Home | About | Donate

After Paris Attacks, Critics Warn Against 'Wars of Vengeance'

After Paris Attacks, Critics Warn Against 'Wars of Vengeance'

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

As details trickled out about Friday's deadly attacks in and around Paris, observers urged world leaders to avoid knee-jerk responses both at home and abroad.


I certainly think these attacks were horrible and do not in any way condone this atrocity in Paris, but having said that, does anyone ever ask why?


Thanks, Johnny James!
You have summed it up very well, and are insightful and courageous to question the narrative on this story. More people need to do the same.


One word explains it all…BLOWBACK


Right on Johnny. Here’s a perfectly MSM interview with a French security expert who blithely states that “luckily” huge security contingents were on hand that day because they were running practice drills on “multi-site attacks.” I kid you not. The exact scenario we had on 9/11, 7/7, and the Boston marathon. It’s in French, but if there aren’t subtitles for those who don’t understand, there are other versions on youtube with English translations: : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iebVWcVn2PU


The Paris attack was an abhorrent crime against humanity. The inevitable consequence of such an attack is fear, anger, and deep sense of loss.

At times, such as these, the push for peace and social justice is critical. Of course there will be many pushing for a full scale military response. Such a response will ensure greater numbers of innocent people being killed over a longer period of time. Can any of those who advocate for war present a sound argument that killing all the leadership of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, will bring an end to the possibility of such attacks?

While the attack in Paris might have been planned by some in ISIS leadership, it would not have been possible without a large number of supporters who are not in leadership roles.

Why should the investment in war be greater than the efforts to develop a deeper understanding of ISIS supporters?

Why not invest in learning what brings people to support and/or carry out such heinous attacks and what can be done to encourage alternative, peaceful, means of resolving differences?


Rudyjo et al, quite frankly I am neither a fan of Greenwald nor Snowden nor what the author of the following describes as "the most confused “progressives.” And will quite typically be damned by those who post here who have no tolerance for any disagreement with their views, but will post anyhow for those who never see anything, but evil emanating always from our nation.

“Those who wish to make this discussion murky, who equivocate and obfuscate and fail to make important distinctions between the light that shines in places like Paris (where secular humanism is socially and politically dominant) and places like those regions of Iraq and Syria dominated by ISIS (where people oppression and hatred is cloaked in perversions of religious texts). We can disagree about how best to fight against the darkness, but I surely hope that even the most confused “progressives” would agree that such darkness should be resisted by people of good will throughout the world. The terrorists who struck the office of Charlie Hebdo less than a year ago, and the terrorists who killed and wounded nearly 500 people on the streets and bistros of Paris last Friday are not fighting for freedom. They offer no light. They are the apostles of death, and the world must purge itself of the life-denying disease of such fascism, whether it manifests itself with trappings of religion or decked out in the uniforms of storm troopers.”


1 Like

" Serial liar Gen. John Allen recently said that the US will have to fight “ISIS” forever."

The good General could have added: YIPPEE! This so called war on terror has to be the best thing that could ever happen to the war mongers and war profiteers, because they now have: ENDLESS ENEMIES; FOR ENDLESS WARS; FOR ENDLESS WAR PROFITS!

Cui bono? That’s who!


I think that in one of the debates, they asked the candidates “why do they hate us?” but I didn’t hear a straight answer.

Last night I was surprised that Bernie joined the choir in saying that we should “destroy ISIS”. Is the monster the one created or its creator?


The point is sanne80, one needs to know the whole story before one can make wholesale judgements about who is virtuous and who is not. One thing is for certain, evil certainly IS emanating from those who have been in control of US foreign policy especially since WWII.

Please tell me I don’t have to detail all of this for you, or are you a Blame America Laster willful ignoramus?

Please tell me that for the sake of truth and justice you honestly want to know whether or not the US has helped create ISIS, has directly and indirectly funded and armed ISIS through its allies in the ME, and that to you this would all matter.

If it doesn’t matter to you, then frankly you have no moral compass whatsoever and don’t give a flying cluck whether or not kids heads fly off of their torsos from US bombs dropping on their homes, schools, hospitals et al.

That you actually post an argument that asserts on the left resides a tolerance of bloody terror, some tacit support of what happened in Paris is the most base insult imaginable.

Yet you complain that, whimper whimper, some people aren’t tolerant of your views.

Good fucking grief.


I’m not a “fan” of Greenwald or Snowden, but I don’t have to be to appreciate what they’ve done and continue to do. That said, I wholeheartedly approve of the quote you posted.


Yes Chicken, exactly as I predicted when I made the post and the quote. Those who claim to be caring "progressives"on a website that claims to be designed and appeal to “progressives,” have no tolerance for those who might not agree with their opinions nor personal versions of history more share the same life experiences. Standard insult for those who just respond in the typical knee jerk manner who read one sentence, but don’t bother with a link and then go off on the poster.

1 Like

From one of the condemned members of the MSM a bit different from the pretty picture of the memorial in Paris. Any answer from any "caring, tolerant “progressive” about how any and all deal those in the video?

1 Like

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


So you strap on your rhetorical explosive device, detonate it on a forum, and then complain when there is blow back.

Get a clue.

My very first thought was: false-flag.


I guess the take-home must be: to prevent attacks, prevent practice drills.

It started the day after the attacks on the twin towers, with the discovery of a flight manual in Arabic and a copy of the Koran in a car hired by Mohammed Atta and abandoned at Boston airport. In the immediate shocked aftermath of the attacks, these findings were somehow reassuring: American intelligence was on the case, the perpetrators were no longer faceless. In less than a week came another find, two blocks away from the twin towers, in the shape of Atta's passport. We had all seen the blizzard of paper rain down from the towers, but the idea that Atta's passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged would have tested the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism.

Yet we were still in the infancy of coincidence. On September 24 the belongings of alleged terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui threw up a cropdusting manual, while four days later came Atta’s suicide note, the one with the counsel to shine your shoes before you meet your maker - a piece of advice which seemed suspiciously Norman Rockwellesque. It was here, too, that the stuff about 72 virgins awaiting him in heaven first started to circulate.

In December the laughing, boasting video of Osama bin Laden was unearthed in a house in Jalalabad. The new year saw no let-up in this serendipitous trove - January turned up an email sent by “shoe bomber” Richard Reid from a Paris cybercafe …



The difference in thee and me Chicken, is I live in the real world rather than living on and for a blog on the internet.

No the difference is that you don’t give a flying cluck about truth.