Thoughts on Paris attacks.

Pat Powers

Did radical Islamic terrorists shock the world to action last night?

Eight ISIS terrorists wielding AK-47s and wearing suicide belts carried out coordinated attacks at six sites around Paris Friday night, killing at least 127 people and wounding at least 180 others, France’s president said Saturday.

ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack and a Syrian passport was found on the body of suicide bomber at the Paris stadium. French authorities are investigating the attacks and urging any witnesses to come forward. 

Speaking after an emergency security meeting to plan his government’s response, Francois Hollande declared three days of national mourning and raised France’s security to its highest level. He described Friday’s attacks, which produced the worst bloodshed in Paris since World War II, as an “act of war.” Hollande said ISIS was “a terrorist army … a jihadist army, against France, against the values that we defend everywhere in the world, against what we are: A free country that means something to the whole planet.”

Read it here.

What are your thoughts? Does this change the game, and has if forced the world to deal with the threat of radical Islamic terrorists more seriously and aggressively?

53 thoughts on “Thoughts on Paris attacks.”

    1. In case you don’t want to chase down that link here’s just a taste:

      The leaders of this holy war aren’t military generals, they are imams. What if the religious leaders of the West took the lead in responding?…. We’ve mortgaged our future spending trillions on the sword. Selectively fiscal conservatives still think additional trillions in defence spending and ongoing war will make us safer and depopulate the world of bad guys. It has done the opposite. Maybe it’s time we push the leaders espousing those failed solutions aside. Where is the radical leadership of those who hold to the values of Jesus? …Every bomb we drop has proven to be a seed that produces ten more people who hate us. Closing borders is step one. Slowing down the welcome of refugees is step two to vet them properly so radicals aren’t waltzing right in among them. A military response here is more of the same and produces more of the same. We need to use our values not our bombs. Certainly there is a Sermon on the Mount response that will effectually heap burning coals on the heads of our enemies.

      1. I hate to sound like ‘Debbie Downer’ but i think it’s too late for dialogue. I don’t believe they are reasonable people. I grew up in the 70s and 80s when it seemed like everyday on the news was a story of another terrorist attack. And because i grew up seeing those horrible images of people dead lying on the floor of an airport, or bodies of American soldiers being carried out of the barracks in Beirut or the hijacking of a TWA flight that went on for days, I very much dislike and distrust Muslims. I still have the image of the aftermath of a terrorist attack at the Rome airport, and I can still envision the image of a picture that was taken from a high vantage point of a woman who was killed in the attack. Her eyes were still open, as if staring at the photographer. She wore a purple overcoat and black slacks, her legs distorted from falling to the floor. And i realize that not all terrorists are Muslims. I admire and commend you for speaking out and offering a peaceful resolution to all this madness but i think it’s not possible.

      2. Would you have taken the same position in Germany in 1939?

        I also wonder where the Sermon on the Mount supports closing borders?

        I don’t think you’re necessarily wrong, Hickey. But this is complicated. Your position is not.

        1. It’s complicated and I think proactive peace keeping forces are necessary. We need humanitarian armies out there risking their lives not taking lives. I don’t have all the answers and it’s not easy or black and white and I’m not sure I’m right and I’m not a total pacifist at least yet. But I am siding with the peace voices this time. I’d rather fail trying there. War isn’t working and it’s making it worse and we’ve been at it against terrorism for 22 years. Maybe there is a divine strategy for peacemaking and reconciliation in the Gospel after all. As is we send missionaries and bombs. I refuse to believe there are no applications for sermon on the mount principles beyond individual applications. In other words, nations that espouse judeo-Christian values need to think about possible turn the other check strategies too.

          1. Well that’s the rub, isn’t it Rev? It’s tough. Maybe someone who is an expert on Bonhoeffer could offer some well reasoned opinions? Why did he support his friends in the German army, dabble with pacifism, and ultimately die for opposing Hitler?

            I know few Christians who claim the Sermon on the Mount is irrelevant. It’s just really hard to figure it out.

            Also, it’s easy to volunteer “humanitarian armies.” It’s another thing to watch them slaughtered.

            We also have to think about this from a different perspective. Those of us in the West – even Paris – are relatively safe. What do you think the Yazidis, Christians, Shiites, and moderate Suni in the ME think about humanitarian armies while they are being annihilated and their woman raped and children sold into slavery? For them, the knife is the real weapon.

          2. Simple question. You want to close the borders. Explain how this works with the Sermon on the Mount.

            1. Read more carefully and you’ll see I am digging in a putting forth some rationale. You want a dissertation, come over here and write one. Yes, close the border, feed and secure the refugees and vet them and relocate them. A humanitarian army can have guns. Your tough-tone anonymity tells me you have no ideas worth putting your real name alongside. Answer this question… where will we get the money for a new rush to war?

        2. Heard someone say once that all wars are bankers wars. We had the Rothchilds and other banking families funding both sides of WWII. Are we to believe they are non-factors in today’s conflicts? Additionally, private corporation defense contractors scandalously benefited the most from the last twenty years of the war on terror. If only the crumbs of all that wasted trillions could go to our troops and war widows. Frankly, I’m sick of it and travel enough to know so much of the rest of the world resents us. A very misguided war screwed up my dad and there’s a book called Vietnam Wives that tells what it was like to grow up in our home. I’ve lost confidence in our leadership, right and left, to send our troops in harms way for the right reasons. I’m not sure what team our President is really on and therefore think we should be very reticent to fight his wars. Time for a different set of leaders to put forth a different set of strategies. If we want to fight fire with fire, let’s try fighting religious ideology with areligious ideology of the opposite spirit.

          1. But you want to close the borders? Why? That was your suggestion.

            This doesn’t sound much like Bonhoeffer. He engaged with the tough issues. He made good arguments. You just resorted to conspiracy desperation.

            I am sorry if your home wasn’t great. Join the club.

            If you’re going to engage on these issues from a Biblical perspective go all in. Do the hard work. This sort of cheap-seats public policy with an overlay of moralism is ugly.

          2. –Time for a different set of leaders to put forth a different set of strategies.

            Yes amen.

            -If we want to fight fire with fire, let’s try fighting religious ideology with areligious ideology of the opposite spirit.

            Amen again. I just cannot believe the vitriol to “destroy ISIS” spewed by so-called Christians. When it becomes “get them before they get us”, we’ve forgotten Christ. And then to applaud a politician spouting such garbage is well, blasphemy. Anyone who suggests such a thing is no better than they are.

    2. To Steve Hickey – this is an enemy which has spent decades gaming out how to use our every logical move against us. They know how to destroy our emergency response ambulance and fire teams, they know how to manage and evade police responses, they know how to gather various types of soft targets all together and destroy them. Look at little Ahmed, or Clockmed as he’s called. He was either just an innocent kid with a science exhibit, OR he was a clever little insurgent testing the security responses at a public venue. It’s all how you look at what you’re seeing, and many of us disagree with the kneejerk initial self-blaming response you seem to go to.

      1. We have gained ground whenever we’ve poured killing force into the places where the enemy forces are found to be, and we lose that ground when we stop short of maintaining our lock on it, by relaxing and pulling back. We have a one-party rule running the country right now that thinks nothing of ripping up many long-standing institutions and holding us frozen in place as long as it takes to make sure the bridge back from these horrible policies has finished burning. In a few years, repealing Obamacare won’t matter at all, the alternate care systems will have died on the vine. YET they can send an army here or there, rip up the place, and not care to hold secure for the time it takes to crush an enemy. We have lost many people from 9-11-01 to this very day, and we ourselves apply the laxity in execution that makes all of those losses meaningless. That’s the blame I’d place on us, rather than ‘never giving peace a chance.’ We give peace a chance far too soon, over and over and over with an enemy that counts on us to do precisely that.

        1. Watching CBS this morning, their chief foreign war expert, a former CIA director, correctly made the case for the US changing the approach to fighting ISIS in the region, and adjusting to the reality on the ground, THEN made it all a big laugh by forcefully arguing for new efforts to decide to oust Syrian president Assad. Russia has decided that Assad isn’t going anywhere, so GIVE IT UP please. Talk to Russia and find out if there’s a way to address the big threat, ISIS. Then go get it done.

  2. Donald Trump’s poll numbers will only go up. He is the guy people see as the toughest against ISIS and Radical Islam.

    1. Mr Lansing – thank you for posting the link to the Atlantic article. It confirms what many of us have seen and believed for some time, that ISIS and the caliphate are the logical result of Bin Ladin’s modern warfare approach to destroying the West. It was interesting to read that Bin Ladin didn’t expect the rise of IS in his lifetime, but maybe he was expecting his life to be shorter than it was given the fight he was waging. This article paints the clearest picture of a huge politically-powerful expression of the monolith of Islamic belief – – that it intends to return current radical Islam from the corrupt accomodations of the Shia and Sunni alike, to a rock-bottom 7th century fundamentalism and purity – – that it intends to rule the planet, and destroy that planet rather than be stopped by anyone. It is the clearest warning shot we will get about this threat, and I’m glad you posted the article.

      1. Having said this, the article has interesting contrasts, the first part lays out the rigid power of the underlying philosophy, then in the second part makes the case that IS will burn itself out. Anything that can burn with an intense fire for thirteen centuries is beyond burning itself out by any dismissive measure we can apply. IS remains a danger, regardless of the way the article tries to paint limits on the scope of the threat.

        1. Yes, the article is a better guide to knowing what the right questions are than it is a roadmap to the answers.

  4. I will never understand the pacifist mentality. I believe it to be naieve and harmful. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy. How did this approach work for the Jewish people across Europe in Worl War 2. I don’t believe Hitler, Stalin, Polpot, Muselini ( sorry about spelling) just wanted to talk. They all un-amend their citizens which then made them subjects. Then systematically killed all who opposed. What’s happens is no different. They see woman and non-believers as the enemy. We either convert or they want us dead. It’s not as nuanced as the over speak above. Institutional academia has made hate out to be a slight mis-understanding. If we spoke nicer or weren’t pushing freedom worldwide they would like us more. That is naive bull shit. Plain and simple.

    1. “Hitler, Stalin, Polpot, Muselini. They all un-amend their citizens which then made them subjects.”– Absolutely NOT true, just another lie spewed by the NRA puppets…

      1. “Absolutely NOT true”, just another bit of idiocy spewed by Jaa Dee. I have a right to bear arms, given by the Constitution; you libs misinterpret the 2nd amendment all the time, but twisting things to fit your narrative is typical of unprincipled types.

  5. “If the battle for civilization comes down to the wimps versus the barbarians, the barbarians are going to win.” – Thomas Sowell

    1. Agreed
      A bully punches you in the face, he’s already told you he doesn’t want to talk. You break his nose.

  6. I outlined my fears of this happening here. https://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2015/09/giving-syrians-asylum-is-not-worth-the-risk/
    I was also personally attacked by our out of touch liberal blogger for voicing those fears. http://dakotafreepress.com/2015/09/12/south-dakota-welcomes-refugees-should-welcome-more-from-syria/
    I hope my fear of this happening here remains wrong forever. My thoughts and prayers are with Paris, may we learn from this and act in a sensible manner to keep Americans safe.

    2. –I was also personally attacked by our out of touch liberal blogger for voicing those fears.

      Take it with pride–thats Corey’s modus operandi.

      Just be thankful you weren’t one of his students who challenged him!

  7. One of the unfortunate things in all of this is that our current leadership does not want to recognize who and the kind of enemy we are dealing with here. Our President says ISIL is contained. He may be right, but everyone else calls them ISIS. Our President cannot bring himself to say Islamic extremists. Terrorists, and ISIS is no exception, looks for soft targets. They attack places where people have little or no ability to defend themselves. Civilized nations attack the terrorists and try to avoid non-combatants. Terrorists attack non-combatants and avoid the military.

  8. The tragedy which happen in France yesterday is another sad by-product of the Bush Doctrine; a doctrine, which unfortunately is like a gift which keeps on giving or should I say keeps on costing us in lives and resources.

    1. The crime involving Bush is that we didn’t fully hear him or take his advice to heart about how to manage the stamina needed for the effort, and that he didn’t follow his own words and had to be shoved into the surge of 2006 which McCain advocated and got us back on track. Any other alleged “war crime” should be either taken to court and prosecuted now, or dropped so we can move on to pressing business.

  9. Lindsay Graham should be thanked for making the destruction of ISIS the singular issue of his campaign.

    Hillary Clinton will have to find a way to distance herself from Obama AND her own record as Secretary of State.

    Jeb Bush can now wrap himself around the Bush name as his brother “kept us safe” and had pushed radical Islam into the weeds.

    Rand Paul’s isolationism sounds naive.

    The burden on every other campaign is they will have to be specific on their plans as they have no real history to be judged on directly or indirectly. This burden will be easiest for the following as they have been getting briefed and can talk with authority and knowledge.

    Cruz/Rubio: they are Senators and I think they both serve on a committee with national security purview.

    Fiorina: She was for years after 9-11 the Chair of the CIA Advisory Board.

    In short, Trump and Carson’s lack of insider status and experience could be a problem.

    1. “Jeb Bush can now wrap himself around the Bush name as his brother ‘kept us safe’ and had pushed radical Islam into the weeds.”

      Let’s see, “Dubya” was inaugurated in January of 2001 and “9/11” happen under his watch some eight months later…hum? I would summarize that “Dubya” did not keep us safe.

      1. If after 7 years of being led by President Obama who has pretty much capitulated to the Islamic extremists who he is not even willing to identify is the fault of Bush, then I suggest it is probably true that the 9/11 is a result of what happened under the Clinton Administration. President Bush said 9/11 changed everything in the way we looked at things. President Bush saw a need to keep a force in the areas that were brought under control. President Obama has seen a need to dismantle all that has been accomplished. And it is the fault of the Bush Doctrine? Personally, I do not blame our current President for the attacks on Paris. There are reports that both Turkey and Iraq gave warnings of attacks coming. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen, but it does show how our current strategy has been lulled. At least ISIL has been contained. If only we could do something about ISIS.

    2. The public’s fancies right now are in the fantasy / denial zone, evidenced by the waves of support for Trump and Sanders. Don’t hold your breath about sane policies being a fulcrum for anyone’s winning campaign anytime soon.

    3. –Lindsay Graham should be thanked for making the destruction of ISIS the singular issue of his campaign.

      What? Thanking someone who advocates the “destruction” of human life?

      ISIS is not a ‘thing”–ISIS is people. How dare anyone who calls himself a Christian suggest that destroying ISIS is a good thing? Jesus help us.

      Self-defense is well established as a theological justification, but it must be proportionate and reasonable under the circumstances. We are under no imminent threat from evil people 5000 miles away. We have borders that we enforce and can improve that can keep these people from becoming an imminent threat.

      The bloodthirst of “destroying ISIS” is wholly Unchristian. Christians do not judge who is evil and who is not from 5000 miles away. We are not God.

      My God, my God, what have we become?

      1. The above statements are ludicrous. ISIS, ISIL, DAESH, whatever you choose to call them, is not a thing, it is an ideology. Adherents (people) to this ideology believe in imposing their religious ideology on the entire world, killing those who disagree with them or refuse to adopt their ideology, and have no qualms about taking any actions, however horrendous, to achieve their goal. In WWII we destroyed the Nazi regime; was that anti Christian; I sincerely hope that you don’t think we as Christians should have stood by and allowed the annilation of an entire race.

        You don’t believe we are under any threat from ISIS just because it is headquartered in Iraq??? We have had terrorist attacks and other terrorist attacks have been thwarted by good intelligence and police work and just plain old luck. People have left the US to join ISIS, and there is presently no assurance that they have not or will not return here to carry out terrorist acts. With the present social media, and now even the use of play stations, to connect with each other, ISIS may well be no farther away than your next door neighbor.

        According to you, Christians should not judge. But it seems that the Bible also states that “by their acts you shall know them.” I think that their acts pretty well personify true evil, and Christians are supposed to confront evil.

  10. P.S. To assuage Andrew/Julie/PerCuriam: the above are my views in response to Pat’s specific question and I am not speaking for my family, friends, the War College, party, community, state, nation or church.

  11. CNN is reporting today that one of the bombers entered the EU posing as a refugee. I disagree with you, Pastor Hickey. Peace is no longer a viable option. IMO.

    1. You have two issues in your comment; border and bombs. I’m saying bombs haven’t worked.

      I wrote this today in another place where this is being discussed. My comment is related to the Fox News story today about mass burials of Kurds being found killed this year:

      And this is why we have this immigration crisis – people are fleeing. No easy answer. The present open border policy is humanitarian and Christian. But we also know for sure Europe and the West are undergoing an Islamic invasion through cultural jihad, fertility rates and now exploiting an immigration crisis. It’s not unChristian to live in a walled city and agree with the importance of a discerning gatekeeper. The day is coming when an invader guised as a refugee walks the streets of London or DC with a nuke in a suitcase. Those in government now need divine wisdom to navigate the immigration crisis.

      1. The fleeing refugees also present a huge opportunity to embed more terrorists and move them into Europe and possibly North America. And even if they’re not actual terrorists, being adherents to Islam presents huge obstacles in vetting the security risk they pose, and to any cultural assimilation that the host countries are hoping will occur for their own identity needs.

        1. Also, as of this moment, 2PM ct Sunday 11/15/15, nobody has even once mentioned the 500 pound elephant in the room – – THE JEWS. A common factor for just about every Islamic group is the belief that the Jews should be either relocated to the opposite end of the globe (small belief) or eradicated totally altogether (large belief.) Personally, I love the jews and I love Israel and I also want it to be right where it is for the forseable future. As you debate whether it’s time for the US to get its hands dirty or not, or weigh the danger that we face or not, the threat to an ally is constant, and other allies like France are paying a price too. We won’t buy our safety by giving up on theirs.

      2. There are no issues in my comment; you failed to understand what I meant by bombers. Suicide bomber. The terrorist entered the EU by fictitiously posing as a Syrian refugee.

  12. Anderbilt,

    Good point regarding the Jews. We have two choices with regard to Israel and the Jews:

    1) Destroy ISIS now while ISIS is not fully established and organized or later when they are. Or,

    2) Abandon Israel and the Jews while ISIS is not fully established and organized or later when they are.

    There is no middle ground. Anyone who thinks when the ISIS is established they aren’t going to attack Israel is unrealistic.

    1. Not wanting to be unrealistic, Troy, but if ISIS is going to attack Israel, why haven’t they already done it instead of attacking France and Russia? And if Israel is so concerned about ISIS why aren’t they the right ones to take them out? Is it possible that ISIS is trying to bait the West into WWIII and we’re about to swallow the hook? Just thinking out loud over here.

      1. Bill to answer your question concerning ISIS entering Israel, and broaden the peephole of Anon 11:06, Israel actually patrols and maintains its borders.

Comments are closed.