Tag Archives: Paris attacks

Nothing to Fear But the Fearful Themselves, by Dan Sanchez

From Dan Sanchez at antiwar.com:

From Paris to San Bernardino

When I first learned of the recent attacks in Paris, a chill went down my spine. “No,” I thought, “This is all happening too fast.”

I was terrified. I was not terrorized, mind you. What happened in Paris was tragic, of course. But I was not so ignorant and innumerate as to think the kind of violence it represented was a statistically significant direct threat to myself and my loved ones. I was fully cognizant that, even with the recent uptick in terror attacks, the probability of my family ever being caught up in one was vanishingly minuscule. I am more likely to be felled by a deer or a bolt of lightning than by a jihadist’s Kalashnikov.

What terrified me was the response of all the people who are incapable of such a proportional perspective: those who saw the news from France and panicked, thinking “I’m next!” As distant as it was, the Paris attacks unleashed in America a surge of fear and of calls for greater police powers, as well as an attendant wave of anti-Muslim hate and war lust.

And as sophisticated and urbane as the French are reputed to be, they too let irrational terror wash over them. And under its sway, they permitted the State to run rampant over life and liberty. The public attitude was distilled by a young French citizen whose message to her government was, “Do whatever you want, but keep me safe.” With this mandate, France escalated its pointless and terrorist-breeding bombing of civilian-filled Syrian towns. And at home, as Truth in Media reported:

“…the French government declared a state of emergency based on a rarely used 1955 law that allows the state to conduct warrant-less searches of private property, impose curfews, restrict public gatherings and movements of people, confiscate weapons at will and take over the press.”

As always, the statist public perversely responded to terrorism drawn upon their heads by their government’s foreign militancy by sanctioning more such militancy. And it perversely rewarded that government for its abject failure to prevent the attacks with more resources, powers, and responsibility.

On top of arrest sweeps and threatening to close mosques, the French government’s emergency powers were invoked to place activists under house arrest in order to squelch completely unrelated protests. This demonstrated vividly that war is indeed the health of the State, and war-spawned terrorist attacks are like an adrenaline shot for domestic tyranny.

When I saw these responses, it fully sank in just how surrounded my family and I are by human livestock and just how acutely dangerous that position is. I realized that, when an attack of that scale and shock-value again happens on American soil, the pack-minded multitudes all around me will deafeningly bay for war. And the herd-minded hundreds of millions will stampede to the State for security, bleating to please, please be shorn of their remaining liberties.

To continue reading: Nothing to Fear But the Fearful Themselves

Will Europe Man Up? by Patrick Buchanan

From Patrick Buchanan at buchanan.org:

If the purpose of terrorism is to terrify, the Islamic State had an extraordinary week. Brussels, capital of the EU and command post of mighty NATO, is still in panic and lockdown.

“In Brussels, fear of attack lingers” was Monday’s headline over The Washington Post’s top story, which read:

“Not since Boston came to a near-standstill after the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 has the life of a major Western city been brought to a halt this way by the fear of terrorism.”

Below that is this headline: “After Paris, a campaign changed by fear.”

That story is about what’s happened in our presidential race: “Across the country … have come pronouncements of anger and fear not seen after the terrorist attacks in London and Madrid — or even in some ways after Sept. 11 2001.”

Voters speak of “feeling more afraid of the Islamic State, more horrified by the imagery of the beheadings and other atrocities.”

The New York Times’ Roger Cohen describes the Paris he loves.

“[T]hey are shaken. There is a void in the streets too empty, a new suspicion in appraising glances, a wary numbness. Paris is afflicted with absences — the dead, of course; visitors frightened away; minds frozen by fear; and tranquility lost. The city feels vulnerable.”

“I think France is attacked above all for what it is,” writes Cohen, “That in turn is terrifying. … I don’t think Paris has ever felt so precious or precarious to me as it did over the past week.”

Terrible as the massacres were, some perspective is in order.

To continue reading: Will Europe Man Up?

Rue Sans Issue: French Middle East Policy Reaches a Bloody Dead End, by Steven Vujacic

From Steven Vujacic at antiwar.com:

The media high-fiving didn’t last long. Barely hours following the announcement of the “probable” death of anti-celebrity and throat-cutting ISIS pin-up boy “Jihadi John”, Paris was treated to a stunning choreography of terrorist attacks in supposed revenge for the constant and mostly ineffectual French bombing of ISIS targets in Syria.

The eternally hapless president of France did his best to look stern and statesmanlike in response to the massacre but anyone with half a brain must by now be asking themselves whether “Flamby” has a Plan B beyond more sanctimonious rhetoric and flashy air sorties.

The truth hurts. Hollande’s trademark denunciations of terrorism failed to hide the simple fact that French policies have consistently played into the hands of jihadists. From the ill-conceived removal of Muammar Ghaddafi, sworn enemy of Islamic fundamentalism, to the current French government’s strident defense of the incessant and puerile anti-Islamic insults of Charlie Hebdo, to its farcical attempts to weaken the anti-terrorist regime of Bashar al-Assad by judicial means, (i.e., the announcement of war crimes “investigations”), ISIS’ influence and confidence has grown with each French blunder. ISIS has always known exactly what it wants and it senses it is on a big winning streak. As leader of the country with the biggest Arab immigrant population in Europe, one wonders what more Hollande could have done to make life easy for ISIS short of issuing French passports to its entire leadership.

There is only one word to describe France’s foreign policy in the Middle East: reckless. France appears to have taken leave of its senses. Instead of maintaining a low profile anti-terrorist approach which guaranteed security at home, it has opted for the worst of all worlds – loud liberal sermons combined with overt and bloody intervention in a hugely volatile part of the world that has strong ties with a large and increasingly alienated segment of French society.

As the death toll rises, I listen in vain for any recognition that France has taken a wrong turn. That defending Western values in the Middle East and North Africa with air strikes, drones etc. is a moral and military dead end, pure and simple. Nothing. No self-reflection. No doubts. The liberal enlightened West never makes mistakes.

To keep reading: French Middle East Policy Reaches a Bloody Dead End

U.S. Government Moves to Exploit Paris Terror Attacks to Ban Privacy, by Michael Krieger

From Michael Krieger at libertyblitzkrieg.com:

Last week, the British Prime Minister told Parliament that he wants to “ensure that terrorists do not have a safe space in which to communicate.”

Strong encryption refers to the act of scrambling data in such a way that it cannot be understood by anyone without the correct key or password — even law enforcement with a warrant, or the software manufacturer itself. It’s used in some of the most popular tech products in the world, including the iPhone, WhatsApp messenger, and Facebook.

A highly respected cryptographer and security expert is warning that David Cameron’s proposed ban on strong encryption threatens to “destroy the internet.”

– From the post: Top Computer Security Expert Warns – David Cameron’s Plan to Ban Encryption Would “Destroy the Internet”

You didn’t think the surveillance state would give up that easily did you? Of course not.

Unsurprisingly, fresh off the heels of the Paris terror attacks, the usual authoritarian suspects in the U.S. government are running around exploiting the tragedy in a bid to further erode privacy and civil liberties.

Bloomberg reports:

The bloodshed in Paris led U.S. officials Monday to renew calls for limits on technology that prevents governments from spying on phone conversations, text messages and e-mails.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, said she asked Silicon Valley companies to help law enforcement and intelligence agencies access communications that have been encrypted — or scrambled to evade surveillance — if terrorists are using the tools to plan attacks.
“I have asked for help. And I haven’t gotten any help,” Feinstein said Monday in an interview with MSNBC. “If you create a product that allows evil monsters to communicate in this way, to behead children, to strike innocents, whether it’s at a game in a stadium, in a small restaurant in Paris, take down an airliner, that’s a big problem.”

This woman has absolutely no shame whatsoever.

Brennan said he hopes the Paris attacks will serve as “a wake-up call” for European governments who have been critical of spy programs.

Yes, wake up and give up your freedoms before the terrorists have a chance to take them. That’ll show ’em.

To continue reading: U.S. Government Moves to Exploit Paris Terror Attacks to Ban Privacy

Western Double Standards on Terrorism Deaths, by Muhammad Sahimi

There are some people who will skip this article when they see the name of the author, which will only serve as proof of what the author is saying. From Muhammad Sahimi at antiwar.com:

The Islamic State (IS), also known as the ISIS and ISIL, has taken responsibility for the horrendous terrorist attacks on Paris that murdered 129 innocent people and injured hundreds more. The criminal act has been rightly condemned by world’s leader, ranging from President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron, to President Hassan Rouhani of Iran and even Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah. The attacks have rightly outraged ordinary people everywhere. There is a feeling of solidarity with the people of France everywhere, and there should be. But, the solidarity and sympathy appear to be selective.

The day before the Paris attacks, the IS took responsibility for carrying out another horrendous terrorist bombing, this time in the Shiite neighborhood of Beirut that killed at least 43 people and wounded hundreds.

The day before the Beirut attacks suicide bombing by the IS killed at least 26 people in Baghdad. From August through November the IS carried out a series of other terrorist attacks in Baghdad. The August attacks murdered killed at least 80 people; The September attacks killed at least 13 people, while the October bombing took the lives of at least 24 innocent people. Thus, 143 Iraqis have lost their lives at the hands of the IS over the past three months.

What has been the world’s, and in particular’ the West’s reaction to the carnage in Beirut and Baghdad? Nothing; no sympathy with the Lebanese and Iraqi people was expressed. No message of solidarity was sent, and no demonstrations or gatherings took place outside Lebanon’s and Iraq’s diplomatic missions anywhere in the Western world. The world was silent, as it has been about similar terrorist attacks over the past few months have killed a large number of innocent Muslims around the world.

Why is it that Western governments and people said almost nothing about the IS crimes in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere in the Islamic world, which has in fact been happening on a regular basis for over two years now, while expect everyone to condemn the Paris attack, and in fact hold that as a measure of how strongly anti-terrorism is a nation and its people? Muslim people everywhere condemned the Paris attacks using the strongest language. Will Christians and Jews condemn the Beirut and Baghdad attacks? Do not hold your breath; it will not be coming. The double standards of the West and the Christians and Jews, and their selective grief and outrage, cannot be more glaring.

In fact, the Paris attacks have given new excuses to warmongers and Islamophobes in the U.S. to attack the President and Muslims – not that the President himself has not contributed to the bloodshed in the Middle East and North Africa; he has mightily. Appearing as moral impostors, they are calling for new wars against Muslim nations in the Middle East, and spreading Islamophobia and prejudice against Muslims in the United States.

To continue reading: Western Double Standards on Terrorism Deaths

Following Paris Terror Attacks, Only Three Things Are Guaranteed, by Nick Bernabe

From Nick Bernabe at theantimedia.org:

France was victimized by a bloody terror attack on the evening of November 13th, 2015. ISIS, the self-proclaimed “Islamic caliphate,” has taken credit for the Paris terror attacks, which claimed the lives of at least 129 people and wounded another 415.

The world is grieving, with millions on social media declaring their solidarity with France. Millions more are asking why so many are outraged now, when thousands of people are killed daily in conflicts the world over.

In the aftermath of the attack, several realities have become clear. Taking history into account, three things will undoubtedly occur in response to the terror attacks in Paris.

Yet More War

The world is plagued by war, and following the Paris attacks, there is about to be a lot more of it. French President Francois Hollande quickly declared Friday’s terror attacks acts of war, making it clear through his actions over the weekend what the answer to those acts will be: bombs — and a lot of them.

France carried out over 100 airstrikes in Syria on Sunday, with many more sure to come in Hollande’s “pitiless war” against those responsible for the attacks. France has already been involved with the civil war in Syria, fighting alongside the U.S. At the same time, it has stuck to the West’s talking point that Assad must be deposed for there to be a political solution to the conflict.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the U.S. is gearing up to exploit the attacks in Paris by calling for more military intervention in Syria. First it was politicians, then the establishment media who called for a more direct response from the United States — up to and including a full-scale invasion of Syria.

President Obama has already stymied such calls for a full-scale military operation in Syria, ruling out a ground invasion. “It’s best that we don’t shoot first and aim later,” he said. The president continued:

“We play into the ISIL narrative when we act as if they are a state and we use routine military tactics that are designed to fight a state that is attacking another state. That’s not what’s going on here.”

While this rhetoric is rather rational, it’s hard to believe the president will stick to his words, especially considering he proclaimed the U.S. would not deploy boots on the ground in Syria at least 16 times — only to do just that months later.

As Anti-Media noted earlier today, Sunday’s entire Democratic presidential debate was intentionally shifted to focus on foreign policy and anti-terror measures — and the candidates responded with forcefully hawkish rhetoric (with the exception of Bernie Sanders).

The information that seems to be missing from the entire conversation is that it was forceful foreign policy, accelerated by George W. Bush and continued by President Obama, that is directly responsible for the rise of ISIS in the first place. The short-sighted rhetoric political figures and media pundits are now spouting is highly reminiscent of post-9/11 fervor — and could lead to more of the same foreign policy blunders made in the years following 2001.

To continue reading: Following Paris Terror Attacks, Only Three Things Are Guaranteed

A Most Convenient Massacre, by Dmitry Orlov

From Dmitry Orlov at cluborlov.blogspot.com:

What a difference a single massacre can make!

• Just a week ago the EU couldn’t possibly figure out anything to do to stop the influx of “refugees” from all those countries the US and NATO had bombed into oblivion. But now, because “Paris changed everything,” EU’s borders are being locked down and refugees are being turned back.

• Just a week ago it seemed that the EU was going to be swamped by resurgent nationalism, with incumbent political parties poised to get voted out of power. But now, thanks to the Paris massacre, they have obtained a new lease on life, because they can now safely embrace the same policies that a week ago they branded as “fascist.”

• Just a week ago the EU and the US couldn’t possibly bring themselves admit that they are utterly incompetent when it comes to combating their own creation—ISIS, that is—and need Russian help. But now, at the après-Paris G-20 summit, everybody is ready to line up and let Putin take charge of the war against terrorism. Look—the Americans finally found those convoys of tanker trucks stretching beyond the horizon that ISIS has been using to smuggle out stolen Syrian crude oil—after Putin showed them the satellite photos!

Am I being crass and insensitive? Not at all—I deplore all the deaths from terrorist attacks in Iraq, in Syria, in Lebanon, and in all the other countries whose populations did absolutely nothing to deserve such treatment. I only feel half as bad about the French, who stood by quietly as their military helped destroy Libya (which did nothing to deserve it).

Note that after the Russian jet crashed in the Sinai there weren’t all that many Facebook avatars with the Russian flag pasted over them, and hardly any candlelight vigils or piles of wreaths and flowers in various Western capitals. I even detected a whiff of smug satisfaction that the Russians got their comeuppance for stepping out of line in Syria.

To continue reading: A Most Convenient Massacre

From Paris to Polarization, by Dan Sanchez

From Dan Sanchez at antiwar.com:

What were the Islamist terrorists trying to accomplish by attacking Paris on Friday, killing over 300 French civilians? An increasing number of analysts now agree with Juan Cole’s theory, which he raised after the last such attack (the Charlie Hebdo murders), writing:

“The problem for a terrorist group like al-Qaeda is that its recruitment pool is Muslims, but most Muslims are not interested in terrorism. Most Muslims are not even interested in politics, much less political Islam. France is a country of 66 million, of which about 5 million is of Muslim heritage. But in polling, only a third, less than 2 million, say that they are interested in religion. French Muslims may be the most secular Muslim-heritage population in the world… In Paris, where Muslims tend to be better educated and more religious, the vast majority reject violence and say they are loyal to France.

Al-Qaeda wants to mentally colonize French Muslims, but faces a wall of disinterest. But if it can get non-Muslim French to be beastly to ethnic Muslims on the grounds that they are Muslims, it can start creating a common political identity around grievance against discrimination.”

Cole likened this strategy to the early 20th century communist revolutionaries in Austria who would launch attacks for the express purpose of provoking a police crackdown on left-leaning citizens in order to radicalize them. From the perspective of the vanguard of the proletariat:

“…the fact that most students and workers don’t want to overthrow the business class is inconvenient, and so it seemed desirable to some of them to “sharpen the contradictions” between labor and capital.”

This is the strategy explicitly professed by ISIS (aka Daesh), the group that almost surely perpetrated the Friday attacks. Also shortly after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, in its official magazine Dabiq, ISIS ran an article titled, “The Extinction of the Grayzone.”

The “grayzone” is the “gray area” between black and white. According to the authors, the grayzone is the middle ground between extremist, Salafi, terrorist theocrats (i.e., themselves, whom they exclusively regard as the “camp of Islam”) on one side and an imperialist, war-waging, western “crusader camp” on the other.

In other words, the grayzone is the realm of coexistence, communication, cooperation, and commerce among people of different creeds. The grayzone is where civilization resides.

To continue reading: From Paris to Polarization

Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This, by Peter Van Buren

From Peter Van Buren at antiwar.com:

You don’t want to read this, and I take no pleasure in writing it, and no one really wants to hear it right now. But I believe it needs to be said.

I join the world in grieving for the dead in Paris. I have grieved for the dead from 9/11 forward – the Australians who died in terror attacks on Bali in 2005, Londoners who died in terror attacks in 2005, the French citizens who died in the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January of this year, the Russians whose plane went down over the Sinai a week or so ago. I grieve also for those killed in smaller attacks already smuggled deep into the obscurity of our memory.

And so we Tweet hashtags and phrases in high school French and post GIFs to Facebook. We know what to do; we’ve done this before.

But it has to be said, especially looking at the sick repetition of the same story, that despite fourteen plus years of a war on terror, terror seems to be with us as much as ever, maybe even more. It is time to rethink what we have done and are doing.

Since that day in 2001, the one with those terrible sparkling blue skies in New York, we have spied on the world, Americans at home and foreigners abroad, yet no one detected anything that stopped the Paris attacks. We gave up much to that spying and got nothing in return.

Since 2001, the United States has led nations like Britain, France, Australia and others into wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, with drone attacks on people from the Philippines to Pakistan to all parts of Africa. We have little to nothing to show for all that.

Since 2001 the US has expended enormous efforts to kill a handful of men – bin Laden, al-Zarqawi, al-Awlaki, and this weekend, Jihadi John. Others, many without names, were killed outside of media attention, or were tortured to death, or are still rotting in the offshore penal colony of Guantanamo, or the dark hell of the Salt Pit in Afghanistan.

And it has not worked, and Paris this weekend, and the next one somewhere else sometime soon, are the proof.

We gave up many of our freedoms in America to defeat the terrorists. It did not work. We gave the lives of over 4,000 American men and women in Iraq, and thousands more in Afghanistan, to defeat the terrorists, and refuse to ask what they died for. We killed tens of thousands or more in those countries. It did not work. We went to war again in Iraq, and now in Syria, before in Libya, and only created more failed states and ungoverned spaces that provide havens for terrorists and spilled terror like dropped paint across borders. We harass and discriminate against our own Muslim populations and then stand slack-jawed as they become radicalized, and all we do then is blame ISIS for Tweeting.

To continue reading: Paris: You Don’t Want to Read This

The Least Surprising Headline of the New Year, by Robert Gore

Anyone surprised by the following headline should not be allowed to vote, drive, operate heavy machinery, or possess firearms.

France to Boost Online Surveillance Powers, Government Seeks Law Forcing More Cooperation From Tech Firms as Victims of Last Week’s Attacks Are Solemny Honored

The Wall Street Journal, 1/14/15

Did existing online surveillance prevent the Paris attacks? No. Will increased surveillance prevent future attacks? Probably not. Will increased surveillance further increase the government’s ability to monitor French citizens, and thus its power over them? Yes. Will it increase its power over the internet, the freest aspect of contemporary life? Yes. Are the French people trading more of their dwindling liberty for what will prove to be a chimera of increased security? Yes. Were all those leaders at the front of the Paris march demonstrating their commitment to free speech and civil liberties, or their commitment to curtailing them in the name of a never-ending war on a tactic—terror—a war in which they employ the same tactic? Time will tell, but if past form holds true, the smart-money bet is obvious.