Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Crime Social Networks News Politics

Islamic State Claims Responsibility for Paris Attacks; Death Toll At 127 728

The L.A. Times reports that Islamic State, the group variously known as ISIL, ISIS, and Daesh, has claimed responsibility for the multi-pronged terror attack yesterday in Paris which left at least 128 people dead, most of them from among the audience of a rock concert at the Bataclan theater, in the heart of the city. Details of how Friday’s assaults were carried out remained hazy. It was still unclear, for example, whether the restaurants and concert theater were attacked by two separate teams of militants or one group that went from one place to another. ... Attackers opened fire on the crowd with automatic weapons, shouting “God is great!” or blaming France for airstrikes on Islamic State in Syria, according to some reports. Dozens of concert-goers were killed before French forces stormed the theater. Many Parisians posted appeals and photos on social media asking for news of friends or loved ones whom they had not heard from since the attacks. One man said on Twitter that a government hotline set up to inquire about missing persons was so overloaded that calls could not get through. In the wake of the attacks and with an overloaded public infrastructure, Facebook activated its post-disaster check-in tool for Parisians to notify loved ones that they are safe. According to Reuters, French President Francois Hollande has vowed to undertake a "mercliess" response to the attacks.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Islamic State Claims Responsibility for Paris Attacks; Death Toll At 127

Comments Filter:
  • Another example (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Foobar of Borg ( 690622 ) on Saturday November 14, 2015 @11:15AM (#50930247)
    It's awful what hate and fanaticism drive people to do.
    • Re:Another example (Score:4, Insightful)

      by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Saturday November 14, 2015 @11:35AM (#50930359)

      It's awful what hate and fanaticism drive people to do.

      Bingo. Fanaticism of any kind is usually detrimental, but religious fanatics seem especially violent and destructive.

      So it's another fabulous win for religious fanatics everywhere; the ones who did this will scream about how great their god is, and the ones on the other side(s) will scream about how awful those other religions are.

      While those of us who don't follow or practice any religion look on in horror at what fanatical religious beliefs produce. :(

      And now let's watch all the religious apologists mod me down to oblivion. To those people, if it makes you feel better then go right ahead.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao were all atheists. Suck on it.

        • Re:Another example (Score:5, Insightful)

          by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Saturday November 14, 2015 @12:11PM (#50930493) Journal

          So, you're saying that because some atheists have done bad things, one shouldn't condemn people who murder in the name of religion? Or we shouldn't point out religious fanaticism is a bad idea?

          In the case of Stalin and Mao, there was a strong cult of personality which is functionally identical to religion.

          • Re:Another example (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 14, 2015 @12:15PM (#50930519)

            As anyone with even elementary reading comprehension can see, he didn't say religious attacks shouldn't be condemned, but that religions shouldn't be condemned if someone attacks and claim it was in their name.

            It's unsurprising to me that you particularly didn't understand that, and I won't be surprised if you still don't after reading this, either.

        • Re:Another example (Score:5, Insightful)

          by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Saturday November 14, 2015 @01:04PM (#50930755)

          Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao were all atheists. Suck on it.

          The difference is that Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao didn't do the things they did because they were atheists, whereas religious fanatics do horrific things precisely because they're religious fanatics. Sorry to burst your simple little thought-bubble.

        • Re:Another example (Score:4, Interesting)

          by angel'o'sphere ( 80593 ) on Saturday November 14, 2015 @02:29PM (#50931163) Journal

          They werent, Pol Pot was a Buddhist.
          Stalin was Christian.
          Mao was Taoist/Buddhist.

          They abbolished religions because they feared them as competition, like any tyrant.

          • by tnk1 ( 899206 )

            They were that by background, not conviction. It may have informed the flavor of their Marxism, just like if I became a Marxist and decided that I really liked Easter, I might reform Easter into a worker's spring festival where you could hunt for hidden eggs (all red of course) and have some solemn processions of workers and soldiers. But if I persecute my ethnic religion, ignore its core rules, and visibly espouse atheism and Marxism, I'm no longer a Christian and using that label on me is mere backgroun

      • Re:Another example (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Suffering Bastard ( 194752 ) on Saturday November 14, 2015 @12:25PM (#50930567)

        While those of us who don't follow or practice any religion look on in horror at what fanatical religious beliefs produce. :(

        I think it's too easy to say that this kind of violence is simply the consequence of religious fanaticism. It's not the religion that produces the violence, it's the extreme violence that these people have lived under that produces traumatized, unstable minds that are prone to becoming fanatic via whatever dominant fervor surrounds them. Whether it's Islam or some kind of state nationalism or some kind of philosophical ideal, whatever it is that gives them a clear conscience to kill those who have harmed them, that's the banner they carry.

        The challenge to humanity is to break away from the "us vs them" mentality. Those we call terrorists are still humans like us. None of us can say how we would react if we were brought up surrounded by the horrors that these folks have. That is not an apology, only a perspective. Healing can only come when we truly understand the reasons why these events are happening and not write it all off to religious fanaticism.

        • I think it's too easy to say that this kind of violence is simply the consequence of religious fanaticism. It's not the religion that produces the violence,

          Errr, well, actually it is often the religion that produces the violence. Without the religion they'd have nothing to fight to the death over and nothing to motivate them or delude them into such action.

          You don't see groups of disaffected model railroaders or snowboarders committing mass murder because their hobby or pursuit doesn't require them to kill others in order to be the dominant group.

          -

          it's the extreme violence that these people have lived under that produces traumatized, unstable minds that are prone to becoming fanatic via whatever dominant fervor surrounds them.

          Yes, it's this too, but without the shared delusion of religion and a supposed afterlife, no one would be so keen

      • it's hopelessness. ISIS is just a bunch of men with no jobs, no wives, no future and no hope for a future. This is what happens when you've got millions of people with nothing to lose. Stop calling it Fanaticism. It misdirects you from the real issue, which is the 1% war profiteering in the Middle East and stealing their oil. We can't solve _anything_ until we start recognizing the real problem and start actually _rebuilding_ Iraq and Afghanistan. If you're American though this probably means giving up your
        • by foreverdisillusioned ( 763799 ) on Saturday November 14, 2015 @03:17PM (#50931377) Journal
          There isn't a single part of this post that isn't pure fantasy. I try not to complain about the mods too much but fuck me, +5 Insightful?

          ISIS is just a bunch of men with no jobs, no wives, no future and no hope for a future.

          Where do you get your news? ISIS's economy is a hell of a lot more robust and stable than many nations that have a seat at the UN. ISIS fighters and leaders routinely have wives. Many of the most high profile jihadis (including but not limited to ISIS) have had good career prospects and families or at least romantic interests, including the computer programmer "Jihadi "John" (whom we just killed yesterday) and the Ph. Ds and graduate students who flew into the WTC.

          Go watch VICE's report on ISIS (one of the few organizations willing to send people to do some reporting on the ground.) Listen to the guy driving the car talk about how he's leaving his wife and children to go fight for ISIS because, bottom line, Allah means more to him.

          the 1% war profiteering in the Middle East and stealing their oil.

          The Iraq war was moronic. We gave a bunch of contracts to Haliburton and other American companies. And there were conflicts of interest there, yeah.

          But we did not fucking steal anyone's oil. Stop making shit up. Iraq has been getting billions from it for quite a while now. That oil doesn't get shipped to American companies. It gets sold on the international market at regular market price.

          We can't solve _anything_ until we start recognizing the real problem and start actually _rebuilding_ Iraq and Afghanistan.

          How. Fucking HOW. It's hard enough to try to fathom what we could do to rebuild Iraq that we haven't already tried but... "rebuilding" Afghanistan is a contradiction in terms--there's nothing to rebuild. It's a shithole dominated by highly religious tent dwellers, petty warlords and Pakistani agents and slummers. It's been that way long before 2001.

          If you're American though this probably means giving up your SUV.

          Your post has now gone into stream-of-consciousness ranting. Yes, we need to achieve energy independence. That has fuck-all to do with rebuilding places that we've already spent hundreds of billions of dollars on trying to rebuild for over a decade.

          I'm not trying to troll

          lol.

        • by KGIII ( 973947 )

          Are you aware that the US doesn't actually get jack shit for oil from any of these countries? We get our oil from our own soil, Canada, Mexico, and a couple of places in South America. We, literally, don't rely on Middle Eastern oil to run our automobiles. (We do get plastics and other petrochemicals from nations that do use oil sourced from the Middle East.)

    • It's awful what hate and fanaticism drive people to do.

      Behind the dumb homicide bombers — full of hate and fanaticism — are the enablers, that provide them with explosives, training, targeting, and other logistics. And behind those are people, who pay for all that.

      It is obvious, that France's Le Pen and other European "right" nationalists stand to rise enormously in the wake of this tragedy. It is also a fact, that Vladimir Putin finances these guys [theguardian.com]. Would he not be happy to see his allies gain

  • Duh ? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Izuzan ( 2620111 )

    Of course they would claim it. Even if they didnt do it.

    They did warn the world they had ISIS operatives mixed in with refugees. So its not truely surprising.

  • by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Saturday November 14, 2015 @11:30AM (#50930321) Journal
    Hatred and terrorism are instigators of each other.

    Each act of terrorism breeds hatred from the victims, which leads to the mistreatment of those considered like the aggressors, which leads to the formation of circumstances likely to breed terrorists.

    So yes, it appears these hateful acts are quite likely to continue.

    • by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Saturday November 14, 2015 @11:38AM (#50930369)

      So yes, it appears these hateful acts are quite likely to continue.

      Exactly, this is what these people do. This is what they live (and die) for.

      They won't stop. Even if they "won" they wouldn't stop, they'd just find something else to fight against.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Saturday November 14, 2015 @12:41PM (#50930643) Homepage

      A lot of hatred and terror comes from a false sense of superiority and a spurious blame-fest of the victims, to act like the terror would cease if we only were ever kinder sheep who bend over to appease the aggressors is folly. Whether it's genetic superiority (übermenschen vs untermenschen), religious superiority (true believers vs unbelievers), cultural superiority (enlightened vs savages) the result is mostly the same. And it's always easier to blame shit on an external enemy, whether it's the jews or the african-americans or the western imperialists.

      There are many apologists who turn the cause and effect upside down and blame the victims for causing the conditions that cause terrorism, for the most part they make me want to puke with their self-loathing and victim-blaming. Usually they think themselves so very enlightened and civilized when they're really just blaming the rape victim for wearing a short skirt. No matter how badly Saddam treated the Sunnis what the IS is doing to Christians and other minorities has nothing to do with revenge and everything to do with a megalomanic desire for world domination and genocide.

      It's a cancer that will only grow as long as it is allowed to grow. The last time the world had to stand up to such evil and say "enough is enough" ~15 million allied soldiers and ~35 million allied civilians died. I'm kinda hoping we can get away with less this time, but I think there will be a lot of blood spilled before then and the longer we let them control and indoctrinate large parts of the population in Syria and Iraq the messier it will get. Evil is breeding right now, whether we attack it or not.

  • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Saturday November 14, 2015 @11:30AM (#50930325) Journal

    Who still thinks is a good idea to allow mass immigration of refuges from the region? Lets face it ISIS is going international they way its progenitor was. We simply can not allow people from that region to enter without being fully vetted and as we have no way to do that for the vast majority of the refugees. I think they need to be kept right where they are.

    If anything we should simply help Turkey, Jordon, and Lebanon secure their borders. The safe thing to do is assume anyone crossing the boarder is a threat.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      I think so. Next question.

  • by JoeyRox ( 2711699 ) on Saturday November 14, 2015 @11:34AM (#50930351)
    "Your friend Mary Lawrence has checked in as safe. Good news, Safe Lock & Co. is having a sale on wall safes. Click this advertising link for details".
  • by PPH ( 736903 )

    I heard it was al Qaida.

    An al Qaida spokesman stated that they were responsible and that ISIS couldn't find their ass with both hands.

  • by TheRealHocusLocus ( 2319802 ) on Saturday November 14, 2015 @01:01PM (#50930743)

    Once upon a time, people were generally less stupid.

    If any 'claim of responsibility' emerged hours or days after a terrorist attack it would be treated with the utmost suspicion. Even if transmitted directly to them, news networks would notify the authorities of course, but they might not even report it publicly. Unless a phone call or fax was received at the moment of breaking news, some times even minutes before, the information was deemed to be zero-credible or less than zero, more likely than not the work of a crank. And news sources were generally averse to being cranked.

    News sources did not even want to be cranked by governments. They'd never forget to add the words "allegedly" or "believed to be" when repeating a government source who was pretty sure who was behind something. Some acts of terrorism in those days would end up being reported as if they were... simply crimes. The 'who' would not be examined at length until or unless individuals were actually brought forth and charged. Then, their connections to organizations would be explored.

    Then the 21st century dawned and people have become generally more stupid.

    Now ascribing an organization to an attack is as simple as starting a rumor or sending a tweet. Everyone is on the verge of believing anything, they just need a little push either way. There is no burden of proof, only a preponderance of NOISE. Axe-grinding news sources and governments are already blaming them anyway to take advantage of this lower IQ, so they're already on the ball. Just like Michael Ledeen at AEI was blaming Saddam Hussein for 9/11 on the afternoon of 9/11 [aei.org]. (Hint: that was Donald Rumsfeld's favorite website. Can you see a decade of bad road ahead?)

    Now a claim by a single so-called 'unnamed source within the government' is cause enough for a press association like AP to drop the 'allegedly' and report the deed as having been done by those people, ready to put in the history books.

    If all information should be free, we're sure getting what we paid for.

  • #prayforparis (Score:5, Interesting)

    by X10 ( 186866 ) on Saturday November 14, 2015 @01:25PM (#50930873) Homepage

    Americans introduced the hash tag #PrayForParis. To which a Parisian replied "Friends from the whole world, thank you for #prayforParis, but we don't need more religion! our faith goes to music! kisses! Life! champagne and Joy! #ParisisaboutLife". I found that amusing, despite the fact I read it last night shortly after the attack.

    It seems that American tweeps don't know that the French value their secular state. Which must seem odd to people in a country where so many people are still religious.

    • Re:#prayforparis (Score:5, Informative)

      by sonamchauhan ( 587356 ) <sonamc AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday November 14, 2015 @08:12PM (#50932727) Journal

      Do you actually live there, or are you a victim of confirmation bias?

      "The 2007 CIA World Factbook lists the religion of France as: Roman Catholic 83–88%, Protestant 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 5%–10%, unaffiliated 4%."

      "The mood in Paris following the worst attack in peacetime history, is something of bewilderment, numbness but also huge outpouring of grief with locals openly weeping and making signs of the cross as they pass the many street fronts where their country men and women died."

  • by golodh ( 893453 ) on Saturday November 14, 2015 @01:40PM (#50930933)
    Perhaps someone can tell me, as I can't make head or tails of what motivates ISIS.

    It is as if they've got a list of parties (nations) to piss off and are going down the list one by one. By this logic China, Japan, or Brazil ought to be next in line.

    Besides which, they do seem to be doing their damnedest to drum up popular support for military action against them. Both the US and the UK will point to this attack and say to their respective electorates: "See? Told you that restraint won't help against these extremists. Now will you believe me? We need to actively engage those criminals *now* before they become too large to contain.".

    I could understand (but not agree) if they just wanted to have their "caliphate". If you wanted to build a state you'd want to control territory and then secure it.

    But going after a Russian airliner? The country ruled by an ex-soviet KGB colonel? The one who has shown he can (and will) use dumb (read: cheap) bombs to raze whole villages simply to get at one target? The one who comes from a long tradition that has demonstrated that as far as they're concerned normal rules of war don't exist? The one party that might otherwise be persuaded to sell arms (as long as they're to uses against US and UK forces)? Well ... if they looked for another adversary they've just got one.

    And France? How much of the coalition's bomb runs are carried out by French aircraft? How many of the drones do the operate over Syria and Iraq? Not all that many? Man! We gotta change that! Lets piss 'em off big time and see if they can't do better.

    The only reason I can think of is that they hope to goad Paris into dropping a nuke on Raqa ... decapitating ISIS ... and (I suppose) starting WW-III. Could that be it? Could they really aim at igniting a full-scale war between approx. 1 bln. muslims and 4 bln. non-muslims?

    Or is thinking not their long suit? Are they too absorbed in their faith for that?

    Anybody?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 14, 2015 @02:58PM (#50931299)

      You have an excellent article on ISIS in the atlantic, the amount of catch-22s in the DAESH view of the world is a thing of beauty, as a school of thought they are literally too dumb to live.
      http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

      • by golodh ( 893453 ) on Sunday November 15, 2015 @02:45AM (#50933705)
        Read the article. It makes sense, sort of. Found another piece, on CNN this time:

        http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11... [cnn.com]

        The article they refer to is this one:

        https://azelin.files.wordpress... [wordpress.com]

        Didn't have the stomach to read it in one go. It's written from a revanchist religious point of view and it lays every single failure since the fall of the Ottoman empire of the Islamic world to get its house in order and rise from a violently squabbling mob at the West's door. Apparently we have been doing Satan's work on them.

        Their preferred response is "savagery", according to the author of that pamphlet. I think we can see what he means..

        Somehow I don't see us working out our differences with them through reasoned debate.

        It's a religious sect writ large, and it's one huge pitcher of cool-aid they've got there.

        The only good news seems to be that this little masterpiece doesn't seem to base itself on the authority of Islamic texts per se. As far as I can see, it's based on an interpretation of Islam that's driven by an revanchist view of history.

        That ought to give us something to work with when dealing with radicalising youths (their main supply of manpower).

        Revanchism and envy are probably easier to deal with than straight-up religion.

    • by swb ( 14022 ) on Saturday November 14, 2015 @04:09PM (#50931591)

      It's truly hard to understand the motives of ISIS by any rational, realpolitik kinds of analysis.

      The attacks on Paris make rational sense in that they are probably one of the weaker world powers. While stronger than most, they don't have the kind of unilateral military reach and power of the US or Russia. France couldn't invade any part of the Middle East on its own for all kinds of practical reasons involving troop levels, troop transport and material assets. And politically they aren't aligned strictly with the US in terms of "war on terror" policy and seem less likely to react militarily (the US got hit on 9/11 and we invaded and occupied two countries, and still occupy one of them).

      Ideologically, France has been one of the most militant in opposing Islamic cultural traditions and was military involved in pushing back ISIS affiliates in North Africa.

      But Russia? It's arguable that they're more dangerous as an adversary now than when they were the Soviet Union, and the track record in Chechnya indicates they're not willing to abide by the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

      I think ISIS is gambling that the existential risk of a no-holds-barred ground campaign isn't in the cards, but I think these direct attacks on adversaries capable of such a campaign really increase. If the US and Russia can sort out their issues and the future of Assad, I think this risk becomes a lot more of a gamble.

  • Good lord ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Saturday November 14, 2015 @02:35PM (#50931181)

    ... I know it shouldn't surprise me, but even after this, the top rated comments are still slamming generic "religion" and talking about "backlash" playing a role.

    What exactly would it take to wake you up? Would anything do it? Your own head being sawed off? Your city being bombed?

We don't know one millionth of one percent about anything.

Working...