Crime 150+ dead after Terrorist attacks in Paris

[LeBrok]

Have you forgotten the extermination that went on during the crusade against the Cathars?
http://www.cathar.info/cathar_wars.htm
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Albigensian_Crusade

As many as one million people may have been killed.

How about the extermination of the Jews in France and Germany during the Middle Ages? Spearing babies, herding people into a synagogue and then setting it alight doesn't constitute cruel behavior to you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Medieval_anti-Jewish_pogroms

They were so severe that the entire Jewish population was reduced to a couple of hundred people.

How about the atrocities committed by the Crusaders not only in the Near East but on Orthodox Christian Constantinople?
http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture25b.html

First Crusade: "Meanwhile, the main body of the army was besieging the great city of Antioch which was finally conquered after seven months. Antioch became the second crusader state under Bohemond. The other crusaders then took Jerusalem by assault in July 1099, followed by the wholesale slaughter of Muslims and Jews, men, women, and children, an event recorded by FULCHER OF CHARTRES. "

The Third Crusade also involved a lot of barbaric slaughter, and ironically, a lot of the Christians, who wore Middle Eastern garb, were among the Muslims and Jews who were killed.

Fourth Crusade: "In March 1204 the crusaders and Venetians agreed to seize the city a second time and to elect a Latin emperor. This siege ended in a second capture and a three-day sack of Constantinople."

Ironically, the biggest gains were made by the Emperor Frederick II without a single battle. " Emperor Frederick II (1194-1250) personally led the Sixth Crusade (1228-1229). No fighting was involved. Speaking Arabic and long familiar with the Muslims from his experience in Sicily, Frederick secured more for the Christians by negotiation than any crusader had secured by force since the First Crusade. In 1229 he signed a treaty with Saladin's nephew that restored Jerusalem to the Latin world. Bethlehem and Nazareth were also handed over and a ten year truce was signed."

Heck, if some people are correct, the "Indo-European" or Eastern Europeans, take your pick, exterminated most of the MN men living in central, northern and southern Europe.

I think you're starting the reckoning far too late in European history.

Great points Angela.
We shouldn't forgotten the last crusade against pagans which happened Prussia, and other Baltic nations. Who knows how many were killed, slaughtered till all were enslaved.

 

[Sile]

Great points Angela.
We should forgotten the last crusade against pagans which happened Prussia, and other Baltic nations. Who knows how many were killed, slaughtered till all were enslaved.

estimations where 320,000 west-balts ( old -prussians ) before the Teutonics arrived ............and when the war finished 60 years later ..........the prussians lost 60% of their people.

Note: they (balts ) where fighting Poles before the teutons.......but Poles kept losing, that why the Poles asked the church for help ..............in come the teutonics ( saxons and thuringians)

 

[bicicleur 2]

Have you forgotten the extermination that went on during the crusade against the Cathars?
http://www.cathar.info/cathar_wars.htm
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Albigensian_Crusade

As many as one million people may have been killed.

How about the extermination of the Jews in France and Germany during the Middle Ages? Spearing babies, herding people into a synagogue and then setting it alight doesn't constitute cruel behavior to you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Medieval_anti-Jewish_pogroms

They were so severe that the entire Jewish population was reduced to a couple of hundred people.

How about the atrocities committed by the Crusaders not only in the Near East but on Orthodox Christian Constantinople?
http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture25b.html

First Crusade: "Meanwhile, the main body of the army was besieging the great city of Antioch which was finally conquered after seven months. Antioch became the second crusader state under Bohemond. The other crusaders then took Jerusalem by assault in July 1099, followed by the wholesale slaughter of Muslims and Jews, men, women, and children, an event recorded by FULCHER OF CHARTRES. "

The Third Crusade also involved a lot of barbaric slaughter, and ironically, a lot of the Christians, who wore Middle Eastern garb, were among the Muslims and Jews who were killed.

Fourth Crusade: "In March 1204 the crusaders and Venetians agreed to seize the city a second time and to elect a Latin emperor. This siege ended in a second capture and a three-day sack of Constantinople."

Ironically, the biggest gains were made by the Emperor Frederick II without a single battle. " Emperor Frederick II (1194-1250) personally led the Sixth Crusade (1228-1229). No fighting was involved. Speaking Arabic and long familiar with the Muslims from his experience in Sicily, Frederick secured more for the Christians by negotiation than any crusader had secured by force since the First Crusade. In 1229 he signed a treaty with Saladin's nephew that restored Jerusalem to the Latin world. Bethlehem and Nazareth were also handed over and a ten year truce was signed."

Heck, if some people are correct, the "Indo-European" or Eastern Europeans, take your pick, exterminated most of the MN men living in central, northern and southern Europe.

I think you're starting the reckoning far too late in European history.

we know about all of this because Europe has one of the best documented histories in the world
but do you think in other parts of the world there was less violence ?
the few things we know don't suggest that

what concerns me more is the violence and the hatred that exists today

 

[kyrani99]

Wait a minute, you are not being objective and consequential at all. Both of these examples come form the same source, and yet you believe only one is true?!!!


I pretty much agree with this. The "Evil" is in us, and religion is used to legitimize bad actions. To have god(s) backing you, gives an ultimate authority, even if you do "evil".

It is possible to see somethings in a document are supported while others are not. I don't see how I am not being objective.
In the case of evil is in us, I disagree. There are good and there are evil. There is not one nature in all.

 

[kyrani99]

what concerns me more is the violence and the hatred that exists today

This is exactly the point, not only for the bombing in Paris but as you say the hatred that exists today in the world. The problem is identifying who is involved. Who are the haters? Their handiwork is often obvious as in this bombing but in the great bulk of the problem their handiwork is hidden. Disease is the damage taken and it points to perpetrators of violence right inside every community, even at the grass roots level.. in the family.

 

[Tomenable]

estimations where 320,000 west-balts ( old -prussians ) before the Teutonics arrived ............and when the war finished 60 years later ..........the prussians lost 60% of their people.

Note: they (balts ) where fighting Poles before the teutons.......but Poles kept losing, that why the Poles asked the church for help ..............in come the teutonics ( saxons and thuringians)

^ That is not 100% true.

At that time (1200s) Poland was politically divided between competing realms of several dukes of the Piast dynasty, and various Polish duchies were more busy fighting against each other than against Prussians. They were not interested in conquering Pagan Prussians, those were Pagans who were organizing plundering raids against borderland areas (especially in Northern Mazovia).

The Teutonic Order and other crusaders were called to protect the borderland, but they went on to invade the Baltic Pagans.

The one who asked for help - Conrad - was just the duke of Mazovia (north-eastern Poland), not of entire Poland.

It can be noted, that in the 1300s the Teutonic Order also turned against fellow Christians - Poles. Pope Clement V wrote about that in 1310-1317, condemning Teutonic Order's atrocities against Christian Poland, and seized East Pomerania from Poland:

Latin original: "Novissime vero ad nostrum pervenit auditum, quod dicti praeceptores et fratres hospitalis eiusdem dilecti filii nobilis viri Wladislai Cracovie et Sandomirie ducis terram hostiliter subintrantes in civitate Gdansco ultra decem milia hominum gladio peremerunt infantibus vagientibus in cunis mortis exitum inferentes, quibus etiam hostis fidei pepercisset."

(in English: "It has recently come to our attention that the said preceptors and brothers of the same hospital [Order], stealing into the land of our dear son, the nobleman Duke Vladislav of Cracow and Sandomir, in a hostile manner, killed more than 10,000 people in the city of Gdansk by the sword, inflicting death upon infants crying in their cradles, whom even the enemies of the faith would have spared.")

So according to Pope Clement V, the Teutonic Order was even worse than Pagans in their atrocities against fellow Christians.

And the second excerpt by Pope Clement V is from Lites I (3), 69 (Papal bull):

Latin original: "Gravem dilecti nobilis viri Wladislai ducis Polonie querelam accepimus, continentem, quod magister et fratres domus s. Marie Theutonicorum non attendentes, quod quondam Conradus dux Polonie avus eiusdem ducis eosdem magistrum et fratres, quos veros credebat katholice fidei defensores, ad partes illas pro defensione ipsius fidei primitus advocavit et nonnula inmobilia et mobilia bona liberaliter concessit eisdem, alias eos dictus Conradus et successors sui benigne ac favorabiliter prosequendo; sed ipsi dicto duci se reddentes ingratos et ad bona ipsius rapacitatis manus extendentes, illicite ducem ipsum terra sua Pomoranie Wladislauiensis dyocesis, que de regno Polonie fore dinoscitur temeritate propria spoliantes, illam cum hominibus, vasallis, castris, villis, possessionibus et bonis existentibus in eadem contra iusticiam occuparunt et detinuerunt iam per octo annos et amplius sicut adhuc detinent violenter, fructus ac redditus et proventus provenientes ex illa percipientes indebite et iniuste, illam sibi reddere contradicunt in ipsius ducis grave dispendium et regni predicti diminucionem enormem et scandalum manifestum."

(in English: "We accepted the serious complaint of our dear son, the nobleman Duke Vladislav of Poland, the master and brothers of the Teutonic Order not being present, maintaining that the late Duke Conrad of Poland, grandfather of the same duke, first called the master and brothers, whom he believed true defenders of the Catholic faith, and he freely conceded to them some movable and immovable goods, and the said Conrad and his successors with benign favour followed these up with others. But, showing no gratitude to the said duke and extending the hands of rapacity towards his goods, they [the Teutonic Knights] boldly and illicitily robbed that duke of his own land of Pomerania, of the diocese of Włocławek, which it is known should belong to the kingdom of Poland, along with the men, vassals, castles, villages, possessions, and goods in it, now occupying and detaining it against justice for eight years and more still violently detaining its fruits and revenues and produce wtihout right and unjustly, they refuse to return it to him at great cost to the duke himself and immense damage to the aforesaid kingdom and in manifest scandal.")

So as you can see the German Order / Teutonic Order were not "defenders of Christianity", but rather "greedy aggressors".

 

[Angela]

we know about all of this because Europe has one of the best documented histories in the world
but do you think in other parts of the world there was less violence ?
the few things we know don't suggest that

what concerns me more is the violence and the hatred that exists today

Bicicleur, I never said, nor said anything from which anyone could infer that there was less violence in other parts of the world. Violence is endemic wherever human beings are gathered. I was responding to a statement that Europeans only started committing acts of mass violence, or even mass extermination, very late in their history. That statement was in absolute contravention of history.

The violence and the hatred that exists today is also my concern, believe me. We now have had a mass shooting in California where a man and his wife, radicalized Muslims, who had ties with some low level Syrian terrorist groups, and had recently traveled to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, went into a Christmas party hosted by the man's employers and killed 14 people and wounded 17. If police units hadn't been training nearby and gotten there within three minutes, who knows how many might have been killed.

Their garage was full of thousands of rounds of ammunition, pipe bombs, other explosive devices etc. Yet, some in our media, MSNBC, The Times, even CNN, and our President, keep saying it might have been "work place violence" by a disgruntled employee who had a fight with someone at the party, left, and proceeded to come back and try to kill everyone.

Right, he and his wife collected all of that in an hour, and his wife was willing to go on this rampage with him and leave behind a six month old child because he was fighting with his employees. It is beyond me. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If you don't call something what it is, you can't fight it.

Yahoo News is at least giving it straight.
http://news.yahoo.com/san-bernardin...i-probes-possible-terror-ties-215937533.html#

 

[bicicleur 2]

Bicicleur, I never said, nor said anything from which anyone could infer that there was less violence in other parts of the world. Violence is endemic wherever human beings are gathered. I was responding to a statement that Europeans only started committing acts of mass violence, or even mass extermination, very late in their history. That statement was in absolute contravention of history.

The violence and the hatred that exists today is also my concern, believe me. We now have had a mass shooting in California where a man and his wife, radicalized Muslims, who had ties with some low level Syrian terrorist groups, and had recently traveled to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, went into a Christmas party hosted by the man's employers and killed 14 people and wounded 17. If police units hadn't been training nearby and gotten there within three minutes, who knows how many might have been killed.

Their garage was full of thousands of rounds of ammunition, pipe bombs, other explosive devices etc. Yet, some in our media, MSNBC, The Times, even CNN, and our President, keep saying it might have been "work place violence" by a disgruntled employee who had a fight with someone at the party, left, and proceeded to come back and try to kill everyone.

Right, he and his wife collected all of that in an hour, and his wife was willing to go on this rampage with him and leave behind a six month old child because he was fighting with his employees. It is beyond me. If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If you don't call something what it is, you can't fight it.

Yahoo News is at least giving it straight.
http://news.yahoo.com/san-bernardin...i-probes-possible-terror-ties-215937533.html#

these details have been seeping through here in Europe too, yet in the afternoon news today we see Obama not mentioning any detail, it seems to be 'just a tragic accident'

if these people don't want to call things by its name, I expect a lot more dammage will be done and the cancer will grow till maybe it will be to late

 

[Tomenable]

Violence is endemic wherever human beings are gathered.

Some papers about this:

The society of our “out of Africa” ancestors (I)
The migrant warriors that colonized the world:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3104569/

The “out of Africa” hypothesis proposes that a small group of Homo sapiens left Africa 80,000 years ago, spreading the mitochondrial haplotype L3 throughout the Earth.1–10 Little effort has been made to try to reconstruct the society and culture of the tribe that left Africa to populate the rest of the world.1 Here, I find that hunter-gatherers that belong to mitochondrial haplotypes L0, L1 and L2 do not have a culture of ritualized fights. In contrast to this, almost all L3 derived hunter-gatherers have a more belligerent culture that includes ritualized fights such as wrestling, stick fights or headhunting expeditions. This appears to be independent of their environment because ritualized fights occur in all climates, from the tropics to the arctic. There is also a correlation between mitochondrial haplotypes and warfare propensity or the use of murder and suicide to resolve conflicts. The data implicate that the original human population outside Africa is descended from only two closely related sub-branches that practiced ritual fighting and had a higher propensity towards warfare and the use of murder for conflict resolution. This warfare culture may have given the out of Africa migrants a competitive advantage to colonize the world. But it could also have crucially influenced the subsequent history of The Earth. In the future, it would be interesting to see how we could further reconstruct the society and culture of the “Out of Africa Tribe.”

The “Out of Africa Tribe” (II):
Paleolithic warriors with big canoes and protective weapons:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3656025/

Culture Out of Africa:

http://www.dhushara.com/paradoxhtm/culture.htm

Max Hartshorn et al. 2013, Evolutionary Dominance of Ethnocentric Cooperation:

http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html

As well as:

http://www.livescience.com/8189-individuals-rare-disorder-racial-biases.html

And there is also such a book:

Richard Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene"

 

[Tomenable]

Suppression of free speech in London:

http://www.londonstudent.coop/death-threats-goldsmiths-speaker-maryam-namazie/

What has become of Universities in the West:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...ing-universities-increasingly-irrelevant.html

A refusal to think freely is making universities increasingly irrelevant
The vast majority of academics are of the Left – and their research often disappears without trace
By Allister Heath 8:56 PM GMT 02 Dec 2015 Comments 136 Comments

There was a time, not that long ago, when universities embodied the best of Western civilisation. Having broken away from their narrowly theological and often obscurantist past, they thrived during much of the 20th century, dedicating themselves to research, debate and learning. They were, at their best, cosmopolitan in outlook before the rest of society, beacons of genuine diversity and home to the greatest of thinkers.

But with a few brilliant and wonderful exceptions, they are now slowly drifting back to their pre-19th century role as a purveyor of a single, illiberal world view. Instead of opening the minds of young people by exposing them to every kind of idea and every sort of controversy, they are losing their nerve, pandering to destructive activists who would rather they serve up a thin, tightly controlled and unchallenging intellectual gruel. Rather than pushing the boundaries of human knowledge, most universities now churn out dreary, predictable research that nobody reads.

"There was a time when universities set the political agenda; today, too many appear to be mere angry onlookers, giant Left-wing content factories with little practical relevance"

The real crisis is in the humanities and the social sciences; there is still much great work carried out in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine, of course, with plenty of British university departments continuing to distinguish themselves. Yet the overall mood across UK and American universities has become more authoritarian and less rational. Non-scientific areas of research have gone shockingly stale.

Derek Bok’s Higher Education in America, which is making waves, contains many staggering revelations which apply just as much to British institutions. No fewer than 98 per cent of academic papers in the arts and humanities are never cited in any subsequent research. The same is true of three quarters of social science research: the papers must be statistically dubious, trapped in flawed paradigms or obsessed with irrelevant minutia. There are now at least 100,000 academic journals worldwide – “publish or perish” has been pushed well past breaking point. It is a horrendous waste of so many intelligent people’s time and so many students’ money.

Here another paper about this issue:

http://heterodoxacademy.org/2015/09/14/bbs-paper-on-lack-of-political-diversity/

It’s finally out–The big review paper on the lack of political diversity in social psychology
by Jonathan Haidt | Sep 14, 2015 |

HeterodoxAcademy has its origins in a collaborative effort by five social psychologists (Jose Duarte, Jarret Crawford, Lee Jussim, Phil Tetlock and me) and a sociologist (Charlotta Stern) to study a problem that has long been noted in psychology: nearly everyone in the field is on the left, politically. We have been working together since 2011 to write a paper explaining how this situation came about, how it reduces the quality of science published in social psychology, and what can be done to improve the science. (Note that none of us self-identifies as conservative). In the process we discovered the work of the other scholars in other fields who joined with us to create this site. (...)

http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...5982&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S0140525X14000430

Psychologists have demonstrated the value of diversity – particularly diversity of viewpoints – for enhancing creativity, discovery, and problem solving. But one key type of viewpoint diversity is lacking in academic psychology in general and social psychology in particular: political diversity. This article reviews the available evidence and finds support for four claims: (1) Academic psychology once had considerable political diversity, but has lost nearly all of it in the last 50 years. (2) This lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike. (3) Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority's thinking. (4) The underrepresentation of non-liberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination. We close with recommendations for increasing political diversity in social psychology.

1. Introduction

In the last few years, social psychology has faced a series of challenges to the validity of its research, including a few high-profile replication failures, a handful of fraud cases, and several articles on questionable research practices and inflated effect sizes… In this article, we suggest that one largely overlooked cause of failure is a lack of political diversity. We review evidence suggesting that political diversity and dissent would improve the reliability and validity of social psychological science…

We focus on conservatives as an underrepresented group because the data on the prevalence in psychology of different ideological groups is best for the liberal-conservative contrast – and the departure from the proportion of liberals and conservatives in the U.S. population is so dramatic. However, we argue that the field needs more non-liberals however they specifically self-identify (e.g., libertarian, moderate)…

The lack of political diversity is not a threat to the validity of specific studies in many and perhaps most areas of research in social psychology. The lack of diversity causes problems for the scientific process primarily in areas related to the political concerns of the Left – areas such as race, gender, stereotyping, environmentalism, power, and inequality – as well as in areas where conservatives themselves are studied, such as in moral and political psychology.

2. Psychology is less politically diverse than ever

[In this section we review all available information on the political party identification of psychologists, as well as their liberal-conservative self descriptions. The graph below says it all. Whichever of those two measures you use, you find a big change after 1990. Before the 1990s, academic psychology only LEANED left. Liberals and Democrats outnumbered Conservatives and Republican by 4 to 1 or less. But as the “greatest generation” retired in the 1990s and was replaced by baby boomers, the ratio skyrocketed to something more like 12 to 1. In just 20 years. Few psychologists realize just how quickly or completely the field has become a political monoculture. This graph took us by surprise too.] (...)

Of course the word "liberals" is misused in these excerpts above - in reality they are talking about non-liberal leftists.

 

[kyrani99]

regarding these two points in your articles
1. The real crisis is in the humanities and the social sciences; there is still much great work carried out in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine,
2. But as the “greatest generation” retired in the 1990s and was replaced by baby boomers,
.

I don't know about the humanities because I am a scientist but I can say that there is good work and there is bad work in science. There are lots of papers that are not worth the paper they are written on and there are others that are very good.

What happened in the 1970s and more so in the 1980s in Australia at least, was that big cooperation were quite literally wanting to "buy the departments.. scientists and all". In the school of computing science they wanted to provide funding and in exchange to erect a big sign on the top of the building advertising, it was IBM if I remember correctly. The school refused but maybe succumbed later. I would say industry and the demands of big business has been the major influence and too many academics just want to get published so they do what is wanted of them.

I am of the baby boomer generation and I left the university to work elsewhere in 1989. There were plenty of baby boomer generation at the university and they were not all left. I would have said most were middle of the road.

 

[Yetos]

What about building a fence on Greek land boarder up North? It would keep all the refugees in Greece till they are processed.

what are you talking about?

refuggee escape Jihadists, enter Greece, and went to Albania? to do what?
if refuggees want it to, surely they would have gone already, but since they don't, i do not know.