessary to kill rather than capture the alleged perpetrators, or to explain how the French authorities could be so wrong about the alleged get-away-driver but not about the two gunmen. There has been no explanation why the authorities believed there was a get-away-driver, and no such driver has been captured or killed. Indeed, there are many unanswered questions of no interest to any media except the alternative Internet media.
What the US and France learned from the Charlie Hebdo skepticism on the Internet is to keep the story flowing. Charlie Hebdo involved two scenes of violence, and the connection between the two acts of terrorism was vague. This time there were several scenes of violence, and they were better connected in the story.

More importantly, the story was followed quickly by more drama, such as the pursuit of a suspected perpetrator into Belgium, a French bombing attack on the Islamic State, a French aircraft carrier sent to the Middle East, a declaration of war by the French President against ISIL, and speculation that Hollande, pressured by Washington, will invoke NATO’s Article V, which will pull NATO into an invasion of the Islamic State. By superceding each event with a new one, the public’s attention is shifted away from the attack itself and the interests served by the attack. Already the attack itself is old news. The public’s attention has been led elsewhere. How soon will NATO have boots on the ground?

The Western media has avoided many interesting aspects of the Paris attacks. For example, what did the directors of the CIA and French intelligence discuss at their meeting a few days prior to the Paris attacks. Why were fake passports used to identify attackers? Why did the attacks occur on the same day as a multi-site simulation of a terrorist attack involving first responders, police, emergency services and medical personnel? Why has there been no media investigation of the report that French police were blinded by a sophisticated cyber attack on their mobile data tracking system? Does anyone really believe that ISIL has such capability?
The Western media serves merely as an amplifier of the government’s propaganda. Even the non-Western media follows this pattern because of the titillating effect. It is a good story for the media, and it requires no effort.

Initially even the Russian media served to trumpet the set story that rescues the Western political establishment from political defeat at home and Russian defeat in Syria. But it wasn’t too long before some of the Russian media remembered numerous false stories about a Russian invasion of Ukraine, about Assad’s use of chemical weapons, about US ABMs being placed on Russia’s borders to protect Europe from nonexistent Iranian nuclear ICBMs. And so on.

Russian media began asking questions and received some good answers from Gearoid O Colmain: https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_con...&v=L7GAbVhjTSw

To understand the Paris attacks, it helps to begin with the question: “What is ISIL?” Apparently, ISIL is a creation of the CIA or some deep-state organization shielded by the CIA’s operations department. ISIL seems to have been used to overthrow Quadaffi in Libya and then sent to overthrow Assad in Syria. One would think that ISIL would be throughly infiltrated by the CIA, Mossad, British and French intelligence. Perhaps ISIL is discovering that it is an independent power and is substituting an agenda of its own for Washington’s, but ISIL still appears to be at least partially dependent on support, active or passive, from Washington.

ISIL is a new group that suddenly appeared. ISIL is portrayed as barbaric knife-wielding fanatics from medieval times. How did such a group so quickly acquire such extensive global capability as to blow a Russian airliner out of Egyptian skies, conduct bombings in Lebanon and Turkey, outwit French intelligence and conduct successful multi-prong attacks in Paris? How come ISIL never attacks Israel?
The next question is: “How does the Paris attack benefit ISIL?” Is it a benefit to ISIL to have Europe’s borders closed, thus halting ISIL’s ability to infiltrate Europe as refugees? Does it help ISIL to provoke French bombing of ISIL positions in the Middle East and to bring upon itself a NATO invasion?

Who does benefit? Clearly, the European and American political establishment in so many ways. Establishment political parties in France, Germany, and the UK are in trouble, because they enabled Washington’s Middle East wars that are bringing floods of refugees into Europe. Pegida is rising in Germany, Farage’s Independent Party in the UK, and Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France. Indeed, a recent poll showed Marine Le Pen in the lead as the next president of France.

The Paris attack takes the issue and the initiative away from these dissident political parties. Among the first words out of the mouth of the French president in response to the attack was his declaration that the borders of France are closed. Already Merkel’s political allies in Germany are pushing her government in that direction. “Paris changes everything,” they declare. It certainly saved the European political establishment from defeat and loss of power.

The same result occurred in the US. Outsiders Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were slaughtering the establishment’s presidential candidates. Trump and Sanders had the momentum. But “Paris changes everything.” Trump and Sanders are now sidelined, out of the news. The momentum is lost. The story has changed. “Paris attacks become focus of 2016 race,” declares CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politi...ion/index.html

Also among the early words from the French president, and without any evidence in support, was Hollande’s declaration that the Islamic State had attacked the French nation. Obviously, it is set for Hollande to invoke NATO’s Article V, which would send a NATO invasion force into Syria. This would be Washington’s way of countering the Russian initiative that has saved the Assad government from defeat by the Islamic State. The NATO invasion would overthrow Assad as part of the war against the Islamic State.

The Russian government did not immediately recognize this threat. The Russian government saw in the Paris attack the opportunity to gain Western cooperation in the fight against ISIL. The Russian line has been that we must all fight ISIL together.
The Russian presence, although highly effective, is small in Syria. What does the Russian government do when its policy in Syria is crowded by a NATO invasion?
The only benefactor of the Paris attack is the Western political establishment and Washington’s goal of unseating Assad in Syria. The Paris attack has removed the threat to the French, German, and British political establishments from the National Front, Pegida, and the UK Independence Party. The Paris attack has removed the threat to the US political establishment from Trump and Sanders. The Paris attack has advanced Washington’s goal of removing Assad from power.

The answer to the Roman question, “cui bono,” is clear.

But don’t expect to hear it from the Western media.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/11/16/washington-refines-its-false-flag-operations-paul-craig-roberts/