Further Evidence That ISIS Was Not Behind the Paris Attacks

Standard

Here is another article that says ISIS claimed responsibility, but then gives very specific information that ISIS likely was not responsible:

“Terror groups, when they claim credit for attacks, will sometimes include details of the planning or execution that establish the group was indeed responsible. There are none here; the statement details nothing that was not publicly available information from news reports. It also includes no biographical information on the attackers, even a name or photo, though terror groups will often lionize its attackers as “martyrs” in such statements.”

(via http://www.vox.com/2015/11/14/9734794/isis-claim-paris-statement)

The following statement implies ISIS did not claim responsibility by implying they might still claim it later:

“None of this is to argue that ISIS is thus not responsible; it is entirely possible the group may later release more information to establish its role.”

ISIS Didn’t Do It.

Standard

People have to be very careful when reading these articles. The headline and first paragraph say ISIS claimed responsibility:

http://www.nytimes.com/…/isis-claims-responsibility-for-par…

However, they specifically imply throughout the article that ISIS did not claim responsibility. (The New York Times and many papers did this with Hamas during the 2014 Gaza massacre. The headlines would say Hamas claimed responsibility while the rest of the article implies that they didn’t.)

ISIS celebrated the attacks. They never said they did it. Here is a translation of one of the messages from the groups encrypted messaging accounts:

https://ent.siteintelgroup.com/…/is-claims-paris-attacks-wa…

In fact, throughout The New York Times article, there is continued debate between whether to blame ISIS or Al Queda. (Obviously, if ISIS had actually claimed responsibility, they wouldn’t be debating between blaming ISIS or Al Queda throughout the article.)  The reality is that it might not have been either group but they need to pin it on either ISIS or Al Queda so they can declare war. If it was just homegrown terrorism exploiting Islam, they would not be able to go to war, so they pretend it’s not even a possibility.

Additionally, if ISIS was going to claim responsibility and declare open war on France, an encrypted internal communique isn’t going to achieve that.

(Another scenario is that ISIS was trying to do it in secret, didn’t want France to know, and the internal communique accidentally exposed that they were responsible. However, the encrypted message only showed that ISIS knew of the attacks and praised the attackers. They never said they did it.)

The best evidence they have linking ISIS to the crime is the encrypted internal communique which actually implies ISIS didn’t do it.

ISIS say they were impressed with the way the Paris terrorists executed the attack and applauded them on a job well done, but imply that the Paris terrorists were people they didn’t actually know.

Additionally, if ISIS had orchestrated a terrorist attack they considered impressive and successful, why wouldn’t they be patting themselves on the back for a job well done? Why wouldn’t they be cockier and more full of hubris?

If ISIS had done it, they would have been more arrogant and self-congratulatory rather than merely applauding the work of others.

Thus, I highly doubt it was ISIS.

 

Solidarity with Palestine Is What We Need Right Now

Standard

The moment I open Facebook or Twitter, I notice the French flag on half the profile pictures and avatars.  The entire planet and a bulk of Muslims were forced to show the type of respect for the victims of the recent Paris attacks that imperialist powers never seem to show anybody else in return.  The victims of the attacks were genuine victims, yet everything surrounding the attacks from media coverage, to global solidarity movements, was driven by more sinister forces of imperialist hunger.  Many Muslims would have condemned the attacks regardless, but one could easily sense a fear among the Muslim community not to show extra deference towards the loss of life for one of the members of the family of elite imperialist powers.

It wasn’t really Muslims as much as people exploiting Islam who were responsible for the crimes, but the only reason the Paris attacks gained such global recognition was because Muslims could be used as scapegoats which could be leveraged into greater warfare in the Middle East.

(There is no evidence that ISIS was responsible, but Hollande had no problem declaring war against ISIS.)

One would think that the overfocus on the Paris attacks versus other atrocities around the globe displays a horrible exalting of Western lives over the lives of non-Westerners.  However, when one takes a closer look to reactions to other Western tragedies, an even more disturbing trend appears:

After the Paris attacks, vigils were held in Toronto and across the US for the Paris attack victims:

However, Toronto did NOT hold vigils after the 2013 Lac-Mégantic train disaster where 47 French Canadians died.  And there were no vigils held outside Washington after the 2014 Oso mudslide claimed 43 American lives.  (People can correct me if I’m wrong.)

Thus, people who don’t even mourn the death of their own countrymen if the disaster occurs in the next state or province will mourn the death of foreigners from across the Atlantic as long as Muslims can be scapegoated and war can be declared.

Additionally, after the 2011 Norway attacks, there were no international vigils mourning the 77 lives taken by radical anti-Muslim extremist, Anders Breivik.

However, had people exploiting Islam been responsible for the Lac-Mégantic train disaster, Oso mudslide, or the Norway attacks, there would have been extensive international media coverage and vigils held across the globe for the victims.

This infographic says it all: http://i.imgur.com/Vlu7Om0.png

 

 

 

Additionally, showing too much solidarity with France (despite being a kind gesture from more genuine people) can actually have a negative impact.  I encourage people to read these arguments for why showing solidarity with Palestinians would result in much greater peace:

1) France has enjoyed great peace and security since WWII and will continue to enjoy great peace and security. Palestinians have endured nothing but horrible suffering and oppression since the aftermath of WWII where routine massacres, housing demolitions, kidnappings, and lack of basic resources has been the norm (and still is.)

2) Showing solidarity with Palestinians could actually achieve positive results by putting pressure on Western states to stop supporting Israel, resulting in the potential for greater peace and security for an oppressed population.

Excessive solidarity with France is already being exploited and leveraged by imperialists to escalate violence and do more harm to innocent people and doesn’t do much to help the French victims of the attack.

3) France doesn’t actually need the extra display of solidarity. France is a first world country that is fully equipped to handle the situation on their own.

Palestinians are a stateless, defenceless people with no military and no foreign support. Palestinians have had to endure FAR worse than the French for decades and will CONTINUE to endure far worse if things continue the way they do.

To sum up:
Showing solidarity with Palestinians could lead to greater peace.
Excessive solidarity with France is already being exploited by imperialists to put more innocent lives in jeopardy.

Palestinian Flag

 

Charlie Hebdo Has the Right to Free Speech—As Do We.

Standard

Charlie Hebdo has the right to utilize free speech.  However, sane members of the general public should employ their rights to free speech to condemn Charlie Hebdo’s juvenile fetish for trivializing the death of Muslim children.

Charlie Hebdo will say they are actually making social commentary.  Again, this is easy to test:  Would they ever depict the death of French or American children in the same fashion?  Of course not.

Thus, Charlie Hebdo’s true motive is to toy around with images of dead Muslim children.  I’m sure they think they are being very clever by disguising it as social commentary, but their true motives are pretty clear.

“Christians Walk on Water…Atheist Children Sink.”

Standard

Charlie Hebdo says they are making a religious critique by displaying a Christian walking on water while a Muslim child drowns.  In my opinion, Charlie Hebdo merely wants to display images of Muslim children drowning to desensitize Westerners to the death of Middle Eastern children.

Charlie Hebdo is creating imperialist propaganda.  They know that most Westerners are still Christian and they are exploiting Christianity to turn Christian Westerners against Muslim Middle Easterners as a way to maintain imperialism.  They are also trying to show that the life of a Muslim child is something that should be shrugged off.

Charlie Hebdo will say that they are critiquing Christianity.

Well we can test that.

Would Charlie Hebdo ever depict a French or American child who grew up in an atheist household drowning?

Charlie Hebdo1

Why not display the words “Christians walk on water…children of atheist Westerners sink” as a way to critique Christianity?

The fact that Charlie Hebdo would never do the same with the children of atheist Westerners proves my point that they are merely trying to make Muslim children look expendable so it doesn’t matter how many of them are wiped out by Western militarism.

They are trying to imply that shamelessly letting a Middle Eastern child drown is acceptable.

Islam: Religion of Violence

Standard

A delusion is something that people believe in despite a total lack of evidence. 
-Richard Dawkins

It takes a certain level of intellectual sophistication to look at the world through a lens of reason rather than give into prejudice that serves only to convenience an undiscriminating mind.  As of late, New Atheism and its proponents (Harris, Dawkins, Maher and the following they’ve amassed for themselves) have come under heavy fire for what is perceived as “knee-jerk anti-Muslim bigotry.” Such criticism likely stems from the media’s oversight of the general public’s emotional vulnerability to isolated scenes of violence directed towards Muslims.  This has been exacerbated by what can only be described as ultra-left-wing sentimentalists—many stemming from Hollywood’s spare-time-“intellectuals”—who have abandoned reason and hard evidence for misguided notions that blind sympathy for all “others” necessarily equates to virtuous liberal sensibility.  One must temper impulse with reason and take a solid look at truths we don’t always want to acknowledge.  As the following article illustrates, evidence and reason would lead a rational mind to conclude that Islam, exceptional among Abrahamic religions, naturally incites violence within its followers:

Why Terrorists Attack so Often: Believers Abandon Reason, Science and Evidence

One continues muddled in the grimy depths of ignorance without taking a clear look at Islam’s brimming track-record of being the single common denominator in acts of terror and extremism throughout history:

For centuries during its prominence, Muslims have posed a serious threat to the Roman Empire and terrorism stemming from Islamic tribes, requiring the need for exorbitant Roman military expenditure, is cited as a contributor to the once all-powerful empire’s decline.

In fact, one can see documentation of raids by rogue Muslim seafarers on Eastern Mediterranean empires as far back as the mid-14th century BCE.  As with Rome, the number of Muslim groups that banded together to carry out these attacks increased consistently until the collapse of Bronze Age civilization within the region altogether.

And nobody can deny the extreme threat Islamic nomads from the North posed to ancient Chinese dynasties, requiring countless man-hours, resources—even human lives—to constantly build, rebuild and repair thousand-kilometre stretches of defensive barrier.

Thus, recent science and evidence alongside countless documented examples throughout history points to a single conclusion which I’ll let the critical mind of a rational reader reach for itself.

Girl Ejected from Prom for Arousing Pervy Dads

Standard

This just gives more credence to my theory:

Reversed Sexual Repression

The Undie Drawer

A really insane new story is making the rounds right now, published by a young woman who was kicked out of her prom for supposedly forcing a bunch of on-looking fathers to experience ‘impure’ thoughts.

View original post 404 more words