Lastly, I want to be clear I'm not saying America and Europe (and Canada) are saints. I'm disgusted with a lot of the things we do too.

Another point worth making is that world maps imply a level world-spanning exploration of the sort that first became a reality in the age of exploration. So the fact that the first (somewhat accurate) world maps were made by Europeans is not all that surprising.

Also, it's worth keeping in mind we seem to be talking only of a small subcategory of maps -- *world* maps. It's not as if maps weren't constantly being made of specific continents like Africa, North & South America, and sub-regions.

I haven't made any value comments on North America or Europe -- I'm simply saying that the term "West" is an unhelpful anachronism.

People keep saying it's "obvious" and "clear" what it means, but then everyone has proceeded to either produce various different meanings or struggle to come up with a definition at all.

It depends on the context. I always understood "West" in the context of culture as European and nations with European roots. (such as America or Canada)

Exactly.

It's not a clearly defined term.

And thus it causes a binary that propagates bad stereotypes?

@wjessop: you're right, but who cares? 'If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences'.

On topic, the bombings in Beirut will probably be overshadowed by Paris, but seems to me that it carries the risk of the conflict spreading to Lebanon. @Hannibal: how arw things there?

It's odd that ISIS was quick to claim Beirut but anybody has yet to claim Paris.

Many people I know care.

I care, that should be quite clear to you.

Just because you or others may not care, does not in any way mean I should not care; so I completely reject your question-statement "who cares?"

It's condescending and dismissive to say "who cares" as if you can judge what is important or not.

Many people might not care, for example, about recycling but does that mean I should not either? Of course no.

I don't mean it dismissive. You're right on the topic, so I apologise if it's a but curt. I mean, it's real because people think it's real.

And I'm also hoping for more substantive discussion on possible consequences of these attacks, hence the attempt to go back OT. We have tons of perceptive and aware people on our site, including people on the ground. I'd love to hear more from people on the actual thing that just happened.

Also your quotation only proves to show *exactly* why people should care about deep problems in the term "the west".

Because of the negative consequences.

Sure; it was me, after all, who posted the OT/thread.

And, at any rate, all discussion arising from this politics is surely relevant.

The difficulty we have is that because wjessop started the thread it is impossible to both mute him and continue to post here. I have no wish to debate an issue such as this in a thread dominated by irrelevant drivel.

So you are clear, wjessop, that is indeed meant to come across as dismissive. You're a bloody embarrassment.

Also this attack in Baghdad.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/11/13/world/middleeast/ap-ml-iraq.html?_r=0

I'm currently in Paris, pretty surreal to have this happen within a day of arriving for vacation and some f2f diplomacy. The government called on everyone to stay indoor but the French seem to be mostly unphased and life continues as normal. Walking on the street it seems just like any other day. Almost time for some f2f, even though the government tried to shut down the venue.

It takes a hell of a lot to phase a Frenchman. One of their most irritating and admirable qualities.

The details behind who carried out this attack will be important. If some of the attackers have indeed entered Europe via the refugee stream there could be some very difficult implications.

We are fortunate that the enemy haven't taken to putting explosives on civilian drones yet.

My bets are on french native muslims.

"It's condescending and dismissive to say "who cares" as if you can judge what is important or not.

Many people might not care, for example, about recycling but does that mean I should not either? Of course no."

I presume this about about the non-white, non-christian deaths which are often ignored by 'western' news media.

As Noam Chomsky has often been criticised for caring more about certain types of dead people (say caring about Palestinian dead more than Israeli dead) He has prepared a stock answer.

We should care about the dead we murder more than those murdered by anyone else, because we can do something about the ones we murder. In a democratic state at least, our voice can change policy, so you are partly responcible for not speaking out against those death your government perpetrate.

You can criticise IS for their bombing in Beruit, but you're not responcible for it. (Unless you are a member of IS) if you want to see groups like IS not exist, then you can criticise the whole mess which western countries have made of the middle east since 1918. But current policy is all we can actually change.

What changes in policy do you think France will, and/or should make in responce to this attack?

@Vecna: I arrived in Paris within a few minutes of the Charlie Hebdo attack and was in London on 7/7. Like you I found it somewhat odd to be close to something like that and now I find those events to feel more personal than other, similarly awful, ones.

My impression is that after attacks like this people are determined not to hide away, to show that life goes on (albeit with some disruption in the short term). I was very surprised by the French government attempt to shut down Paris today; they must be very worried that either that some attackers escaped or that further attacks are planned.

@Octavious: I could equally saw that you are embarassing right now.

Threatening to mute someone because they are not saying what you want -- completely against the values of the society we both live in.

If Je suis Charlie means one thing it is respect and tolerance for freedom of speech.

I didn't start this thread for a particular philosophical discussion, it just evolved from a discussion between many people earlier in the thread. You are the one who needs to calm down; we were just having a reasonable discussion about language.

@diplo: "My impression is that after attacks like this people are determined not to hide away, to show that life goes on (albeit with some disruption in the short term). I was very surprised by the French government attempt to shut down Paris today; they must be very worried that either that some attackers escaped or that further attacks are planned."

Yes, very true -- carry on and show that terrorism cannot prevent normal daily life and will not succeed in "terrorising" us.

The French authorities clearly want to minimise any further threats while seeming in control of the situation, even if that means one ministry is saying the borders are being closed and another ministry is saying that flights will continue as usual.

@Orathaic
"What changes in policy do you think France will, and/or should make in responce to this attack?"

I expect that:
- they will increase air strikes against Daesh
- they will pressure other EU countries to participate
- the search for other potential terrorists and their supporters will be pretty harsh
- they will remain within the Schengen zone

I don't think this on its own will change a great deal. If it is the first of a series of winter attacks it may pave the way to a ground invasion of IS territory.

On its own it may give Russia an excuse to send troops to Syria if it really wants to. Airstrikes will increase a little, as will distrust of Islamic immigrants.

@ wjessop "Threatening to mute someone because they are not saying what you want -- completely against the values of the society we both live in."

No, it really isn't. In fact, I dare say that if you asked a hundred people to list the top hundred values of Western society, I don't think the right not to be muted or otherwise ignored on an internet forum would feature anywhere. That you even associate the solidarity with French terror victims with me wanting to mute you is frankly contemptible.

"The whole mess which western countries have made of the Middle East since 1918"

I often hear this point mentioned without much thought or analysis. I think western countries' actions in the region (esp. the partition of the Ottoman Empire into "mandates" like Palestine and Syria) have played *a* role in producing the current 2015 geopolitical situation in the Middle East; it would be hard to argue that these actions did not. However, it is a large leap to go from that observation to an argument that the West is primarily, or even somewhat, responsible for the "mess," which I take to mean the serious and persistent sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shia. On this point, I think a very large portion of responsibility lies within Islam itself. The 1300-year-old division between Sunni and Shia predates any European involvement in the Middle East. Heck, it even predates the Crusades. At the time of Mohammed and his successors (700's A.D.), Europe was the one in a "mess," only beginning to emerge from the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Colonialism shaped the Middle East, but it did not create Islamic sectarian conflict, and to ignore this is to accept the radical jihadist propaganda that attributes any problems within the Islamic world to outside influence.

@Amwidkle: I agree that western powers are not responsible for creating the Sunni-Shia division*, although they may have exploited it at times. The rift has been the cause (excuse) for much blood-shed over 13 centuries, however, the "mess" is something more than this divide alone.

Since the collapse of the Ottoman empire there has been the imposition of a Jewish state, major exploitation of oil, Cold War proxy warfare, and several invasions (at least one without any real justification) all carried out by various western powers and their allies. These are the events have fuelled the conflict between radical islam and the west, which is what we are all concerned about today.

* whenever I hear this phrase I get an image of Sonny & Cher in my head; am I the only one?

"The 'mess' is something more than this divide alone."

That's a fair point. If we think of what might cause "Middle Eastern instability" in terms of a pie chart, then there's definitely slices of that which would belong to Israel, oil, and other Western/foreign impositions (by the way, let's not forget Russia's historical role in stoking Middle East conflicts, whether or not we consider it a part of the "West"). My point is that, at least since 2011, and I would argue even earlier (when Iraq began falling apart in 2004/2005), the Sunni-Shia divide (and other smaller sectarian conflicts, like tribalism in Libya) have become the *predominant* driver of Middle Eastern conflict. Given that these conflicts have resulted in *hundreds* of thousands of deaths, I would trace at least 90% of today's Middle Eastern conflict to this source.

I say this because the Iraqi Civil War (which is, in my mind, a more precise description of the conflict known more commonly as the "Iraq War") and the Syrian Civil War have unleashed bloodshed orders of magnitude larger than the Israel/Palestine conflict, or 9/11, or yesterday's Paris attacks. It's unquestionable that, as Western observers, we are more sensitive to the role the West has played historically in the Middle East as well as the attacks on Western soil. It is also comforting, in a way, to believe that the tools to stop the bloodshed are available to the West, if only we had the right policies. But that Western-orientedness distorts the larger reality of what is happening in the Middle East.

Thanks, I should have been clearer that at least since the Cold War Russia is as much involved in these shenanigans as "the West".

I agree that within the region Sunni-Shia disputes are the main driver, but I think they have almost zero influence on what is happening outside.

Dip, to me it's not really Sunni vs Shia, it's Sunni vs the world and Shia vs the world. Sunni-Shia is just one front in those groups' fight for dominance.