When there is an attack on a train in France nobody says it's the Muslim world attacking Christians ...
- no, because Europe is no longer Christian (thank G-d). But they certainly do say it's the Muslim world attacking Europe
... and we should strike back,
- who's "we"? Neither you nor I are European, so why do you automatically consider us on the Europe side instead of Arab? ... For the same reason "they" see us as one group: because we are. But, it's not a Christian group any more. I guess Caucasian would be the accurate label
- more important, nobody says we should strike back, because we're already striking and have been for decades
... so why are you so quick to spout that nonsense that anti-terrorism efforts are inherently anti-Muslim ?
- As a general rule: 1) if I say something factual or to-the-point, it's obvious why I said it. 2) If it's funny, it's a joke. 3) If it's nonsense, it's because it's a deeply-held, well-thought-out non-sensical belief. And if I'm quick to spout it, it's because I wasn't busy with something more important
- But I said nothing (nor did anyone else) about "anti-terrorist". Better way to put it: attacks on Muslims are inherently anti-Muslim
Big-picture-wise, I'm taking a longer view than u. If you look at only today, perhaps your view is sensible. But where did the "terrorists" come from: ISIS, Al Quaeda, and etc.?
Now we could go back to Xerxes, or Muhammad, Ali ibn Abi Talib, Crusades, ... but let's not overdo it. Start with 1951 - beginning of the rrr314159 era.
Two years later, without my concurrence (admittedly I was a little young to be consulted), the US and UK (Kermit Roosevelt of the CIA was a key operative) illegally and unethically engineered the deposition of Mosadeggh (democratically elected P.M) in Iran, because the oil barons wanted more money (cold war considerations were the excuse). They returned Mohammad Reza as king, who functioned as one of our "puppets". Naturally the Iranians didn't like that, and in 1979 chased him out and put the Ayatollah in charge. There's no doubt that if the West had left them to themselves they would have become more and more Westernized; instead, reacting against our heavy-handed policies, they returned to strict theocracy. Of course the new Iran hated the West (remember Embassy hostages, Jimmy Carter etc).
So, the West built up Saddam Hussein as a counter-weight, provided military support and chemical weapons, encouraged the bloody Iran-Iraq war, etc. I never disliked Saddam, figuring u have to be brutal to keep together a country of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. But be that as it may, US specifically helped him in his brutality, supported use of chemicals against his own people, so he would keep down this other enemy we'd made for the good of oil barons' bank balances.
Meanwhile Russia invaded Afghanistan and the CIA financed and trained Osama Bin Laden against them, creating the seed of al-Qaeda.
Then Saddam started looking dangerous - he might unify the Arab world (by force, partly) and be a threat to Israel. Again, lots of money was involved. In 1991 I was working for the Navy on submarine Combat Control Systems. My understanding was, they were to be used against the USSR; indeed, the idea was they would never be used, they were a deterrent. Now, USSR was a huge power with equal weaponry, which threatened (from US POV, anyway) major portions of the world: a worthy enemy. Suddenly for no good reason those subs were deployed against tiny Iraq, killing innocent civilians as well as (to my mind) innocent soldiers. Who cares about Kuwait? It was always Oil and Israel (O&I) - not, I felt, good reasons. So I had to leave, and went to private sector, writing DBase II and SQL (very boring).
This post is too long already, but other major topics include US support of Saudi Arabia dictators; and Israel: Truman early recognition thereof, which extremely alienated and amazed Arabs; Jonathan Pollard and the secret transfer of nukes to Israel; and major weapons / technology transfer in general, putting them far ahead of rest of Middle East. Don't forget Sykes-Picot Agreement, etc. And, etc.
2001, the World Trade Center. Why did those people (mostly Saudi Arabians, whose dictators we have kept in power) hate us enough to do that? To me it's totally obvious, if you know a little history. Until then Muslims hadn't attacked European-descent lands for, what, 400 years or so - while we'd slaughtered and hassled them for O&I. None of that slaughter ever did me the slightest good; I've been against it from day one. Of the 3000 deaths on 9/11, probably 2700 felt the same as me (they were "civilians"), but a good 300 were vitally involved in that aggression - they were white-collar terrorists. And as we all know,
...they are against active terrorists, it is unfortunate that civilians are killed and injured as a result but that is a byproduct of war.
George W. (with the help of neo-con "advisors", and undoubtedly the promise of money later on) decided to retaliate with some serious butt-kicking. Can't disagree - we were, indeed, attacked - but given the ratio of killings to that point (maybe 300,000, or 3 million, who knows, to 3000) I felt a very targeted ("surgical") response was called for. In other words, I'd say Osama had good, even admirable, reason to do it, but should be killed just on general principles. But instead we destroyed our previous pal, Saddam, who was completely uninvolved and had no WMDs. Why? Because he threatened to unify Arabs against Israel and keep their own oil, so this was a convenient excuse. We left the country (previously a modern, relatively happy place) a "rogue state", infrastructure ruined, millions dead, everybody reverting to bloody savagery. Then Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, the entire Arab world (it seems) became the target. Why? Well, we just went over that. Since Persians and Arabs have little in common except their religion, I think it's very reasonable, in this "us-against-them" context, to lump them together as "Muslims". Essentially the wars, police actions, spy actions, "regime changes", have been West ("Caucasians", if you will) against Muslims. NOT because of theology, but money (=O&I); still the label "Muslim" is not inaccurate.
So if you look at only the last 24 hours, obviously the "terrorist" in Paris is a bad guy. But considering the history of these hostilities it's another story. If you look at the last 24 hours, it's not about Christians vs. Muslims - that's irrelevant. But in an historical context, it's relevant. Look at last 24 hours, ISIS is horrible. Last decades, however, ISIS appears inevitable result of the constant aggression of the West against Middle East. You know, Gandhi would last about 5 minutes over there. As with Saddam, brutality has become necessary to hold power in that witch's brew of bombs, drones, foreign invaders, factions etc.
You call them terrorists, I call them Freedom Fighters. Perhaps we can split the difference and call them "people"?
My specific point was that the two soldiers brought the gunman under control without carrying any guns.
- u didn't mention that (and I didn't know it). Yes that's a very good gun-control-advocate point: guns were only the problem here, not the solution. Still it's only one incident
