Paris Terror Attacks

[Rozalia]

1. I would not consider myself a "world without borders" person. Obviously we need borders to know who owns what and to know where which nation's laws apply/don't apply. I don't think that it's bad to stop violent criminals from immigrating to your country, but people without a criminal record should be allowed to live in whatever country the would like.

 

I think that your examples with the Chinese, Russians, and Brits leaving their countries are not comparable to what is happening in Syria. Many people in the UK moved to the contryside to avoid being bombed by the Germans. China and Russia are also much larger than Syria so the people in those countries could have just moved to another city away from the fighting. I'm sure that people left the cities when they were being bombed. I don't think that Syrians are selfish because they don't what to live in the middle of a warzone.

 

2. I don't think that I am holier than other people. I just think that people should be allowed to immigrate where they want because it doesn't cause any harm, and if I want to live in Canada or The Netherlands, I would want to be able to do so. A lot the problems that people say are caused immigration are just caused by people being xenophobic. If everyone was accepting of eachother their wouldn't be violence between the immigrants and the natives.

 

3. OK, so maybe I don't know exactly what fascism is, but what I meant was a xenophobic, ultranationalist groups of people. Also, There are many crazy, radical Christians. There are Christians that hate all atheists, Muslims, etc. There are Christians who beat up homosexuals because homosexuality is contrary to their religious beliefs. There are some christians that bomb mosques or attacks Sikhs because they mistake them for Muslims. There are many wonderful, friendly Christians, but there are also many terrible ones. It is the same for Muslims. The problem is not that these religions exsist, but that people take religious texts like the Bible and Quaran literally.

 

1: They moved yes to be at less risk however they didn't leave the country (obviously a small number did), and many people fought. I think it is valid because those Syrians are fleeing a war against a truly evil enemy who will commit horrific acts of genocide, rape, enslavement... it just goes on. Britain/Russia/China/so on didn't roll over and just let the genocides/other things happen so why should we give a free pass to Syrians? 

By all means the people should have moved so they could flee from the (then) advancing ISIS army, however to leave entirely is just terrible. How many of those millions could have helped out in Syria's army and helped push back those ISIS fanatics? A great deal. Imagine if millions deserted Russia during World War 2, where would the Russian people have ended up. 

 

2: Immigration is fine, but within reason. Accepting anyone and everyone is not correct. 

 

3: Vosunda answered that for me already. Point is Christianity has undergone many reforms and now without question any remaining fanatics are outside the norm. Islam however doesn't have that reform so while it might not be nice to hear, many Muslims sympathise with ISIS and other horrible things like Sharia. 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11433776/Quarter-of-British-Muslims-sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html

 

Instead of giving us platitudes, the Muslim community should show it can reform and reject utterly these sort of elements.

[Nadir Aminu]

1: They moved yes to be at less risk however they didn't leave the country (obviously a small number did), and many people fought. I think it is valid because those Syrians are fleeing a war against a truly evil enemy who will commit horrific acts of genocide, rape, enslavement... it just goes on. Britain/Russia/China/so on didn't roll over and just let the genocides/other things happen so why should we give a free pass to Syrians?

By all means the people should have moved so they could flee from the (then) advancing ISIS army, however to leave entirely is just terrible. How many of those millions could have helped out in Syria's army and helped push back those ISIS fanatics? A great deal. Imagine if millions deserted Russia during World War 2, where would the Russian people have ended up.

 

2: Immigration is fine, but within reason. Accepting anyone and everyone is not correct.

 

3: Vosunda answered that for me already. Point is Christianity has undergone many reforms and now without question any remaining fanatics are outside the norm. Islam however doesn't have that reform so while it might not be nice to hear, many Muslims sympathise with ISIS and other horrible things like Sharia.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11433776/Quarter-of-British-Muslims-sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html

 

Instead of giving us platitudes, the Muslim community should show it can reform and reject utterly these sort of elements.

I'm friends with you because I don't support ISIL nor Sharia. Hurray!

[Spite]

Rahl is right I'm afraid. Journalists are sensationalist, if something is reported it's because it's news not because it is true. The real experts don't have difficulty identifying lone Wolf attacks from organised attacks. And journalists are mostly idiots not experts.

[Rozalia]

I'm friends with you because I don't support ISIL nor Sharia. Hurray!

 

You being a Muslim never factored or mattered to me (as it shouldn't). If you were here openly supporting ISIS though then there could well be issues yes, as you know my problems with Ibrahim stem from him supporting them. If I could separate them from in game and out would depend ultimately I'd say on how rabid you'd be. If it was Ibrahim levels then unlikely yeah. 

[Nadir Aminu]

You being a Muslim never factored or mattered to me (as it shouldn't). If you were here openly supporting ISIS though then there could well be issues yes, as you know my problems with Ibrahim stem from him supporting them. If I could separate them from in game and out would depend ultimately I'd say on how rabid you'd be. If it was Ibrahim levels then unlikely yeah.

As annoying I might be, I would never reach that level of annoyance. Ibrahim likes me, but as he said in a different thread, that apostates should be killed because they don't support Sharia. That makes no sense.

[LordRahl2]

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/benjamin-doherty/how-clueless-terrorism-expert-set-media-suspicion-muslims-after-oslo-horror

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jul/24/charlie-brooker-norway-mass-killings

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-norway-terrorist-attack-news-without-facts-experts-on-jihad-and-muslim-terrorism/25761

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/07/a_ridiculous_rapid_response.html

 

Most major news outlets, both in Sweden, the U.S and international ones, had experts saying that the facts were clear; Al Qaida or a similar islamic group was behind the terrorist attack. I don't know where you were when this shit happened but I was literally watching BBC news, where they were claiming that an Al Qaida group might be behind it.

 

How could you possibly come up with overwhelming proof and evidence that a certain group was behind it when 1. The authorities in charge of finding out who did it haven't yet come to a conclusion. 2. None of the people in charge of the attack has been arrested as of yet (as far as we know). 3. It hasn't been 24 hours since the attacks happened.

 

How do you know the evidence is clear? All I've seen write as of yet is just assumptions and guesses. Earlier you wrote that it can't have been something in the styles of Breivik, but that doesn't automatically prove that it was ISIS. Just because your claim seems logical and rational does not ever turn said claim in to evidence. And it's only in hindsight that we can look at all the facts and say "oh this is the logical conclusion we should make from this all", a.k.a when all the evidence have been found.

 

Sigh, replying to shit on mobile on the forum is tedious.

 

I read your links.  They are not impressive.  In reverse order:

Slate-did you read this?  It does not support your claim.

"globalresearch"- See last for McCants, otherwise it is a discussion of fox news with a picture of "The Sun"(whatever those two things are, they are not conterterrorism experts.

The Guardian - Again, fox news "reporters" and "The Sun"....did you read these?

"electronicintifada" - Best source you found.  And it cites a grand total of one dude.  It also contains an internal contradiction that the article fails to explore.  McCants clearly hedges his report in his first quoted tweet.  So that is pretty far from condemning evidence.

 

Bottom line: The 24 hours news media is terrible and should be ignored.  About this I agree-not just for 24 hours or whatever but all the time.  You state that you were watching BBC.  I recommend not doing that if you think they are slightly better than other sources.  That may be.  However, that is damning them with faint praise.

 

I recommend critical reading and going to the primary source.  For example if you have read McCants' tweet you could see that the report was based on a random forum poster who was unknown to whatever forum it was.  Clearly not something worth including in a facts based analysis without more evidence.  So one dude does not rise to the level of many counter-terrorism experts making a claim.

 

I suspect that you did a google search that comported with your argument and copied the first 4 links above the wikipedia article.  I suspect this because I replicated a similar result with those four links.  Next time, could you read the articles first to ensure they offer actual and differentiated evidence that supports your argument before come post them?  Thanks.

 

Now, on to your other arguments.  I guarantee you that "the authorities" had reached a most likely analysis and provided it within intel channels and to their respective leaders before I posted my analysis.  So as to #1, the fact that you don't know about their analysis does not mean they have not come to a conclusion.  #2, arrests are not particularly relevant to my analysis although they can bring further strength to or refute an analysis.  #3, your artificial "24 hours" remains artificial.  There is no such barrier on gathering enough data to make a strong claim.

 

Please reread my analysis.  If all you saw was "assumptions and guesses" then you did not read it clearly.  Here you go:

"Location, coordination, complexity, presence of the head of state, all these point to a well planned and rehearsed operation. So the probability of a lone wolf or some sort of small nationalist cell falls to basically zero."

 

Location - fact.  Coordination - fact.  Complexity - fact.  Presence of a Head of State - fact.

 

Each of those alone would not lead to a strong analysis.  Taken together they do.  For example, in Oslo the attacks were sequential not coordinated (pointing to a lower level of organization or a discrete number of actors).

 

There were also some other supporting data points that were not quite as strong like first hand reports from victims on social media.  First hand reports can be important but you should be cautious of them.

[Crust]

Sigh, replying to shit on mobile on the forum is tedious.

 

I read your links.  They are not impressive.  In reverse order:

Slate-did you read this?  It does not support your claim.

"globalresearch"- See last for McCants, otherwise it is a discussion of fox news with a picture of "The Sun"(whatever those two things are, they are not conterterrorism experts.

The Guardian - Again, fox news "reporters" and "The Sun"....did you read these?

"electronicintifada" - Best source you found.  And it cites a grand total of one dude.  It also contains an internal contradiction that the article fails to explore.  McCants clearly hedges his report in his first quoted tweet.  So that is pretty far from condemning evidence.

 

Bottom line: The 24 hours news media is terrible and should be ignored.  About this I agree-not just for 24 hours or whatever but all the time.  You state that you were watching BBC.  I recommend not doing that if you think they are slightly better than other sources.  That may be.  However, that is damning them with faint praise.

 

I recommend critical reading and going to the primary source.  For example if you have read McCants' tweet you could see that the report was based on a random forum poster who was unknown to whatever forum it was.  Clearly not something worth including in a facts based analysis without more evidence.  So one dude does not rise to the level of many counter-terrorism experts making a claim.

 

I suspect that you did a google search that comported with your argument and copied the first 4 links above the wikipedia article.  I suspect this because I replicated a similar result with those four links.  Next time, could you read the articles first to ensure they offer actual and differentiated evidence that supports your argument before come post them?  Thanks.

 

Now, on to your other arguments.  I guarantee you that "the authorities" had reached a most likely analysis and provided it within intel channels and to their respective leaders before I posted my analysis.  So as to #1, the fact that you don't know about their analysis does not mean they have not come to a conclusion.  #2, arrests are not particularly relevant to my analysis although they can bring further strength to or refute an analysis.  #3, your artificial "24 hours" remains artificial.  There is no such barrier on gathering enough data to make a strong claim.

 

I don't think you're really understanding what I'm talking about. Neither you or Spite. 

 

What all of my posts in this thread are about is this simple fact:

Sharing news reports that claim x or y did it because a certain expert thinks so is a bad idea, because even if BBC or The Guardian or Fox News (or whatever news source you prefer) claims they have the #1 expert on jihadism/terrorism/counter-terrorism who's adamant that ISIS/Al Qaida/that girl that friendzoned them when they were 8 years old did it all of it means jack shit if there's no proof, if there's no evidence to back up that claim.

 

You wrote in a previous post "Almost everyone was not spouting it. I do not remember many actual experts in countrrterrorims making that leap at all really. Maybe whatever sources you consume were. However, the events and the available data was far different and nothimg I saw jumped to that conclusion.". The links I posted are in one way or another proof that at least one or several major news outlets claimed that they had expert on the subject as source, and that said expert pointed towards Al Qaida. I'm not saying that this source or that source is bad/good. I'm not saying that I believe everything I read. I'm saying the exact opposite. The news are always gonna jump on the first dude's dick who claims they know who did it. They're gonna spread rumors they know might not be true, but are sensational and thus news worthy.

 

Why am I writing this? Because at least one person has tried to prove that ISIS did it by linking to the !@#$ing telegraph, like come on. If ISIS did it we'll know eventually. But maybe hold your horses before you start spreading links to sites that are more than likely just flinging speculations and assumptions.

 

 

 

Please reread my analysis.  If all you saw was "assumptions and guesses" then you did not read it clearly.  Here you go:

"Location, coordination, complexity, presence of the head of state, all these point to a well planned and rehearsed operation. So the probability of a lone wolf or some sort of small nationalist cell falls to basically zero."

 

Location - fact.  Coordination - fact.  Complexity - fact.  Presence of a Head of State - fact.

 

Each of those alone would not lead to a strong analysis.  Taken together they do.  For example, in Oslo the attacks were sequential not coordinated (pointing to a lower level of organization or a discrete number of actors).

 

There were also some other supporting data points that were not quite as strong like first hand reports from victims on social media.  First hand reports can be important but you should be cautious of them.

I think we were talking across each other here, I simply wanted to stop the wildfire of gossip and thus assumed you were trying to prove to me that only ISIS could have done it.

[LordRahl2]

Outlets are not experts. I said many experts. You found one, and that is questionable. Read primary sources and facts and don't watch the TV media.

 

There are facts friend. Good analysis looks at them and provides you the best possible conclusion.

 

Also, I did not link a news article. I provided my analysis.

 

I am telling you that it was overwhelming probable given a fact based analysis that ISIS was responsible. I would concede that a similar group, say AQ in N. Africa, is possible though less likely.

 

These things are not as opaque as you may think particularly when sufficient evidence is immediately available. As is the case here.

[Crust]

Outlets are not experts. I said many experts. You found one, and that is questionable. Read primary sources and facts and don't watch the TV media.

 

There are facts friend. Good analysis looks at them and provides you the best possible conclusion.

 

Also, I did not link a news article. I provided my analysis.

 

I am telling you that it was overwhelming probable given a fact based analysis that ISIS was responsible. I would concede that a similar group, say AQ in N. Africa, is possible though less likely.

 

These things are not as opaque as you may think particularly when sufficient evidence is immediately available. As is the case here.

Are you at all reading my posts or do you just read the first sentence and then start writing up your posts?

 

1.I'm saying don't share news articles as if they're proof. By writing you I don't mean literally you, LordRahl2, I'm talking about collectively people in this thread or people who are reading this thread.

2.You said that no expert on the subject claimed that the attacks in Utöya were done by Al Qaida. I gave you several links who refereed to news articles. Those news articles were using certain experts (not one, not two but several different experts on the subject) as a source that it must have been Al Qaida who did it. I'm not saying you're making up shit, I'm not saying I'm sad because BBC were spreading rumors. I'm just saying to people generally in this thread that they shouldn't use what the media is speculating about as fact. That's all.

 

You don't have to tell me how to get my facts. You don't have to explain how you're analysing the situation. You really don't have to explain that most news sources are unreliable.

 

I'm only saying that the media might not be as realible as people think, espeically when they're not privy of the facts the authority may have, and especially since they tend to make shit up or jump on rumours, especially the first 24 hours.

[Fox Fire]

It was ISIS.

[Fox Fire]

Ground troops in Syria, here we come.

[Nadir Aminu]

It was ISIS.

Just because they claimed they did so, doesn't mean they actually did.

[Fox Fire]

Just because they claimed they did so, doesn't mean they actually did.

Who else do you honestly think it is? Who do you think blew up the Russian plane? What do you make of the bold ISIS claim that blood will run through Russian cities just before this? What group do you think is most capable of executing such a sophisticated attack? The shooters weren't random people, they knew how to shoot. The damage inflicted is considerable.

Nobody else has taken responsibility, but let's just keep ignoring the obvious. ISIS wants another world war; they have an apocalyptic ideology. It looks like they might get one. 

[LordRahl2]

Are you at all reading my posts or do you just read the first sentence and then start writing up your posts?

 

1.I'm saying don't share news articles as if they're proof. By writing you I don't mean literally you, LordRahl2, I'm talking about collectively people in this thread or people who are reading this thread.

2.You said that no expert on the subject claimed that the attacks in Utöya were done by Al Qaida. I gave you several links who refereed to news articles. Those news articles were using certain experts (not one, not two but several different experts on the subject) as a source that it must have been Al Qaida who did it. I'm not saying you're making up shit, I'm not saying I'm sad because BBC were spreading rumors. I'm just saying to people generally in this thread that they shouldn't use what the media is speculating about as fact. That's all.

 

You don't have to tell me how to get my facts. You don't have to explain how you're analysing the situation. You really don't have to explain that most news sources are unreliable.

 

I'm only saying that the media might not be as realible as people think, espeically when they're not privy of the facts the authority may have, and especially since they tend to make shit up or jump on rumours, especially the first 24 hours.

 

I read your posts friend.  Do you read mine?

 

#1 Fine about not sharing articles I suppose.

#2. I did not say "no expert on the subject claimed that the attacks in Utöya were done by Al Qaida."  Read what I wrote.  You wrote "actual professional experts on terrorists claimed Utöya was Al Qaida."  You then linked 4 articles that combined claim that one (1) expert claimed Utöya was Al Qaida and from my cursory reading he did not make a very strong claim in that regard.  Since you seem to have found a second one do share the non-McCants one.  I admit that I found some, all?, of your links painful to read so may have skipped a bit.  You claim many - just list their names, problem solved. 

 

None the less your inability to find a significant number of experts basically proves my point that "counter-terrorism experts" were not the ones pushing that view.  The 24 hour media was.  In this particular case study it appears that media of a certain political bent was pushing the view more than others.  News anchors are experts at being on TV and that is about it.

 

Now, if that is what you are saying then you said it poorly.  What you actually conveyed is that counter-terrorism experts cannot conduct reasonable fact based analysis in under 24 hours (again with an arbitrary time).  I am saying that they can.  And so can I when the facts strongly support one conclusion.

[Rozalia]

Apparently at least one of the men came along the refugee bandwagon coming in from Greece. Well people did say ISIS would make use of this in their infiltration and attacks, but no, lets just keep letting them all in. What are all the people dead as a result of it anyway.

[Crust]

I read your posts friend.  Do you read mine?

 

#1 Fine about not sharing articles I suppose.

#2. I did not say "no expert on the subject claimed that the attacks in Utöya were done by Al Qaida."  Read what I wrote.  You wrote "actual professional experts on terrorists claimed Utöya was Al Qaida."  You then linked 4 articles that combined claim that one (1) expert claimed Utöya was Al Qaida and from my cursory reading he did not make a very strong claim in that regard.  Since you seem to have found a second one do share the non-McCants one.  I admit that I found some, all?, of your links painful to read so may have skipped a bit.  You claim many - just list their names, problem solved. 

 

None the less your inability to find a significant number of experts basically proves my point that "counter-terrorism experts" were not the ones pushing that view.  The 24 hour media was.  In this particular case study it appears that media of a certain political bent was pushing the view more than others.  News anchors are experts at being on TV and that is about it.

 

Now, if that is what you are saying then you said it poorly.  What you actually conveyed is that counter-terrorism experts cannot conduct reasonable fact based analysis in under 24 hours (again with an arbitrary time).  I am saying that they can.  And so can I when the facts strongly support one conclusion.

 

 

Here's one example:

http://www.nrk.no/norge/tror-al-qaida-star-bak-1.7723020

 

Wiki article about who Magnus Ranstorp is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Ranstorp

 

And another one from another source:

https://news.blog.gustavus.edu/2008/11/07/magnus-ranstorp-85-receives-distinguished-alumni-citation/

 

This is just one example. I googled the first 4 articles and this one because I don't have a scrapbook filled with every single article that's ever made a wrong claim, neither am I gonna spend several hours looking through archives, make some sorta spreadsheet of all the names of all the experts who made a wrong assumption on who was behind a terrorist attack from 4 years ago just to win an argument on the Internet. You could probably find a lot more if you really didn't believe me.

 

I'm not saying every single counterterrorist expert was out claiming Al Qaida did it. I'm not saying every single expert on the subject is incompetent. I'm also not saying "counter-terrorism experts" (as some unified group or whatever) was pushing this view. I'm just saying several different experts who are seen as having some authority on the subject, claimed that Al Qaida did it and were used as sources by several different journalists.

 

I know I'm not the best at writing in English, communication is a two way street dude. Try asking if you can't understand something, instead of jumping to weird ass conclusions.

 

This is the last time I'm going to repeat myself of what I meant:

Do not think speculations" reported by journalists on who did it are going to be right within the first 24 hours, even if the source is some expert or several experts on "counter-terrorism". That isn't a sure-fire of knowing if a claim is actually true or not.

[Eric]

There are a lot of ignorant comments in this forum. First of all, how could Syrian war refugee recover from war in their own country? Syria is a war-zone partially controlled by a dictator who uses weapons against his own people and partially controlled by a radical Islamist group who enforces Sharia law, forces all women to where a Burka, and kills many innocent civilians. Would you want to live in Syria? People don't get to choose where they are born. Secondly, there is no Muslim invasion of Europe. Muslims have lived in The Balkans since the Ottoman Empire and in Spain before the Catholics. There are many Muslims immigrating to Europe from Asia and Africa but, they are not trying to "invade". They are moving to Europe to live a better life. Would you want to live in Northern Nigeria, Algeria, Iraq, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, or Bangladesh? None of these people choose to be born in these countries; therefore, they should be allowed to live where they please. Third, these people do not commit these mass murders because they are Muslims. They did these things because they are ignorant, hateful, right-wing extremist. They could have been Christian or non-religious and done the same thing. The statistic that 30% of Muslims are radical is ridiculous. Statistics like that only have meaning if you know how the people who conducted the survey defined "radical". The makers of the survey could have defined radical as believing in creationism, praying 5 times per day, or practicing Ramadan. The statistic that 30% of Muslims are radical is most definitely a bullsh*t static.

Most muslims I know are reallllyy nice...however it would appear to me that Islam has a bit of a higher percentage of radicals.

 

Like why don't you hear headlines like "Buddist Terror Cult Attacks City and Kills 180"

[LordRahl2]

Here's one example:

http://www.nrk.no/norge/tror-al-qaida-star-bak-1.7723020

 

Wiki article about who Magnus Ranstorp is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Ranstorp

 

And another one from another source:

https://news.blog.gustavus.edu/2008/11/07/magnus-ranstorp-85-receives-distinguished-alumni-citation/

 

This is just one example. I googled the first 4 articles and this one because I don't have a scrapbook filled with every single article that's ever made a wrong claim, neither am I gonna spend several hours looking through archives, make some sorta spreadsheet of all the names of all the experts who made a wrong assumption on who was behind a terrorist attack from 4 years ago just to win an argument on the Internet. You could probably find a lot more if you really didn't believe me.

 

I'm not saying every single counterterrorist expert was out claiming Al Qaida did it. I'm not saying every single expert on the subject is incompetent. I'm also not saying "counter-terrorism experts" (as some unified group or whatever) was pushing this view. I'm just saying several different experts who are seen as having some authority on the subject, claimed that Al Qaida did it and were used as sources by several different journalists.

 

I know I'm not the best at writing in English, communication is a two way street dude. Try asking if you can't understand something, instead of jumping to weird ass conclusions.

 

This is the last time I'm going to repeat myself of what I meant:

Do not think speculations" reported by journalists on who did it are going to be right within the first 24 hours, even if the source is some expert or several experts on "counter-terrorism". That isn't a sure-fire of knowing if a claim is actually true or not.

 

You have certainly spent some time on the subject already.  Did you reread your links and find only the one?  Now I get an article in Swedish!  Clearly lots of evidence supporting your claim....

 

Swedish is not one of my languages but thanks to Google translate I see that he said "There are probably al-Qaeda is behind the terrorist attack."  I will not bore you with an explanation of what "probably" means but it is not strong language (when I say probably in my analysis I mean somewhere just north of 51%, likely is in the 75% region.  When I leave off the modifier and say "Is" then I am in the 95%+ region.  By the way, there are also multiple other folks from that region saying that it may have been foreign terror but it was too early or there were insufficient facts-very reasonable analysis at that moment.

 

The fact that you have struggled to find two, one of whom hedged in a big way, remains instructive.  I will wait on your more through spreadsheet with "many" names.  But I accept that we are down to the literal definition of "several".

 

Sorry that you have trouble conveying what you mean.  And I would define what you are doing as backpedaling vs clarification but whatever.

 

Again, your argument now lacks a certain something.  News Media anchors suck.  Cool, I agree.  That does not mean that you cannot analyze something with a high degree of certainty.  In this case it was clear.  It was not clear in Oslo.  You can ask Kid-A, dude in your alliance, to go check our forums but I did not provide any definitive prognostication on Oslo because, wait for it, it was not clear.  It was clear here so I did so.  Nor did many/most/a significant % of experts in the field do so.  They did in the case of Paris NOV/13 and rightly so.

 

Questions?

[Bilal the Great]

As annoying I might be, I would never reach that level of annoyance. Ibrahim likes me, but as he said in a different thread, that apostates should be killed because they don't support Sharia. That makes no sense.

Because the Quran really did said it's okay to murder unbelievers and apostates. Are you in a denial, never actually read the translations of all these verses, or simply because nobody ever tell you that?

 

Also the usual suspects isn't here to defend their religion. Maybe they realized they have no better argument than throwing the usual "no true scotsman muslim" fallacy.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Bilal the Great

[Crust]

You have certainly spent some time on the subject already.  Did you reread your links and find only the one?  Now I get an article in Swedish!  Clearly lots of evidence supporting your claim....

I don't know about you but writing that post and finding those links took me about 2 minutes, because I knew exactly what I was looking for. Btw, that's norwegian. I thought the fact that the top domain of the site is .no and google translate states that it's norwegian, but "ok" dude. Anyway, looking up all of the experts who claimed Al Qaida was behind it would take a lot more time, considering most of the articles that were published when it happened are 4 years old. Especially since a lot of those articles updated/changed their claims when they later realized the terrorist was a blond norwegian man. That makes it a bit harder to find them all, and with the initial report. Several different sources have however mentioned that different experts on the subjected claimed so. I'm obviously not the only one who witnessed experts claimed this, that's what the links prove. But oh my lord, I do so apologize for not giving you 100 different links from your favorite news papers.

 

Swedish is not one of my languages but thanks to Google translate I see that he said "There are probably al-Qaeda is behind the terrorist attack."  I will not bore you with an explanation of what "probably" means but it is not strong language (when I say probably in my analysis I mean somewhere just north of 51%, likely is in the 75% region.  When I leave off the modifier and say "Is" then I am in the 95%+ region.  By the way, there are also multiple other folks from that region saying that it may have been foreign terror but it was too early or there were insufficient facts-very reasonable analysis at that moment.

Atle Mesøy was also mentioned in the same article, who also suggested that it was most probably Al-Qaeda The thing with suggesting anything, when you're being asked as an expert on a subject, is that it weighs more than the words of most other people. Compare it to having an expert say "vaccine is probably the cause of autism". It's disinformation being spread, while trying to keep your back safe by saying probably. Probably means a whole different thing coming from a person who's being asked as an expert on the subject.

 

You didn't read the links I posted before but at least one of them reported the fact that several news articles were modified afterhand when there was more information. The norwegian article I linked for example was modified.

 

"That does not mean that you cannot analyse something with a high degree of certainty". When did I ever say that? Sometimes you can, when you have the information. We can draw some conclusions, yes, but not all of them. We can come to the conclusion, as you've said, that it was an well-organized group rather than "a lone wolf or some sort of small nationalist cell". That's from the information we as a public have. Most of us, and most of the media does not have more information on who might have done it and therefore it's generally a bad idea to try to assume exactly what organisation or for what reason they did it, because we don't have that information yet. There's high probability of certain things, like say ISIS being behind it, but it does not mean it's proof that they did it.

 

Also, please note that what I initially wrote about the expert thing was this: "And also actual professional experts on terrorists claimed Utöya was Al Qaida['s doing]". You were the one who then acted like it wasn't that many (why would it matter how many they were?) and that I was just checking the wrong news outlets. First of all, some of those experts I've showed you were highly respectable ones with years of experience within the field. Second of all they were used as sources by a lot of journalists.

 

Either way, I'm extremely tired of talking to you so I'm out.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Satisfriend

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

French Media Knows What's Up....

 

The moment France stops bombing the people in Syria/Iraq is when they will stop bombing France. 

[LordRahl2]

Either way, I'm extremely tired of talking to you so I'm out.

 

I love when people end posts like this.  "I just spent time replying to you but it is so exhausting so I give up."

 

Maybe you should spend more that 2 minutes collecting your thoughts, researching, and actually reading stuff before you throw it up.  It may help.  By the way, logically since this was a big thing at the time, if there were "lots" or "many" experts who had provided poor analysis there would be documentation of it.  So feel free to keep up your research.  But oh lord, forgive me for invoking logic and asking you to back up your opinions with facts.  Also, I did read your articles with far more attention than you apparently.

 

More importantly for you to learn, I think, is that a vast majority of intelligence is open source (available to the public).  Very little is actually classified and your apparent trust in "the authorities" to have better data or to analyze it better is misplaced.  Also, when consuming news "proof" is a hard and infrequent thing and you seem fixated on it.  Yet you watch the TV news.  If you want definitive answers without any speculation then you will have to unplug almost completely.

 

And yes, it does matter if, as you at the very least imply, many or most experts made a claim.  If you had said "while some (maybe? two) experts claimed X, the majority did not" then your point would have been well taken.  You clearly believed at the time of writing that it was far more than it was (the two you have tracked down - one of which hedged hard and the other a Swede).  Again, this opinion of yours is not born out by the facts.  I called you on it and we debated it.  If you dislike debate about your opinions you can always opt out.

 

But in the end I am happy that you now agree with me that experts can actually conduct fact based analysis, in under 24 hours even, and provide assessments.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

I can not be bothered to read what you two are arguing about but if it's about who carried out the attack then it wasn't Al Qaeda.

 

Islamic State (which France has been bombing) claimed responsibility in Arabic, French, and English: https://t.co/3C0arrjUiH

[Pax]

I can not be bothered to read what you two are arguing about but if it's about who carried out the attack then it wasn't Al Qaeda.

 

Islamic State (which France has been bombing) claimed responsibility in Arabic, French, and English: https://t.co/3C0arrjUiH

 

To be fair, Ibrahim, extremist groups have a long-standing history of claiming to do things that they didn't actually do. It's been happening for decades now.

 

Though I do think they probably were the ones to do it in this case, it's possible somebody else could have.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

To be fair, Ibrahim, extremist groups have a long-standing history of claiming to do things that they didn't actually do. It's been happening for decades now.

 

Though I do think they probably were the ones to do it in this case, it's possible somebody else could have.

 

That may be true for some "groups" but IS has never claimed responsibility for something they didn't do and nobody else has yet claimed responsibility for the attacks in Paris.

 

The French president himself said Islamic State carried out the attacks: Saying they sent an army and pretty much recognising them as a country they are at war with:

 

Edited November 15, 2015 by Ibrahim