Home | About | Donate

A Missed Chance to Connect Paris Massacres, Past and Present


A Missed Chance to Connect Paris Massacres, Past and Present

Janine Jackson

In a piece picked up everywhere from the Chicago Tribune to the Knoxville News Sentinel, the Associated Press called the November 13 ISIS attacks in Paris “the deadliest violence to strike France since World War II.” The Atlantic concurred with that description for the horrific attacks that killed


I appreciate Ms. Jackson's essay. I had the same thought she did about 1961 and it needs to be said. The current wave of Islamic terrorism has deep historical roots and that is why it is going to be so hard to eradicate. My own view is that Hollande is right to declare a state of emergency and round up thousands of potential terrorists, a step that would not be out of place in the US. Too many people have already been so radicalized that no change in current policy will divert them from committing acts of revenge. The US and its allies have killed literally millions and the rage that our high tech form of terrorism has created cannot be turned off. It will not stop in response to Obama's feeble pleas for gun control. Extraordinary police measures by democratic governments will, I am convinced, be necessary in order to stave off the outright fascism advocated by the likes of Marine LePen and Donald Trump.

But the essential step now is that the US and its allies need to stop creating new generations of terrorists through its genocidal bombing campaigns. That means NO military response to ISIS or Al Queda. Withdraw all military from the Islamic world. All we know how to do over there is kill, and we simply must stop.

And end all support for the state of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other U.S. allies now engaged in the torture and murder of Muslims. Not even the social democrat Bernie Sanders has called for this kind of necessary course reversal in the Middle East.


I think this article is shameless and displays a lack of empathy for the people who were killed and who were innocent (most of whom probably hadn't been born yet in 1961).

Something done fifty years ago doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the mass murder by these terrorists. Two wrongs make neither right.

What possesses people to dehumanize the deaths of innocents? We oppose drones and loss of innocent life in the endless war because innocent people die.

When innocent people die anywhere it is not justifiable.
To apply any hint of justification to the recent murders in Paris because fifty years ago other innocents were murdered is feeding into terrorist rationales for murdering innocent people.

They did it to us fifty years ago is bullshit.

There is no connection. Stop dehumanizing the victims wherever they are. Most likely there were Muslim's among the victims and maybe Algerians.

This article shows how the media desensitizes people towards victims. Coldly academic false equating and conflating of separate events in WORDS.

WORDS versus the actual dead. Try to remember that innocent people are not just statistics but most importantly...

The dead innocents here do not justify the dead innocents there.

Remember the innocence of the INNOCENT.


What, indeed, would be the Error
To call mass killing by French cops, Terror?
Were Algerians not meant to be...

More recent, US-led Mass Murder
What was "Shock and Awe" but Terror?
Were Iraqis not meant to be...

The evil that we know Today
Was born from darkest Yesterday
Stop the Killing, End the War
Or feed the fire forevermore

We, who understand, must stand
Say the words that must be said
Terror IS as Terror DOES
As what IS grows from what WAS

Dare to Stand, and Dare to Say
The greatest purveyor of Terror today
Is the USA


Always downplayed in ways that parallel the black-out on gender, is the Holy War mentality that is a HUGE part of the military upper echelon and used as a recruiting tool that asserts to young people raised inside the Fundamentalist Christian Community that this is a war to end all wars; and that it constitutes both a holy cause (Crusades) and "God's" will.

Here is an example (excerpted from on-line Salon Magazine in an article about Seymour Hersh):

"...the Christian fundamentalist version of the war, as prosecuted by Erik Prince, the former CEO of the military’s most notorious civilian contractor Xe (formerly Blackwater). His views — as depicted in one affidavit from the court case against him — certainly echo much of what Hersh ascribes to the JSOC and the Knights of Malta:

"To that end, Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis. Many of these men used call signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the Crusades.

"Mr. Prince operated his companies in a manner that encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life. For example, Mr. Prince’s executives would openly speak about going over to Iraq to “lay Hajiis out on cardboard.” Going to Iraq to shoot and kill Iraqis was viewed as a sport or game. Mr. Prince’s employees openly and consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs, such as “ragheads” or “hajiis.”

And just to pre-empt the "one bad apple" argument and its military protectors; there's also this:


Your comment is complete bullshit. Ms. Jackson and FAIR is not dehumanizing anyone for crying out loud! Looking to the roots of a senseless violent act is not justifying the act! It feels like frigging September-October 2001 all over again having to deal with idiotic arguments like yours.

But the topic of Ms Jackson's analysis was more limited that this. As an analyst/writer/broadcaster (radio program "Counterspin") for FAIR, Ms. Jackson was simply pointing out media bias in memory-holing this awful massacre against peaceful demonstrators when comparing the current event to past violence in France - for the usual reasons - the perpetrators were nice light-complected western Europeans.

Furthermore, USAns may suffer from amnesia but the rest of the world does not. 54 years does not seem all that long ago to me. This event (which I thank Ms. Jackson for teaching me about) taught me a lot about the origins of ISIL sympathizers and Muslim radicalization in Paris - and therefore how to best prevent it.


Bravo! Did you just write that?


Ms Jackson hints at, but missed the opportunity to point out the lessons effective ways to react to terrorist attacks that were provided by Spain.

Recall that Spain, under the right-wing Axnar government, supported Bush's criminal Iraq war with troops and equipment. After the 2004, terrorist attacks the Spanish people, instead of calling for military vengeance, rose up, ousted Aznar and swept the leftist Spanish Socialist Worker's Party into power in the elections the following month. Spain immediately withdrew from Iraq for the most part limited its involvement in the middle east and became a critic of Israel. There have been no more terrorist incidents on Spanish soil.


Aside from the inherent stupidity of suggesting a terrorist attack is an effective means of some group getting their way in the middle east, according to this article and your previous rant your Spanish suggestion wouldn't work because fifty years ago etc etc.

It is easier to talk (rant) than it is to make sense in what you say. Take heed.


Sure, the Spanish terrorist attacks may have been an effort by elements of the Iraqi resistance to influence the Spanish elections and so get Spain out of Iraq. So what? If something is wrong - and I'm sure you agree that the invasion of Iraq was a moral atrocity - it is wrong even if certain groups may use morally wrong methods in reaction to that wrong. So if doing the morally right thing means also "caving in to the terrorists", then guess what? You do the right thing and also cave to the terrorists. Get it?

And while I never implied a direct connection of the 1961 Paris massacre to the current terrorist attack, I still dont get your point. Spain never committed any atrocities against its Muslim residents like the 1961 massacre. But France did, buried its atrocity and never apologized or reconciled with its Muslim population over it.


You just argued that events ends fifty years ago have a connection and so your point is invalidated by your own argument. You really don't think for yourself do you. You seem easily led and therefore easily misled.and no I don't get it at all. To me it is the loss of innocent life is all that matters. Murder is not justifiable ...get it?


See my edit. You are not making any sense.


Yes, thanks Yunz. i started out writing a regular post, noticed the error / terror rhyme, and worked it out from there. One of the skills i work on is songwriting.


So you think that Spain should have instead doubled its involvement in Iraq, killing many innocents in the process, in the name of the "innocent lives" in Madrid?

Remember the cry of the relatives of the victims of New York on September 11, 2001 - "Not in our name!"

Have you read read Webwalks poem-essay above?


"Spain never committed any atrocities against its Muslim residents like the 1961 massacre."

Well, if you go back to 1492 they sure did...


OK, but unlike 1961 - that really was long ago!


Well, one could also point out to you that, aside from the inherent stupidity of insisting that studying history and providing historical context = support for current terrorist acts...

You have repeated this same stupid frame in 6 different comment threads. You are wrong no matter how many times you repeat it.



Do you actually read what other people say when you take it upon yourself to join a conversation uninvited? To say nothing of excusing your former insulting posts as if you never said them to someone.
Read what yunzer said. I addressed his comment and his direct connection to a terrorist act being effective as a means of some group getting what they want.
You are another one who just likes to argue and put down others but you don't grasp the issue well. Everything is reduced to simpllicities and standard lines.

No this isn't about studying history and repeating it though it must look like it to you. Sorry I can't help you there and while you may have made the same simplistic error six times (?) before, it is still of little interest or relevance to what I was discussing. You want to argue the typical surface treatment but spare me your self flattering drama because you don't seem to understand what is being discussed and end up arguing about something entirely different.

Like this nonsense about studying history. That was never the point. Sorry.


Uninvited? Is receiving an invitation part of the community guidelines for posting on this public forum? Answer no.

There is a reply link to every single post, and there is no explicit or even implied directive to posters that they don't join in an already existing back and forth between two other posters.

It is time that you drop this ridiculous point of argument.


Multiply my like by 10 at least.