The Paris attacks were not justified, how can we say that they are? People died and an international heartbreak spread across the world, how can we say that murder and terrorism is justified? ISIS, the group responsible for the attacks, is fighting for religious rights but they are fighting the wrong way, they are no different then the Nazis who publicly shamed the Jews for their religion. We can not accept these attacks and we can not put reason behind them. There is no reason that you should kill and destroy innocent people, did they deserve to die? They can't answer that question because they are dead, because they lost their lives to terrorists. Whatever reason you have won't justify what they did, people are dead, never to breathe or see the sun. So please whoever you are please try to justify their actions, because I can't see any reasons?
It is very easy to look at Paris and say "oh poor thing ISIS is picking you!" but let's just put this into perspective.
The people in Paris who died or got injured are assume to be innocent people. Every day we walk up and down streets amongst relatively alien beings that only share a species and perhaps a gender and race in common with us most of the time. These people, let's say 100 of them stuck in a building scared, are essentially nobodies. They could be a serial killer that would never have got caught and gone one to take many lives in their own span of one, they could be someone better qualified for a job but the less qualified competitor has a family to feed, they're just some single sod selfishly removing this opportunity from that guy who will turn to crime if that job interview fails to land him a job out of desperation.
Truly, there are infinite numbers of possible butterfly effects that have occurred as a result. In the immediate sense, all is negative but in the not-so immediate sense there's a lot of positives.
Many people aren't listened to when alive then when dead people finally give a damn, a dead researcher having half finished their research on a task is far more likely to be revered than one who almost finished it and died of old age when no one cared anymore as they'd already long-retired. Living itself is not a reward either. It's a trap, if anything. You live to live until you no longer have to. The end objective of any and all life-forms is that one unifying inescapable destiny; death.
ISIS were simply doing a justifiable deed reliving those people from the burden of life and the police also did to the gunmen. ISIS even tried to join in the fun with suicide bombers relieving themselves of the burden of life along with the others they terrorised. This beautiful event is so rare, thus so precious. One in a million and it happened in Paris of all places, one of the most boring of all the famous cities and barely on the news' radar until this. If anything, it helped spread knowledge of France's president's name as I be not many people knew Charlie Hebdoe before this. Spreading knowledge is a good thing to do.
Another thing that resulted from this was anonymous attacking ISIS [https://ghostbin.com...] they made a guide to help others do it too. This is positive and perhaps the people doing it, considering they were suicidal and all, were dying in order to bring down their very own organisation that had just send them on a suicide mission that they were infuriated with having to do. They made it as bad as possible to aggravate a retaliation as their last dying wish, et voila they have what they wished for.
May Allah bless us all and peace be upon Muhammad.
Okay, let's play this game. Say you were one of the 100 people stuck in a building scared, can we say that you are innocent? Did they deserve this, no but it happened. Yes people are selfish, why do you think this attack happened, because ISIS is selfish and greedy. I don't care how many joined the suicide bombers, they are selfish and the people of Paris payed the price. Living is a reward, you have infinite possibilities in this world and ISIS took them all away. So you can't say that they took the burden from these people, they didn't take burden they took lives that could've been lived to the fullest. Death is inevitable, but these people when they left their houses they thought they would be alright. But they weren't. Even though the bombing is over, there is still pain and sorrow, so please try to explain to those people how the actions were justified. Children, parents, aunts, uncles, grandparents, people who used to be able to hug and love their families ,now can't. I can't believe the fact that you believe that the good thing out of all of this is that Paris is finally get recognition, this isn't about how many people look at the news and feel bad, it is for the people who can't do that anymore. I am just going to be blunt, you are wrong, you don't know what it feels like to lose someone to those attacks. When you do talk to me and maybe I will be serious with you, because all that I am seeing in your argument is excuses not reasons. Thank you.
Con is arguing emotively about something that is emotively justified in the first place.
The suffering of those who lost is the equivalent of the joy of those who prosper from it. The ones who fill in the job roles of those who died, the ones who hated life and died to finally be at peace.
Dead people can't suffer only the living can selfishly suffer because they want the dead to be alive again so they can leech form them. Such a selfish greed is not justified but a selfless kaboom surely is.