Paris Shootings and Explosions Kill Over 100, Police Say

>You are trying to rationalize with people who are irrational.

In my opinion, this is the most dangerous statement in this thread. Saying the actions of these people is irrational loses any ability to understand why they're doing what they're doing and how we can stop them. It turns them into a faceless enemy who are doing things because of hate, which is easy and makes my ego feel better, but doesn't really explain their actions or the actions of anyone. Nobody thinks they're the bad guy of their own story.

There is nothing more rational than terrorizing civilians to achieve a goal. It is the logical conclusion of rationality.

They are doing what they are doing because they have interpreted their primary religious text as explicitly instructing them to kill people that don't believe as they do. Killing another human being that poses no threat to you, regardless of what books you like to read or what instructions you believe they contain, is absolutely irrational - regardless of your "goal". Rational people have no way of understanding these actions, nor should they.

Last I heard, they were doing this to avenge their countrymen. In fact, we don't really know all the whos and the whys, we just know the whats. And what happened was a horrible thing that needs to be investigated, pored over, and responded to in a measured, rational way that doesn't become a nationstate-enabled revenge plot.

This is ISIS, at least that's the best guess of most of the experts being quoted in the media (and most rational observers of world news).

No, that's again a refusal to understand why they are doing it. Happy religious people (say, devout Hindus during Diwali) don't go around killing others. There is a lot of "otherness" and segregation in Europe, poverty and war in the countries of origin, and many other factors that radicalise people. Saying that they're doing it because of a book (that they probably didn't even read) is just your own way to turn them into a justifiable target.

When you avenge your countrymen, you avenge by killing the people at fault... not innocent folks enjoying a concert.

Unless you want to do actual damage. In terror attacks, deaths are only collateral, the real damage is the overreaction of the attacked nation. It's an effective thing if you blame a country.

I agree that with asymmetrical warfare resorting to terrorism is rational. What seems irrational is our inability to recognize the struggle of our enemy for what it's worth and our refusal to negotiate. I can't think of an example where negotiations (as in granting that your partner in negotiations is your peer) haven't led to a net positive outcome. To take but one example close to home: The Soviet Union was founded by a terrorist group. The ultimate recognition of the state by western powers and their foreign policy of engagement -- aside from the Cold War era -- was instrumental in bringing the enemy to its knees (whatever the wider repercussions of this outcome).

Killing innocent, helpless people IS irrational. Period

Rational.. irrational.. I hope you can see that it's a pointless argument. The word "rational" is highly subjective so we shouldn't pretend there's some objective measure of rationality.

* Kill an innocent civilian * Have or perform an abortion * Eat meat * Fight in a war * Drop an atomic bomb on a city * Commit suicide

That's all shit that some people call rational and others call irrational. The truth is that "rational" is a word we choose because it sounds objective and authoritative, but it really means: "something that makes sense to me"

> There is a lot of "otherness" and segregation in Europe

There are lots of e.g. Indian, Chinese, South-East Asian, immigrants in Europe. And all over the world. If anything, they look less caucasian than people from Middle East / North Africa, so one would assume them to face even more racism. But they have not produced terrorists.

It's irrational if you do it for kicks. It's rational if you expect a strategic advantage for your group/nation-state out of it. Whether it is moral to do is an entirely different discussion.

It's important because to start to solve these problems you have to be able to see things from their point of view, you can't really do that if you think they are irrational.

It's not irrational at all.

If your goal is to terrify a nation in order to pressure it to change its foreign policy then it is quite rational. And there are quite a few examples of this approach actually working.

To be fair the US et al has killed many innocent civilians in the Middle East.

It's not intentional but I doubt ISIS sympathisers see the distinction.

> It's not intentional but I doubt ISIS sympathisers see the distinction.

I don't see the distinction either. If you drop a bomb and kill some people that you didn't intend to kill, you're still 100% responsible for those kills.

It is the saddest thing that we have found no better response to terrorism than limiting civil liberties and sending 18 year old boys with guns to foreign countries.

How about chamberlains negotiations with Hitler?

Well obvioysly to someone irrational every of his action seem rational.

The point is that for a phycologicaly healthy and balanced human being these actions can not be called rational by any stretch of logic

Well you can wonder why did these people act irrationaly? Could these behaviour have been detected? Could they have been helped out of this narrowed point of view of thinking that killing innocent is the right thing to do ? I don't think anyone today hasn't in mind those questions.

But all the while you think they acted irrationally I don't think you will really be able to understand why they did it.

I think you'll find that psychological health has little to do with what people can convince themselves of, or convince themselves to do - i.e. you can't explain away Daesh (or WWII nazis, etc.) with mental illness.

Their actions could absolutely be called rational and logical if you were to accept their premise - which is what I'd argue is irrational.

Oh lordy, no wonder this thread got partially shut down. Calling a pack of murdering religious extremists irrational now classifies as the most dangerous thing that can be said about the situation - yikes. Did I invade your safe space?

They did not terrorize citizens, they murdered them in the name of their non-existent god. Life will go on in Paris just as it did in New York. There is no goal other than blood lust and grim spectacle. All because of their nonsense and yes, irrational religion.

You don't even need a Godwin point for that. Nobody was calling Air Marshall Harris, well-known for his strategy of carpet-bombing civilians with incendiaries during WWII, "insane" or "irrational". Instead, they gave him a bunch of medals and made him a baronet.

I understand your point is that direct confrontation at times cannot be avoided. In particular, you may be provoked to defend yourself, as in the Soviet Union entering WWII upon Germany violating the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I'm of the opinion that only this latter case of agression justifies taking up arms. Any violence by way of preventive action lends itself too easily to abuses, as we see with the so-called war on terrorism. In the context of WWII, it's not at all clear that anything other than collective action of the allies and the Soviet Union could have stopped Germany. And for that, the events had to run their course. One can find fault with indecision on refugees, but not with appeasement efforts.

What if all you got is an Ak47 and they have ships, tanks, air fighters and drones in the sky?

Please think what would happen if the tables were turned - your country is invaded by a much bigger nation with a technological advantage. Would you organize a peaceful protest for your enemy to ignore?

Even if the religion's interpretation of Daesh is irrational to a scientific mind, does not negates the fact that there is a rational analysis to explain the plans and strategy of the liders of the movement(terrorist group).