Slashdot Mirror
Explosions and Multiple Shootings In Paris, Possible Hostages (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Multiple sources are reporting that at least 18 people are dead across three shootings in central Paris. The Associated Press reports as many as 26, as of this writing. Some victims were at a restaurant, while others were at a nearby theater. Early reports indicate there may be a hostage situation with more people at that theater. Police have also confirmed an explosion at a bar near Stade de France stadium, where a football match was underway between France and Germany. There are reports of other explosions heard at the stadium as well, but no details yet. "The attack comes as France has heightened security measures ahead of a major global climate conference that starts in two weeks, out of fear of violent protests and potential terrorist attacks." The attacks occurred not far from where the Charlie Hebdo shooting happened in January. "French news media reported that Kalashnikov rifles had been involved in the shootings — a favored weapon of militants who have attacked targets in France — and that many rounds had been fired."
Or... mass deaths in non-warzones are seen as more newsworthy than mass deaths in say... Syria.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
This attack is currently ongoing, latest reports estimate about 60 people killed. Who is attacking and why is currently unknown. The most plausible rumors talk about a continuation on the attacks of the Charlie Hebro attacks(Wikipedia it).
France is one of the top 5 arms exporters in the world (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31901493), they have a history of racial tension against immigrants (https://news.vice.com/article/france-is-getting-more-intolerant-and-racist-according-to-human-rights-report). You treat those beneath you like shit, and occasionally, people fight back. Those would be two motives, I'm sure there are more.
So now it's rest in piece? Fuck off. Keep it the same as the original headline. Can we judge it then? How many people die before you take it seriously? Dickbags.
I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
None as French police are routinely armed.
News agencies are reporting one of the terrorist said this is for Syria. I suspect this is in regards to the civil war there and or the refugee crisis in Europe?
They want a caliphate across the ME, Africa and into Europe and beyond.
France has been bombing terrorists in Iraq and Syria. Just last week they announced they were sending their aircraft carrier in for another tour.
Exactly, if this is an Islamic terrorist attach, this is going to make the lives of Muslims in Europe so much harder! There has already been an uptick in the number of extremist groups with anti-Islam tendencies.
France is getting a large influx of muslim immigrants, and France enacted laws that pretty much amount to "hey, you live here? be French Arab, not Arab". That doesn't sit well with the Caliphate Crew, so they're attacking Paris until Paris conforms to Sharia.
And this is supposed to help the immigrant cause how?
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Why are they attacking France? What do they hope to achieve?
Caliphate. Sharia.
They say as much. Hard to hear them when you listen exclusively to Blame America First crap, though.
A few more of these and it'll finally get through. So no worries; you'll get it at some point.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
They probably hope to achieve the same thing everyone who has attacked France in the past has...AN EASY VICTORY!
Thank you, I'll be here all night.
Never argue with idiots, they just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
I'm not passing judgement on the act, just stating possible why's that come to mind.
As far as I know, French gun laws are looser than you think. It's not a hoplophobic paradise like the UK.
It's a different matter to keep a densely populated city secure. I think a similar attack on US soil would have very similar effects.
So yes, it would be better for the French to have more firearms liberté, but a surprise attack by suicidal perps is pretty hard to deter.
Curious, have any EU anti-immigrant groups actually attacked Muslim immigrants yet? Seems to me they are a rational reaction to what's happening.
Incite the white french to attack muslims, thereby making french muslims open to radicalisation which is what the idiots in the M.E. want.
Of course, whites will target muslims to get the muslims angry so that they attack, starting a race war too.
Both sides have the arseholes that want a war, because they think they are "right" and the other "wrong" and therefore they will INEVITABLY win the conflict.
When they can't, they then drag in other groups as "instigators" and "aiding and abetting" the terrorists of the other side, because, like I said, they KNOW they are in the right, therefore if they aren't winning, SOMEONE must be preventing it.
France participated in Operation Desert Storm aka "Operation_Daguet", which is probably reason enough for any jihadist. More recently with the large influx of North African Muslims there's been conflict with France's largely atheistic culture. See the Charlie Hebdo incident -- militant Islam lacks anything resembling either a sense of humor or respect for human rights.
To the point, militant Islam really, really wants to be in charge, which makes pretty much everyone in the world either an immediate target or a future target. It's odd that you don't seem to recognize that.
Unlike other religions, in Islam the act of KILLING is considered as honorable!
That is why throughout the world moslems are killing people - from Nigeria to Syria, to Kenya, to Paris, to WTC of NYC, to China, to Indonesia ... everywhere the you find moslem they kill
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Actually, it just circles back to giving excuses to justify terrorism.
There are no reasons. Terrorism isn't an effective tool to achieve goals. No one converted their religion because of it (the general kind. I'm not talking about gun to head conversion).
Repeated terrorism does put economic pressure on countries suffering from it, but I am hard pressed to think of a single case where that produced any effect that was productive to terrorism.
Clearly aim directed terrorism might have some effect (Irish underground attacks on Britain comes to mind), but those are not the kind of terrorism we typically see today.
So asking "why" is claiming there is a rational reason. That is flawed to its core. Assuming this is an Islamic terrorist attack (we don't know yet, but it seems like a reasonable assumption), this is more likely a clash of cultures than an aim directed campaign.
Shachar
they took care of the last one
Yes, but it is limited to beating people up with baseball bats and burning down shelters. They haven't worked themselves up to killing yet, but from the discussions I've seen on some forums it is just a matter of time.
Moslems kill for 'allah'
The more infidels they kill the moslems are being told that their 'allah' will reward them with more virgins
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Despite popular belief here in the USA, putting a gun on your hip will not turn you into John McClain. Source: Reality.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
> this is going to make the lives of Muslims in Europe so much harder!
Death toll is currently 60. I find my sympathies lie more with the murdered.
To the point, militant Islam really, really wants to be in charge, which makes pretty much everyone in the world either an immediate target or a future target. It's odd that you don't seem to recognize that.
Militant Islam isn't a single entity, it's an ideology followed by many competing groups. The attacks happened because someone, or some group thought it would further there goals. They thought it would be a better use of resources than attacking the US, or Hungary, or keeping fighters in Syria (and they might be correct, or they might not be correct, but they thought it would be a good idea).
So the real question is, who are these people making decisions, and why did they make those decisions? It's odd that you don't seem to recognize that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It is the moslems who are doing the fucking killings !!
Can you liberals please wake the FUCK up?
I've enough of the stupidity of you liberals ! The shooters are yelling "Allahu Akhbar" and you goddamn liberals are blaming the French !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
For your edification, the 9/11 attacks were "from the you-can't-make-this-stuff-up dept". They've been keeping it classy for a long time. At least, nobody back then whined about it.
Repeated terrorism does put economic pressure on countries suffering from it, but I am hard pressed to think of a single case where that produced any effect that was productive to terrorism.
Beirut Embassy Bombings. El Salvador guerrillas in the 1980s. Maoist fighters in Nepal. There are plenty of example.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Yes. Your point being?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As the person who wrote it, I can guarantee there was not a shred of levity in it. Where I come from, "keep your head down" is synonymous with "stay safe" -- something I fervently hope any hostages are able to do. Since some people are apparently able to misinterpret that, I changed it.
I don't know if you're a troll or not, but you are going out of your way to pick a fight on the internet and projecting some serious ill intentions on somebody you don't know.
Can we finally dust off our nuclear stockpile already? Pretty fucking please? They don't want peace, they've made that perfectly clear many times, and these tantrums of theirs are only going to escalate. Can we finally start glassing some of these shit-holes? They're a danger to the rest of the world and it's time to start acting as such.
Yeah, that will surely endear the refugees to Europeans who already think that too many are coming. That's sure going to swing the mood here.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Terrorism isn't an effective tool to achieve goals.
What? It's right out of the Big Muslim Playbook. That's exactly how Islam spread across large parts of the world once upon a time - through sheer, terroristic violence. You know that neighbor of Frances' ... Spain? Yeah, once upon a time Islamic terrorists overran that next door neighbor and set up shop there for quite a while. Islam doesn't take over and become the ruling force in a country by offering nice health plans and a school for everyone. It happens at the point of the sword, and always has. They lost their mojo a long time ago, and have been culturally butt-hurt about it ever since. That seething anger is all about getting it back.
Unfortunately for them, they're now up against modernity. Fortunately for them, they're up against politically correct pussies in most cases, which means they can take advantage of things like massive movements of immigrants over-running Europe to place thousands of hardcore fighters right where they want them, complete with free housing and food while they gear up. It was never that easy the last time they rolled in - I'm sure they're laughing their asses off, this time. It's so much easier when the culture you want to crush holds the door open for you.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Fine. Blame them both. One wrong doesn't make the other right.
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
In the New Testament killing is never portrayed as honorable
On the other hand in the koran killings are portrayed as an honorable service to 'allah', as long as the one getting slaughtered are the infidels
I am a Christian and I do read my Bible, and unlike you, I do read the koran as well to see the big contrast among the two
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Yeah, in Germany. Makes sense to bomb France, then, doesn't it?
Geography doesn't seem to be a strong part of the terrorist curriculum...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Curious, have any EU anti-immigrant groups actually attacked Muslim immigrants yet?
Yes, some neo-nazis have firebombed Syrian refugee shelters in Germany. Mainstream Islamists need to distance themselves from these folks. Otherwise, this will get really ugly, really soon . . .
I would really like to see a parade of Islamists, who are saying "we aren't supporting terrorists!"
But I am afraid, I will have to wait a long time for that . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Terrorism isn't an effective tool to achieve goals.
Except when it is. We'll see if there was any "clearly aim" terrorism present today.
....so you think a terrorist attack is going to cause a country to collapse? Terror attacks have been going on for as long as governments have been around. They're meant to sway policy not topple governments.
Typical progressive crap. We all know what "group" did this:
MUSLIM TERRORISTS.
France is reaping what they have sown. They have had accommodating policies to a group that is opposed to democratic principles, and believes in religious law. What did they expect? Muslims to live in harmony? Every Islamic nation has a violent border ... So to think they play well with others is just silliness.
...of SWAT is? Would be outrageous for them not to have something in place after the last thing, and regular cops should be armed as well.
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
It is unlikely that that would be the goal of these attacks. The terrorist leaders understand that they are threading a thin line.
At the moment no-one in the west is really afraid of them and they want to keep it that way. That way western countries only put minimal effort into aggression and keep any military action to whatever can be done without intervening with their regular politics.
If normal people in the west really started to fear for their lives and felt that they couldn't live under these circumstances then there is a risk of drafting and military efforts that puts millions of soldiers on the ground together with air support and a large amount of tanks.
No-one wants that kind of large war-effort to happen, not even Putin. (He benefits from the current events in Syria since it distracts the west from his landgrab in Ukraine, but he really don't want a militarization in Europe to happen.)
Seriously, prayers for the victims are needed.
The moslems are pushing for a total world domination, but they need the weapons and technology to do it
Europe and America have the technology and the weapons - them moslems are coming to take over both places and use the weapons and technology to help them conquer the entire world
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Hollande just announced he will "close the border." Better 30 years late than never.
Count down to the UN condemnation of this response as "racist": 5.... 4.... 3....
Nope, blame the ones demanding the deaths of all others who don't believe their religion and who act on it. Don't blame the ones trying to protect those targeted for death from them.
Or, keep up your thinking and get ready to see this happen FAR more often. Jews have already been told to leave France because they are not welcome, looks like they won't stop at killing Jews, so they are not your friends.
I have to agree. The downfall of some liberal countries is that they become *too* sensitive, and when confronted with a true enemy, they don't realize or recognize it.
When someone is out to destroy you, you cannot simply be polite and act like it's a dinner party where someone had bad manners.
France has really stringent gun control laws. That did not prevented Charlie Hebdo. That also did not prevented 11/13/2015 events in Paris.
Has somebody noticed that tragedies in free gun zones occur not when people are not armed, but when the right to bear arms is limited. Because criminals do no care about zones.
The "mission accomplished" was in reference to defeating Sadam's regime. It had nothing to do with terrorism as a whole.
Terrorism is impossible to completely defeat. There will always be someone who will commit an act of terrorism in the name of some group. Some people will always see wrongs that need to be avenged. The best we can hope for is keeping it to a manageable level.
Yep. Refugee shelters are being burned in multiple countries, and in particular a neo nazi went on a stabbing spree in a school in Sweden just a couple of weeks ago.
This is what gets me, is that countless people are going on TV, engaging in pearl-clutching and dog-whistle racism, acting horrified about "violent Muslim extremists" possibly crossing their borders. They effectively incite people to go burn these people out of their refugee shelters, Kristallnacht-level shit that hasn't been seen since Germany in the 1930's, marginalizing the refugees or immigrants and pushing them directly towards extremism as a defense mechanism.
Then, when an attack does finally happen - most often due to people who have been provably not part of the refugees coming into the EU in the first place - these very same racists then turn around and shout almost joyously, "SEE?! I TOLD YOU THEY WERE VIOLENT!", continuing the same pattern of racism and violence.
They are after the Freedom Fries
I've heard quite a bit about that actually. Sad and tragic accidents to be sure. But not exactly the same as people willfully murdering civilians en masse in the streets of a major European capital city.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Don't you have a 'war on Christmas cups' to cry about? Simple minded religious lunacy is even worse when they involve violence.
We know Paris has the threats, they allowed these extremists to enter the country. They have opened up the boarders for refugees and now we are seeing the results. Funny I just read a liberal viewpoint on how since Jihad John is dead we on the downhill slide in defeating ISIS. Yea right, and we have a bunch of dead bodies in Paris that argue that we may have won a battle but not the war. God be with all those families who are grieving. Let's defeat these barbarians before they kill anymore of us. Stop the wimpy response and let's drop some more bombs, kill some more terrorists and destroy this evil that's taken over this world!
Ah, anonymous coward, we meet again. Those migrants are in safe camps in Turkey, but they choose to risk life and limb in order to move to a rich country (their own words). Saw a bunch of them in my hometown yesterday, angrily protesting because the rooms in their emergency housing don't have tvs. And they don't like the local cheese and butter.
The Parisien victims did not choose to risk life and limb when they went to a restaurant, or to Bataclan to see a hardrock band. 100 hostages, 40 dead, and counting. But I guess you think they deserve it.. because they're white, right? You sound like a fucking campus totalitarian. Why don't you log in and at least show us your nick, you despicable coward.
Running out of legitimate target?
Has Jesus Christ now become the latest target of your liberal SJW attack?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Why are they attacking France? What do they hope to achieve?
Terror
That's why they call them "terrorists", Kent,
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
As long as we still think we're chosen by our chosen god(s) to save the world from other people's differently-chosen god's or gods' chosen people then our strategies will continue to fail. Become an atheist. Urge your friends to become atheist. Urge random people to become atheist. It's only one or a few gods more!
Well, but something like this should happen soon, or it will indeed get very ugly very soon.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You forgot to supply the productive part.
Well, listening to CNN right now . . . I heard the story of a guy who dragged out a bloodied teenage girl out of the concert . . . is this what Islam is all about!? Any Muslims are encouraged to answer!
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Which, obviously, must be zero, because of all you "good guys with a gun" shooting down all these bad guys, right?
What? One a WEEK???? Oh, sorry, MORE than one a week?!?!?
So I'm not allowed to hate both equally? What kind of false dichotomy is that? "You're against the US destabilizing whole regions, so you are for IS"? If anything, US doing away some of the stabilizing factors in the area made the whole shit possible in the first place.
You know what? I'm from a country that was sitting between the two power blocks back in the days of the cold war. We're used to being wary of BOTH sides and being wedged in between. We can deal with that. Bring it on, whoever wants some can come and get some.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why are there 90+ comments to a 45 minute old story?
Frenchies are so far gone into liberal la-la-land that they'll probably find a way to blame themselves for the attacks. That's why they need American soldiers to stop attacks for them. The Frenchies were probably too busy running up to the terrorists apologizing.
Sure. Alternatively, we could halt immigration and begin deporting in droves. Along with getting Western presence out of the Middle-East of course, which would include ceasing financial and arms support for Israel, at the very least on the condition that they stop the apartheid.
You need to read up on OBL and islamist ideology. He attacked the US because it had troops in SA to defend against Saddam Hussein. They were infidels (and some even women, gasp!), and not allowed to "defile the holy land with the feet of kufars". He submitted a plan to defend SA with his fighters from Afghanistan, but was snubbed by the SA government. For a narcissist, that's an unacceptable blow to the ego.
His choice of WTC was because he regarded it as an idol. According to his reasoning, westerners stopped worshipping as christians and worship material goods (this is Marxist thought, look up "commodity fetishism). Thus, they are apostates and no longer qualify as People of the Book, who should be respected according to islam. So they're fair game, as are their "idols".
You statements are simplistic, naive and just wrong.
Read a damn history book. No country in history has ever "become the ruling force in a country by offering nice health plans and a school for everyone". The Visigoths who were defeated by the Muslims conquered the country through force after they finished sacking Rome. Every country has blood on their hands. Stop being simplistic.
I feel like you want to believe that human history and interaction is a series of simplistic events, carried out by caricatures rather than by complicated human cultures, each with their own desires, fears and circumstances. It's never that simple. NEVER.
"They told me it was impossible. I replied with maniacal laughter." http://www.mydailyrant.com/
No the best hope for is that through education, and caring you can limit the numbers who support it.
The Iraqi government made of shia sidelined the Sunni minority. In response the Sunni minority turned to Isis for support. Sunnis stepped aside for isis military advances. Isis then used that to take over both groups and reprsess the Sunnis even farther.
Einstein said it best. You can't achieve peace through might of arms but through understanding. Understanding takes time.
Saddam was ho!ding shias and even Isis style groups in check through brutality. By eliminating him, we gave Isis style groups the free reign to push outward.your management made it worse.
Peace won't happen now for centuries.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
You forgot to supply the productive part.
Fine.
Beirut Embassy Bombings - Got the US soldiers from the UNF out of Lebanon.
El Salvador guerrillas - they got significant power in the government. The current president of the country was a guerrilla commander
Maoist fighters in Nepal - King was stripped of political rights, and the maoists got power in government.
You could have easily looked these up, don't be lazy.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Islam initially spread because it was very liberal (in the original meaning of the word). It is also why there were huge advances in science and culture. Eventually like most systems with riches it became corrupt and collapsed.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
You need to read up more. Yes, that is *EXACTLY* what a lot of these idiots think, that one terror attack is going to collapse a country.
They live in such a bubble they can't believe the rest of the world doesn't see things exactly like they do.
Take a look at how many nutcases are arrested for shootings in the U.S. who were "trying to start a race war" -- as if one shooting is going to start civil war.
That asshole in Norway was trying to trigger a war against Muslims in Western Europe.
How many "preppers" are there in the U.S. that believe the West is going to collapse into ruin any day now. All it will take is just the right spark to start the race/culture/religious/civil war.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Kill murder and rape, then play the victim card.
Keyword in News: New.
There are two: the RAID (police forces) and the GIGN (gendarmerie - the army).
And yes they are involved at least in one of the ongoing attacks (the Bataclan concert hall).
People forget that Syria was once a French colony. The Syrians have not forgotten that.
Clicks?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Accidental deaths are always less newsworthy than intentional killings of the same scale. That shouldn't surprise any person with functioning cognitive faculties. There's no political motive behind a boat capsizing/bus crashing/whatever. Nobody has planned it and done it for a reason. There's just an accident cause and perhaps blame dodging to report on. Not to mention that there seems to be an ongoing hostage situation in this case. Furthermore, anything which happens frequently becomes "meta news" instead of unique events to report. There is no more of a double standard than perhaps that what happens closer to "home" (in our case on /. the Western world) is more interesting to us. Or do you think that this is covered just as extensively in Bangladesh and Mongolia as it is here?
At least RAID, GIPN and GIGN
News for nerds? I know the topic is interesting for a lot of people, but this is not the right venue. Editors, please keep focused.
Haven't you wondered who was funding and training the Syrian opposition ???
The Syrian civil war exists only because someone is funding and arming the "rebels".
Actually, it was set up by the carrier's crew - because their mission was accomplished and they were going back to the US. It is, in fact, a standard sort of banner to put up.
But that never stopped people suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, like Pollux there, from trying to spin it.
This means that we must have actually nailed Jihadi John.
Time for Europeans to round up the 'refugees' and ship them back. The coast of Libya would not be a bad place to dump them.
Why are they attacking France? What do they hope to achieve?
One could say that Paris is the NYC of Europe. It's also much closer and easier to get to than NYC. Also, France has its hand in everything, especially North Africa, too. Who invaded Tunisia and decided to call it "France"? Who was pumping all of Saddam Hussein's oil? Who was really driving European intervention in the North African Arab Spring in Libya?
Fair enough. I was following the events as they began to unfold and they involve people like me doing things that I like to do in places similar to the ones I go to. My partner went to see the Eagles of Death Metal the other day. It could have been her. It could have been me. In that light, "Keep your head down" felt like an unnecessary flippancy in a society where guns belong in the history books not in the news.
I'm sorry for calling you a cunt. And a ballbag. See. Civilised conversation on the internet isn't dead. All the best.
The part "extremist groups with anti-islamim tendencies"... is it yours? or you borrowed from some mainstream media??
Being anti-extremist... makes you extremist??
How about 100 meters off the coast and see if God chooses to save them.
Dozens of Syrians drown every week while boating from Turkey to Greece (not a war zone). You don't hear about that on Slashdot.
That's because Syrians in boats are not yet in place to burn the Louvre. These guys are.
http://www.breitbart.com/video...
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
I have family in Paris; what has happened (and appears to be ongoing) is indeed an outrage.
Just as what is going on in Syria (and Ukraine) is an outrage.
There is a reason why desperate people risk their lives, and those of their children, and are drowning in their hundreds.
It's because what is happening in their "major cities" in many, many times worse than what's happening in Paris.
Aloha Snackbar ?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Are you referring to the Umayyad conquest of Hispania?
That happened during the 8th century!
Terrorism seriously? What we are going to call our loyal NATO ally Turkey for conquering the Byzantine Empire?
Those things happened ages ago.
That's exactly how Islam spread across large parts of the world once upon a time - through sheer, terroristic violence. You know that neighbor of Frances' ... Spain? Yeah, once upon a time Islamic terrorists overran that next door neighbor and set up shop there for quite a while.
Generally the Muslims in Spain were more tolerant of others than the Christians were. After the reconquista, Muslims were required to convert to Christianity or be exiled. This (along with a similar 'conversion' of Jews) led to something called the Spanish Inquisition, which was not the biggest display of Christian tolerance (but you expected that, of course).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I have said it before and I say it now: This current flow of asylum-seekers to Europe is unsustainable and is destroying Europe. This terrorism is just one example of it.
Several European countries are on verge of war. Angela Merkel and the foreign minister of Luxembourg have both said this, although I disagree with their idea that allowing the flood continue would prevent those wars. Letting the flood continue just makes problems worse.
The other thing is the the flood is so heavy that in many countries there isn't free buildings available anymore. And the costs of providing social security etc is going to cost enormous sums of money which simply is not available for long term. And we know that the employment rates of these immigrants are extremely low even during good economic times and at the moment economy in not in that good shape, unemployment rates are already high etc.
Yeah, that's right. The only way to stop murderous morons is to tell everyone who looks a bit like them that those people are murderous morons.
When are those liberals going to start doing that with all the white guys killing people in terrorist attacks in the USA, though. And what will you say to that, hmm? "Oh, no, MUSLIMS, not WHITE GUYS like me!!!!"?
Indeed. It's just a little workplace violence from the "JV team."
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
You know that neighbor of Frances' ... Spain? Yeah, once upon a time Islamic terrorists overran that next door neighbor and set up shop there for quite a while.
History will repeat itself and we will see France wake up and push the enemy back to the shithole they come from. Muslims and Sharia have no place in Europe. They have their countries and they will go back there either running or in body bags.
Either that or we will lose one of the pillars of civilization to savages aided by well-meaning, but naive, men.
For the same reason Mohamed attacked and conquered Mecca.
Religious leaders need to control wealthy people by force to gain power.
Except for your house, pretty much the entire country is a gun free-free zone. You can own a gun and keep it at home, but you can only carry it to and from your Army training, courses by government-authorized firearms organizations, gun shows (which are also highly regulated), or to sell it.
You can't have your gun at a movie theater just in case James Holmes or a Jihadist appears.
Who the fuck is ignorant?
The shooters are yelling "Allahu Akhbar" ...
There's your sign.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
The "mission accomplished" was in reference to defeating Sadam's regime. It had nothing to do with terrorism as a whole.
From Navy people I know, not even that. Every time the carrier comes into port from it's six month (?) tour, it flies the Mission Accomplished banner. It just so happened that this time the President decided to fly in, have a press conference, and take advantage of it.
It won't be long before the governments in Europe will use this tragic event to demand even more surveillance of the Internet. Expect encryption to be made illegal or mandatory backdoor access to all encrypted communications.
and the only one who has anything to gain from a weak, burdened Europe, is the United States, who have been pushing the war on "terror" more than anyone. Hmmmm.
Exactly. If they just had more guns they would get their mass shootings down to USA levels!
Yup...when Khomeni or whomever is running the show in Iran these days comes out and consistently says 'enough already' THAN and ONLY than will I begin to believe that "Moslem's are just like other people, who just want religious freedom to practice their religion as they see fit"...until then they are all suspect as at least potentially being terrorists & extremists...a few hundred years ago it wast the Christians, we at least took care of that problem though it took a long time...now it's the Moslem's, time to teach them a lesson too...
Beirut Embassy Bombings - Got the US soldiers from the UNF out of Lebanon.
At attack on military forces? Occupying a foreign country? It could be argued that was an act of terrorism itself. Still, I'm not sure how that produced anything in the way of a real goal for the Lebanese. Can you elucidate?
Maybe it made the Syrians and Iranians who were behind it happy, but I don't see the productive part. Certainly not in the long run, especially not for Syria, and hardly so for Iran. You'll have to say how.
El Salvador guerrillas - they got significant power in the government. The current president of the country was a guerrilla commander.
Hmm, no, the El Salvador civil war was actually ended by a peace treaty. And given that the terrorism was on both sides, it's hard to say what worked. Instead, I'd say it gave people a reason to stop fighting. And he did get elected, rather than seize power. So not terrorism in the end.
Maoist fighters in Nepal - King was stripped of political rights, and the maoists got power in government.
Another case of being ended by peace treaty after mutually reprehensible acts. Really, I'd say this two cases of giving up terrorism, rather than practicing it, and one not particular productive case of arguable applicability.
You could have easily looked these up, don't be lazy.
My ability to look things up is not the same as you actually speaking your own words. There is an important distinction to it, so don't be lazy yourself. Or resentful that somebody tells you to make your case in full, rather than handwaves it.
By denying the evilness of islam and accusing those who dare to oppose the cruelty acts of moslems as 'evil' the liberals are actually lending a helping hand to those moslem terrorists
I live in Paris, 10 minutes away from some of the attacks. And I have one thing to say: you are dumb as a bag of bricks.
And that's insulting to a bag of bricks. Nuff said.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Fortunately for them, they're up against politically correct pussies in most cases
It's the gun toting macho pussies that I'm more worried about. The ones who react to stuff like this by arming themselves, increasing "security" (i.e. reducing freedom and privacy) and generally being afraid of anyone with dark skin and the wrong religion. Those guys are the real threat to our democracies and way of life.
The last thing we want to do now is militarize Paris. I was disgusted to hear a British MP on the TV tonight using these attacks as justification for the Snooper's Charter spying laws he wants to introduce. I'm not afraid, I will walk down the street without clutching my sword, and I don't need weak minded idiots who buy into all this "over-running Europe" crap protecting me thanks.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This means that we must have actually nailed Jihadi John.
Time for Europeans to round up the 'refugees' and ship them back. The coast of Libya would not be a bad place to dump them.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it, you are an armchair general. STFU, you sick imbecile.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
These "chaos" attacks where a handful of attackers with light infantry weapons (IIRC, the Kenya mall attackers had an RPK or some kind of light machine gun) are proving very effective as terrorist attacks.
Where will it happen next? The US?
Frankly, I'm kind of surprised it hasn't happened in the US -- between vulnerable infrastructure, easy freedom of movement and even relatively easy access to guns, I'm really surprised that one of these kinds of attacks hasn't happened.
I would imagine beyond the sheer terror aspect, an attack during "Black Friday" might possibly cause a pretty serious disruption to the economy if an attack happened at a shopping mall. You could potentially scare away mall customers right when business wants them.
My ability to look things up is not the same as you actually speaking your own words. There is an important distinction to it, so don't be lazy yourself. Or resentful that somebody tells you to make your case in full, rather than handwaves it.
Your ability to argue any technicality is astounding.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I wonder if they are going to learn from the Swiss that a Gun Free zone is a target zone. People should be trained and armed when there are valid threats in the area. Why just be victims? They have had one mass shooting. Want to guess how it ended?
http://world.time.com/2012/12/...
You think guns are the solution just because your sick, twisted little brain is too small to comprehend that some people don't feel the need to be armed at all times.
Oh, wait, you are just a sick twisted little sh*t that repeats everything Fox News and the NRA tells you to repeat. My bad. Now, just STFU.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
So who is doing the shooting? A bunch of white Christian Europeans?
I understand why terrorists attacked the WTC, because America was a major power in the middle east (both militarily and culturally, and the terrorists hate both). Furthermore OBL hoped to increase his reputation by pushing around the US military.
Why are they attacking France? What do they hope to achieve?
OK, reality check: France is pounding ISIS in Syria right now. Yes, they (we) also pounded Lybia. Terrorists consider France an ally of the USA (which it is).
These guys are simply using terrorism everywhere, because that's the only thing they know how to do.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Sure, but nonetheless some countries have abused terrorist attacks as an excuse for severely curtailing human rights, starting multiple pointless wars and doing many other stupid things that alienated their allies and severely destabilised several regions.
It's never that simple. NEVER.
How much more complicated are militant Islamists than they come right out and SAY they are? Your desperate search for nuance in a movement that's entirely about (and making headway in) re-establishing a sprawling retrograde, medieval theocratic thugocracy is the perspective that's lacking historical relevance. Wake up. It IS that simple. "Let's go kill a bunch of young French people to show how much we hate exactly what those young be do, are, and want the world to be." Done. That simple. And that will provoke the necessary response, which the extremists will cite as proof that their cause is just, and, and they'll ramp it up even more.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Noryungi, you are the biggest asshole I have ever seen on this site
and that is saying something
send them all back to the middle east
you first
No the best hope for is that through education, and caring you can limit the numbers who support it.
I'm still hoping I can learn how not to die. Would be a useful life skill.
Peace won't happen now for centuries.
Something that fragile never existed in the first place.
Islam initially spread because it was very liberal (in the original meaning of the word). It is also why there were huge advances in science and culture. Eventually like most systems with riches it became corrupt and collapsed.
I wonder if all of the people who were killed at the birth and initial expansion of Islam would consider their deaths to have been appropriately "liberal."
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Why is this here? How many Slashdot visitors are so computer-challenged that they haven't found out about this already, and gone to a website where they can find out a lot more about it than what they'll get here?
For the love of god, this points readers at CNN!!! It might as well send us to Pravda or Faux Noise (oops...that was supposed to be Fox News)
Please, no more of this space-filling, time-wasting, off-topic crap.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Are you really saying that because the crazy Catholics also sucked that the crazy Muslims weren't really so bad?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
However, if you treat everyone like they are out to kill you, you just might convince a few of them.
France is a bigger power then the US is Muslim countries due to it's continued political dominance of it's former colonies in North Africa. Those states have as many Muslims as the US-aligned bits of the Middle East, and while pro-American Middle Eastern dictators risk coups for being too pro-American, anti-French North African leaders have a long tradition of being exiled by their own militaries at France's request, and replaced with someone who understands that while his title may be the same as the French Presidents, he is still de facto a colonial governor.
Moreover, France actually has a pretty large Muslim population who feel extremely isolated from the French state. They (along with the UK) are one of the biggest sources of recruits for ISIS, and in 2005 they rioted.
So the shocking thing here isn't that a group of them were so pissed that they wanted to shoot up some shit, it's that a) the French security state didn't detect their cell earlier, b) they got Kalishnikovs into a country with much stricter gun control then us.
...make the lives of Muslims in Europe so much harder!
Then they can leave.
Uhm, the people who took down the WTC were all from Saudi Arabia...
France is getting a large influx of muslim immigrants, and France enacted laws that pretty much amount to "hey, you live here? be French Arab, not Arab". That doesn't sit well with the Caliphate Crew, so they're attacking Paris until Paris conforms to Sharia.
Until Paris conforms to Sharia? You must be dreaming dear...
The Moslem population is anywhere from 5% to 8% to the total French population. Not gonna happen anytime soon.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
I'm saying you can't look at how people were 500 years ago and extrapolate that to assume they are the same today.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Why. Why is this on slashdot?
Says someone who has never been there. Thanks for the BS!
Swiss have more gun ranges than golf courses. Guess what people like to do a lot there? Guess which country in the EU doesn't keep track of violent crime stats because there is NONE?
I can quote a Wikipedia article that shows my political viewpoint, doesn't make it true.
I have to agree. The downfall of some liberal countries is that they become *too* sensitive, and when confronted with a true enemy, they don't realize or recognize it.
When someone is out to destroy you, you cannot simply be polite and act like it's a dinner party where someone had bad manners.
Ah, yes the evil that PC liberals do.
You are so full of sh*t. France is right there bombing ISIS in Syria. That's why these attacks are taking place.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
How many "preppers" are there in the U.S. that believe the West is going to collapse into ruin any day now. All it will take is just the right spark to start the race/culture/religious/civil war.
There's a big difference between preparing for the possibility (you don't seriously believe there will never again be war in North America, do you?), versus believing you can bring it about yourself. Preppers recognize the reality that stable, peaceful societies never last forever and often devolve quickly without enough advance notice to avoid the fray. Terrorists believe they can cause that devolution.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
I am French and I blame France for the attacks. We reap what we sow, this is what we get for siding with the Americans in their made up civil wars and we deserve such attacks for turning a blind eye on the extreme violence that we're (US and France and others) responsible for.
I am not siding with or agreeing with the attacks in any way : I hardly give a fuck about them. Not much different than a flood, a bus crash or a crane collapse. 60 civilians dead are chump change anyway next to the 50000 libyans killed because of what France did, or whatever the real figure is nowadays.
If you're reading this tell your superiors : everyone knows that France supports the syrian civil war among many other countries, everyone might know Turkey has supply lines for the Islamic State and so on. Please investigate about who in France is responsible for the extremely violent and destabilizing French policies that we've pursued since 2011 or earlier. Those responsible for the civil wars in Libya and Syria ought to be charged and tried for crime of aggression and face life in prison with parole after 30 years or a fate similar to that.
Then, we'll be able to forget about that crap.
No, that was another shooting.
Unfortunately I have to guess as the article doesn't appear to say what the outcome was.
So the real question is... why did they make those decisions?
When these sorts of things happen, whether it's terrorists in Europe or high schoolers in the US, this is probably the most important question to answer. Funny how often it's the one question which doesn't get asked.
France participated in Operation Desert Storm aka "Operation_Daguet", which is probably reason enough for any jihadist. More recently with the large influx of North African Muslims there's been conflict with France's largely atheistic culture. See the Charlie Hebdo incident -- militant Islam lacks anything resembling either a sense of humor or respect for human rights.
To the point, militant Islam really, really wants to be in charge, which makes pretty much everyone in the world either an immediate target or a future target. It's odd that you don't seem to recognize that.
Except, of course that there has been surveys done of French Moslems (by the Pew Research Institute if memory serves well), that tend to prove they are the least radicalized and best integrated of all European Moslem communities.
You really have no idea what you are talking about, so please just STFU.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Just a wild guess, but they're probably tired of foreign countries attacking their country.
captcha: appall
Fortunately for them, they're up against politically correct pussies in most cases, which means they can take advantage of things like massive movements of immigrants over-running Europe to place thousands of hardcore fighters right where they want them, complete with free housing and food while they gear up.
Or, most importantly, they're up against politically correct government that cannot, because morality of well-developed countries, use their full wrath to punish and exact revenge to those infidel killing our good citizen (aka nuking the shit out of them).
That may be why some dumbass like Trump are leading in presidency those day : http://www.businessinsider.com...
Elok
How do you come to that conclusion?
What about the Constitution of Medina do you find to be "very liberal" for example? It seems to be entirely theocratic, which is antithetical to liberalism.
http://www.constitution.org/co...
My theory: They wanted to take revenge for the killing of Jihadi John, by mounting a terrorist attack. Of course, he was killed by US forces, and not french ones, but I don't think the IS cares. After all, there is quite good media coverage of the incident worldwide. It seems their top priority here was to strike fast. They wanted to show "see how fast we can take revenge". And perhaps they've used france because there they already had prepared terrorists waiting for the call to strike. And I guess that preparing a terrorist attack is easier in france than in the US, at least right now.
To the point, militant Islam really, really wants to be in charge, which makes pretty much everyone in the world either an immediate target or a future target. It's odd that you don't seem to recognize that.
Militant Islam isn't a single entity, it's an ideology followed by many competing groups. The attacks happened because someone, or some group thought it would further there goals. They thought it would be a better use of resources than attacking the US, or Hungary, or keeping fighters in Syria (and they might be correct, or they might not be correct, but they thought it would be a good idea). So the real question is, who are these people making decisions, and why did they make those decisions? It's odd that you don't seem to recognize that.
That's like asking why the Nazis chose to invade Poland when they did, looking for some deep meaning or hidden complexity. They wanted to control it - along with everywhere else in the world. It was an easy target, so they hit it. When the goal is total subjugation of all targets, the rationale for which targets are selected first is sort of irrelevant.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
I always heard that the spanish inquisition wasn't that bad. (yeah wait... hear me out).
They provided a 'fair' trial, and had at least some systems of law in place. I heard that in places without the inquisition, the whole witch/heretic burning was way more extreme, and caused a lot more casualties. So it was better to be caught by the spanish inquisition, and not some random bigoted crazy person. With the guys you would not expect you at least had a chance of surviving.
But, well, not 100% sure. So do your own research. (a quick look at wikipedia seems to support my statement 2% of the people caught were sentenced to death).
"Never" is a very long time.
Will there be a war next week? Probably not (99.999%).
Next month?
Next year?
In the next 10 years?
20 years?
50 years?
Have you died of old age or heart disease or such by that time?
100 years?
200 years?
500 years?
I thought when it came to the war on terror, it was mission accomplished.
Since they're still attacking American and European targets 14 years later, would that possibly suggest that our existing strategies are not working?
Well... It's a possibility!
(Much funnier if you take a Mel Blanc voice to read the above line)
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
I would hesitate to call islam "evil" and thereby brand every muslim as an evil person as well. I have muslims amongst my friends and colleagues, and even the more devout ones are guys like you and me, who just want to get along and get on with their lives, and who are just as appalled at these attacks. The less devout ones will happily share a good scotch or go out for beers after work. Not real muslims? If they call themselves that, they are (even it it means a mighty struggle against their more hardline brethren).
That does not mean that there are some pretty bad things in the qur'an itself (just like the bible, I might add). We should be careful to call every individual muslim to task for the literal text in the qur'an without knowing what their stance is, but we should also not shy away from criticizing the bad things coming out of islam or islamic cultures: genital mutilation, violence against homosexuals, nonbelievers, and apostates, or oppression of women, to name a few. Sadly in Europe the debate is pretty black and white it seems: it's either "muslims are bad", or "you're an imperialist intolerant lowlife for criticizing minority cultures". There is a middle ground, and it's not a compromise, but it is recognition of the fact that not all muslims are alike. Don't condemn the group, condemn the atrocities, the actual violation of human rights, and those who do the violating.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
They let the muslim hordes in, it was clear that some nasty shit would happen. But noooooo, to state the obvious is prejudiced.
Reconquista 2 when?
Circumcision is child abuse.
10 minutes away
They're going to get a lot closer. We'll see if you're still making excuses for your mistakes when you're picking shrapnel out of your ass.
...of SWAT is? Would be outrageous for them not to have something in place after the last thing, and regular cops should be armed as well.
Take tour pick: RAID or GIGN. Google them. They are badass, and according to the latest reports, they already killed 2 terrorists.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
You are the stupidest Slashdotter alive.
Here is your problem: You see a group of people and think that they are homogenous.
They aren't. Assuming that a group doesn't have outliers is a common mistake, don't do that.
There were exactly no advances in science and culture under Islam. The scientific advances credited to Arabs occurred before the rise of Islam. Any culture that lives by the creed that everything worth knowing is already in their holy book isn't going to be inventing anything.
There were parts of the Islamic world that were nicer to non-Islam populations living among them than European Christians were to Jews and others at the same time. Obviously the current batch of Islamists aren't even that enlightened.
Oh well at least shit like this will wake up Europe. Even the French will have to fight back now.
Stop being an idiot. Jihadi John was killed today/yesterday. These attack have obviously been in planning for weeks if not months.
If you are a non handicapped adult and can't swim 100 meters, then ya, you deserve to die.
...of SWAT is?
These guys.
Thank goodness. I feel safer already with the professionals on the job.
Have gnu, will travel.
So who is doing the shooting? A bunch of white Christian Europeans?
Statistically speaking yes.
Most terrorist attacks in Europe are left wing, second most common terrorist attacks are independence movements, third most common terrorist attacks are right wing, and fourth most are religious. Muslim attacks figure among the latter and most rare of terrorist attacks.
Do you really think france will just abandon their tradition of a very liberal atheist society because of a few terror attacks? "Welp guys, it was a good run for the last few hundred years, but now its time to give sharia a try. Can't afford any more dead bodies!".
No. the only objective of terrorists is to bring terror. They do this so that they can divide the populace, and push un-radicalized muslims over the edge to make more terrorists. They want the non muslims to hate the muslims MORE by these actions (if it even was islamists, we dont know at this point). So your really just playing into the hands of the terrorists by spouting your islamophobias, and joining them on the hate train.
The correct solution is to treat this as a crime, like any other and punish those responsible. Don't go trampling on the rights of ALL muslims / citizens because of a few extremists. That is the objective of terrorist acts!!
But that's how the french would/should deal with it. Americans would deal with it by over-reacting, invading countries, and creating more terrorists in the middle east. See how well that worked for you guys? No worries, you'll get it at some point. You cant fight terrorism with more violence. It's a never ending cycle, and thats exactly what the islamists want!!!! perpetual instability.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
When will the french drive them into the fucking sea?
That's like asking why the Nazis chose to invade Poland when they did,
There was a lot of strategy involved. If they had invaded too early, for example, they risked being stopped by the allies of WW1.
When the goal is total subjugation of all targets, the rationale for which targets are selected first is sort of irrelevant.
It's definitely not irrelevant. If Germany had hit France before they had sufficient force to win, they wouldn't have pushed Britain out of the continent. Moves must be made after they are prepared.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
France has really stringent gun control laws. That did not prevented Charlie Hebdo. That also did not prevented 11/13/2015 events in Paris.
Has somebody noticed that tragedies in free gun zones occur not when people are not armed, but when the right to bear arms is limited. Because criminals do no care about zones.
My dear imbecile: you can kiss my ass.
Go back to watching Fox News, you are a complete idiot.
Pick a country and kill people in the name of Islam
Cause hate against non millitant/radical Muslims in that country.
Non militant/radical Muslims become militant and radical from the new hate.
?????
Profit!
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
They provided a 'fair' trial, and had at least some systems of law in place.
Indeed, it was fair. For example, anything you said while you were tortured had to be affirmed again after the torture was over, otherwise it was considered invalid. Of course, that might mean you would get more torture, but details!
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
A neo nazi went on a 'stabbing spree' in Sweden? I googled it & let's get this straight...a guy with a couple of knives stabbed 4 people, killing 2 & injuring 2 others...that's a hell of a 'spree'....really? You want to try to make this equivalent to these terrorists bombing & shooting up Paris?
dog-whistle racism? Look mate this ain't got nothing to do with RACE it is a religious issue...when the Ayatollahs of the world that control the major number of Moslem's start coming out on a daily basis condemning this shit, denouncing any and all sense that the Koran legitimizes 'Jihad', that their religion does not actually legitimize sexism at its very core, when they stop blaming Israel for all their ills...THAN maybe we can start talking about how 'Moslems are just people like the rest of us'...but until then they must all be considered complicit & potential terrorists.
Look, I'm an atheist, I think Christians & Catholics in particular are to blame for a lot of the evil in the world but I don't see the Pope in this day & age stumping for 'jihad' against anyone who doesn't believe what he believes...There are certainly racists that also are Christians but it's a far cry from the time when by definition being anything but Christian marked you for death...a group like ISIS doesn't just pop out of no where with popular support because the 'west is stealing our oil'...they pop out of no where because the people that support them, condone their actions etc. think the rest of us are infidels & deserve death or worse...every Moslem leader of EVERY 'Moslem country' needs to stand up and say 'enough is enough'...Saudi Arabia can go first frankly...
Lets check your reasoning:
Some terrorists are Muslims
Therefore
All Muslims are terrorists.
Oh, look. It seems you just flunked Logic 101.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
"Never" is a very long time.
Will there be a war next week? Probably not (99.999%). Next month? Next year? In the next 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Have you died of old age or heart disease or such by that time?
100 years? 200 years? 500 years?
Who knows? Destabilization happens fast, and the prelude is usually only obvious in hindsight. The prepper philosophy is to admit that nobody can answer your question and to take some degree of precaution as a hedge against the risk.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
My ability to look things up is not the same as you actually speaking your own words. There is an important distinction to it, so don't be lazy yourself. Or resentful that somebody tells you to make your case in full, rather than handwaves it.
Your ability to argue any technicality is astounding.
Well, I can't say I find your reaction to be astonishing myself. Rather the opposite. It's rather expected and predictable.
I am very disappointed that this is currently modded +5, Insightful. While I very much agree that we - as a modern, liberal (in the true European sense of the word - not the American caricature of a rich elitist sipping Chardonnay from the backseat of a limousine) society are confronting a medieval, barbaric, religious-whacko movement that wants to apply religious law (as does Ben Carson, etc., BTW) to everyone in the world, just where in the hell do you get the idea that NOT just declaring all of muslims as evil who should be exterminated becomes "Blame America First"? What kind of disjointed, fucked-up thinking can lead from one to the other? Let me guess - you watch Fox News almost exclusively and keep talk radio tuned in all the time. Try expanding your thought process to be able to hold 2 separate thoughts in your head at the same time. Trust me, it can be truly liberating to think independently.
Holy shit you're a cunt
Sadly, I recall some research that you only need around 5% of true believers (in anything) to switch large parts of the population.
Some sort of snowball or social confirmation effect. So I would not find that much peace behind only 5% of the population being something.
(Disclaimer: 5% of the Muslims does not mean they are all true believers and radicals, etc just wanted to point out that the point that apparently stuff changes easer than you would expect).
This is just proof that France needs strong gun laws. How many times does this has to happen before they modernize their gun laws and get rid of ALL the guns? They have only themselves to blame for allowing criminals to have guns!
Have you died of old age or heart disease or such by that time?
The problem with this idea is that military conflicts are not evenly distributed.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Not only that, but it's highly ironic to try to claim that Spain was overrun by 'Islamist extremistd spreading their religion through terrorism & overrunning their country'...how does the GP think Mexico/South America became SO Catholic/christian? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with Spain invading & spreading their religion through conquest & intimidation could it? O no, it must have been because Christianity is so 'good and proper' and thus South American's immediately saw the light and converted!....what goes around comes around...
I mean SERIOUSLY you people have heard of the 'Holy Roman EMPIRE' haven't you? That wasn't just a name cocked up by historians, the Pope/Catholics used to be the 'big bad bullies' killing & conquering in the name of their god...so the tables have turned & now people think "O, its that OTHER religion that's bad we're all about loving our fellow man/woman. Our god would NEVER condone this"...yeah right...only they used the same exact arguments Moslem's are using...e.g 'we do this in the name of our god'...
Bahhh...religion should be outlawed entirely...better to only have to concentrate on fighting over greed...at least the motivation of a greedy/selfish person can be conquered through working harder then they do...
It's not like a group formed in 75% of males in their 20s and 30s is going to have a significant problem with that.
I'm saying you can't look at how people were 500 years ago and extrapolate that to assume they are the same today.
But they are; some people still use public beheadings to inspire fear in others.
Do you have a reliable source that people were killed today? The only thing I've seen are fromRepublican-ruled corporations that lie constantly.
BTW, according to some sources, ISIS is saying on Twitter that the next targets will be Rome, London and Washington. According to some news sources, the attacks in Paris have killed several hundred persons.
Well, the prbloblem is, terrorists don't care. Muggers don't either. And, unless you fancy a knife fight, i do believe guns to be a gun solution.
This AC deserves credit. I actually had to look up a word's definition, even if it was an atrocious American neologism.
Fortunately for them, they're up against politically correct pussies in most cases
It's the gun toting macho pussies that I'm more worried about. The ones who react to stuff like this by arming themselves, increasing "security" (i.e. reducing freedom and privacy) and generally being afraid of anyone with dark skin and the wrong religion. Those guys are the real threat to our democracies and way of life.
The last thing we want to do now is militarize Paris. I was disgusted to hear a British MP on the TV tonight using these attacks as justification for the Snooper's Charter spying laws he wants to introduce. I'm not afraid, I will walk down the street without clutching my sword, and I don't need weak minded idiots who buy into all this "over-running Europe" crap protecting me thanks.
Yep. I am having deja vu to 9/11. When here on slashdot, several commentators accurately predicted the largest fallout would be restricting our own freedoms.
Fuck that shit! I will take a stastically insignificant attack by deperate nobodies who are doing pointless insignificant attacks because they know they have already LOST, over losing our freedom.
You statements are simplistic, naive and just wrong.
Read a damn history book. No country in history has ever "become the ruling force in a country by offering nice health plans and a school for everyone". The Visigoths who were defeated by the Muslims conquered the country through force after they finished sacking Rome. Every country has blood on their hands. Stop being simplistic.
What are you arguing? Because many (most?) ruling systems came to power by force, we should sit back and welcome vicious terrorists to come overthrow our society and kill our people?
It's ignorant, mis-comprehending dick-heads like you that are the problem with our society. Our counties will be ruined, millions of innocent people will be murdered. And it's because fuck-wads like you can't get your head out of your assholes.
You are a piece of shit, and some terrorist would blow up everyone you love so we can see what your opinion is then.
So really, what the hell is your point?
Couple of other things you didn't mention:
1. Muslims are simply going to force the "natives" to become the minority via population control.
With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations
2. The silent majority ARE the problem.
3. Major US News Station are also part of the problem, such as Faux News. i.e. CNNi put together an award winning one-hour documentary on the use of internet technologies and social media by democracy activists in Bahrain and then refused to show it on CNNi. (CNNi "officially" give the excuse it was only "commissioned for CNN US")
That asshole in Norway was trying to trigger a war against Muslims in Western Europe.
No, he attacked the main government building and the youth organization of our largest party that he felt was selling out the country to Muslim immigrants. While there were also some immigrants killed, most were ethnic Norwegians he deemed to be traitors. If the primary target had been Muslims, there would have been many other targets with far less collateral damage like a mosque. He wanted to incite "true Norwegians" to a revolt to end multiculturalism and return us to a white, christian, patriarchal mono-culture to prevent a future religious and cultural war. Not start one.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Not all preppers, in fact not even a majority as far as I can see, believe that there will be a "race/culture/religious/civil war".
There are a lot of possible disasters that preppers prepare for; i.e., ebola/pandemic outbreaks, monetary collapse (the US owes over 18 trillion dollars), another Carrington event, etc.
Not to mention more "mundane" disasters; i.e., tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, blizzards, fires and just simple power outages.
Exactly. No evidence.
France's culture is mostly christian catholic with a lot of protestant. Then come muslim in number, and maybe atheist and jew at the tail end. You are confusing France's secularism with atheism. The state is separated from religion , but that does not mean the society is atheistic.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Well, I can't say I find your reaction to be astonishing myself. Rather the opposite. It's rather expected and predictable.
Yes. I'll bet you'll find people often have that opinion of you lol
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That won't be a problem if they are all dead.
Being a top arms exporter is not directly the biggest problems, the problem is France has fallen to the neocons ideology as practiced by Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney etc.
Neoconservatism is an ideology whose goal is to kill arabs and get arabs to kill each other so as to increase the weapons sales. It led to the invasion of Iraq and they have some sort of Mein Kampf published out in the open on the PNAC's web site.
You are confusing terrorism with armies. Those who overran spain back in , what, the 8th century were armies, just like went sent whole armies in their land to conquer it (remember the crusade? By your own definition it was pure christian terrorism - especially knowing how they massacred the locals christian, jew and muslim alike on their way there).
Citation needed : terrorism having vainquished a modern country and a horde of terrorist having the power. Muslim terrorist have no chance whatsoever to conquer a country like France. The best they could achieve is trying to frighten people, but even back decades ago when tehy were setting bombs in the RATP people were not afraid. We were just mightily pissed off that all trashcans were welded shuts.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Here's the deal. Islamic terrorism is not a "fringe movement" or a group of "isolated loners". This makes it different from the Charleston church shooting kid, the Colorado movie theater kid, the unabomber, and even the Oklahoma City bombing. It's an international movement and is the express goal of many nations, Muslim sects and people around the world. Search Twitter for 'allahu ackbar' to see all the people around the world celebrating this attack. A person who reflexively rejects any attempt to understand or protect against a worldwide message of hate and violence has his head in the sand.
What does Syria have to do with anything? Are you saying the Paris attacks are no big deal?
Hell, if they scare enough people, it might end up with a bunch of nukes.
I didn't realize you actually live *in* Paris. Please continue, because geographic location makes you an expert on ask events nearby.
Republicans always lie. I just talked to my sister that lives in Paris, and she has heard nothing about these made-up attacks.
118 dead and counting
No "assault weapons" or high capacity magazines allowed in France. Bet some of the victims wished they had high capacity magazine firearms, better to have some chance than zero.
Why would U.S. citizen need high capacity magazine or semiauto rifle? This is why
Just declare Paris a "gun free zone".
The Republicans just want an excuse to murder which is why they always make-up crap like this.
True or not, the media makes so much profit from this.
There are terrorist attacks bigger than this every day. Keep this shit in the idle section. Oh wait, it's because white people got killed.
The death toll (8PM EST) is now 140, making it the deadliest attack in Paris since the second world war.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Nice try at avoiding the point.
The issue isn't whether there will be another war in North America in 200 years. The issue is whether there will be a war in North America IN YOUR LIFETIME.
No. If that were the case then they wouldn't be known as "preppers". They'd be regular people with a few cases of food (MRE's or such) and water. Because they know that civil authority will be re-established within days or weeks after an emergency.
Similar to how many Americans claim to be christian. But how and why vary dramatically.
It depends on where you are as to how black and white the religion thing is. In many countries religion is not an important aspect of culture. In others it is very much so. You can go from "do not care much" to rampant Catholicism with protestants along the way.
In the UK we are technically Protestant as the Church of England was set up to allow Henry VIII to ignore the pope. Other countries in Europe have similar wierdnesses. Most due to politics many centuries ago. None of the countries enforce a religion on people. Some take it seriously, Some do not.
When you give people a choice it seems that getting on seems more important then religion.
In which since some believe in creationism, some don't like abortion under any circumstance, some get worked up over a coffee cup color, and some are anti-gay, but we always lump all of them together, anyway. Ok to generalize Christians, wrong to generalize Muslims. Thems the rules.
I'm not even a christian and I recognize that bit of cognitive dissonance in society.
Yep. I am having deja vu to 9/11. When here on slashdot, several commentators accurately predicted the largest fallout would be restricting our own freedoms.
Instead of limited our freedoms, how about we go kick in the teeth of anyone who doesn't support peace, anyone who promotes violence, and anyone who doesn't denounce this?
If 5% could "switch" large parts of the population, then 5% of the new minority could "switch" the population back just as easily. This makes no sense.
At the time that CmndTaco posted that, the full extent of the situation was not know.
Word to your mother bro.
Gear up your AR.
Gonna be a firefight to settle this dilemma.
And ain't no stupid muzzies gonna win it either.
AP admitted about ten minutes ago they lied about the severity of the attack. As usual, the Republucans lie.
Mostly empty buildings that were intended to become camps for the invaders. I haven't been reading about every incident, but I think that if people were getting attacked by nationalists, those stories would have made it through the feeds that I read.
Europe is facing an invading army. Not refugees, not asylum seekers. Invaders.
Refugees are mostly women and children, since danger at home puts them at the most risk. The invaders are mostly military age men, wearing designer clothes, talking on modern cell phones with no shortage of minutes, and apparently well enough fed that they can be picky about which food they accept as gifts.
That may be true if you take the whole XX century, but if you limit your sample to the last 25 years and take the number of victims, Islamic terrorism clearly come first. Can you mention an attack in Europe from a left wing group making more than 50 dead like London in 2005, Madrid in 2004 or Paris in 2015?
Until Paris conforms to Sharia? You must be dreaming dear...
The Moslem population is anywhere from 5% to 8% to the total French population. Not gonna happen anytime soon.
How many percent in Mosul support Daesh? How many of the Germans were truly Nazis and had a bone to pick with the Jews? The problem with militant fundamentalists is that they're willing to chop the head off anyone who sticks their neck out. And they're willing to sacrifice others to achieve their ultimate goals. If militant Islamists can cause enough terror to provoke counter-attacks by anti-immigration extremists you have 5-8% of the population caught between a rock and a hard place. When enough bad blood is spilled it doesn't matter, after WWII people hated all Germans even the ones who never took any part in the war and never wanted to. Strength in numbers is nice in a democracy, but when you're talking more or less an occupation cruelty, willingness to die and organized effort against individuals that want to be left alone means a small minority can set the agenda.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I'm saying you can't look at how people were 500 years ago and extrapolate that to assume they are the same today.
Well that's your mistake. The Catholics certainly aren't acting like they were 500 years ago. But groups like ISIS are in fact happily taking up the mantle of medieval Islam, and using all of the techniques, for all of the same reasons, that they did centuries ago. And look: it's working. Just like it did before.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It is perhaps distasteful to choose this time to be pedantic and even less tasteful to choose this moment to sling mug at fellow leftists but... people who choose to senselessly sacrifice freedom in the name of empathy with Muslims call themselves progressives. No true liberal (or Scotsman, for that matter) would do this.
And not every self-described progressive does this, obviously, but we do have a new term that has been recently been coined to describe them: "regressive left" or simply "the regressives."
Go for a swim in the Mediterranean, you worthless asshole.
It's muslims.
Immigrants have a history of racial tension against native french. Muslim immigrants have a history of racial tension against jews. Muslim immigrants have a history of racial tension against christians. Muslim immigrants have a history of racial tension against black immigrants. Muslim immigrants have a history of racial tension against cops, women, cartoonists, other muslims.
Just a little sample
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As for motive, ISIS has repeatedly called on muslims to attack on French soil, and has already claimed this massacre on social media.
http://www.ibtimes.com/paris-b...
Yep I am sure they are all pointing their army issue guns at each other to dissuade muggings. Or perhaps it is a remarkably state controlled system. Fascist or Communist by your judgement of how things actually work. After all the guns are registered. The population is tracked. Even down to ensuring that they get enough shooting time at the range.
Yes, I would hardly say it's expected and predictable if it were something rare.
Because people will never miss an opportunity for a political dogpile. You gotta get your $0.02 before the facts can say otherwise.
No the best hope for is that through education, and caring you can limit the numbers who support it.
So you're likely in support of the use of force to stop the systemic destruction of schools and murdering of school teachers, right? No? Because the people that you think need to be educated out of their medieval world view and violence are very happy to use force in order to prevent that education from happening. And they operate in the middle of large numbers of more "moderate" fellow Islamists who don't lift a finger to stop them, because that would be rude.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
P.S. Switzerland is not part of the EU.
I am French and I blame France for the attacks
...but I repeat myself.
Fuck that shit! I will take a stastically insignificant attack by deperate nobodies who are doing pointless insignificant attacks because they know they have already LOST, over losing our freedom.
Erm, while I do agree with your point for the most part I would like to point out that, to the 100+ people who died tonight, these attacks were hardly "insignificant".
You mean all of the gang (and shall I mention black-on-black) violence that is classified as "mass shootings" in order to get the ignorant liberals' panties in a wad? When you run out of logical arguments, just start redefining things so that you can feed the masses blatant lies.
Like to take this opportunity to thank you mods for not censoring this place unlike that other site beginning with R. There are some distasteful comments and noise, but they're usually downvoted to -1 and so are out of sight to most of us readers usually.
Well that's your mistake. The Catholics certainly aren't acting like they were 500 years ago.
Your second sentence there supports my point. I wonder if you can see that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
France has been bombing terrorists in Iraq and Syria. Just last week they announced they were sending their aircraft carrier in for another tour.
Exactly right. IS is striking back at France in retaliation of France's attacks on them in Syria.
See http://www.theguardian.com/wor... for example.
Note that I'm not trying to justify anything.
With that said, I do not think that it makes any sense whatsoever to try to fight religious lunatics by killing them. These people dream of being "martyred" in battle, because they think it will secure them a better spot in their afterlife. When we think that killing the Islamists will work we are projecting rational thoughts and motivations onto people who are motivated by irrational beliefs.
If we should to do something rash here in Europe (which I'm not sure we should) internment camps like the ones the US put US-Japanese citizens in during WW2 would be a much better idea. The Islamists do like their freedom as much as the rest of us. God's powers apparently do not extend inside the walls of prisons.
Without necessarily disagreeing with anything in your post whatsoever, can we please get a little discrimination of ideas and of people? You blurred these lines, and they really need to be un-blurred.
A Muslim police officer was killed while responding to the Charlie Hebdo shootings and a second Muslim helped hide Jews when those same jihadis went on another rampage in the following days. It's important not to forget that. It's also important to not forget that Muhammad killed people right and left, only pausing now and then to rape a nine year old or talk about the importance of kissing a magic rock embedded in Borg cube.
It's an evil and stupid book. People who have completely disagreed with me have gone on to do wonderful things, build wonderful things, advance the cause of physical sciences and history tremendously, etc. etc. disclaimers etc.... can I stop now? Is it ok to simply criticize people and ideas from the seventh fucking century now?
Assuming you are in the USA, the statistics suggest that the killers of white people are white 84% of the time. But to answer your original question maybe they didn't point out that it was Muslims because it's not really helpful to draw the link because people like you can not understand that "All muslim terrorists are muslim" is not equivalent to "All 1.6billion muslims are terrorists".
Yep. I am having deja vu to 9/11. When here on slashdot, several commentators accurately predicted the largest fallout would be restricting our own freedoms.
Instead of limited our freedoms, how about we go kick in the teeth of anyone who doesn't support peace, anyone who promotes violence, and anyone who doesn't denounce this?
Unless there is a specific state or organization behind something, you can't really retaliate in a meaningful way.
I assume you think you know who is behind it, and that is who you want to "kick their teeth in" of without further evidence, and probably just by association rather than actual being in any way responsible. In other words you are probably proposing to become what you yourself what are denouncing. So should we kick your teeth in?
>> Do you really think france will just abandon their tradition of a very liberal atheist society because of a few terror attacks?
It's already happening.
March 2015 - "France swings to the right as Europe retrenches"
http://news.yahoo.com/french-p...
Don't forget about the refugees who staged a protest by refusing to leave their bus after the Swedish government (who has literally run out of all space after taking in a ridiculous number of refugees and is now temporarily housing people on the floors of random government buildings) tried to relocate them to a town that was too isolated and insufficiently warm during the winter:
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
Sorry for the horrible right wing propaganda source, but it's the best I could find.
Fuck that shit! I will take a stastically insignificant attack by deperate nobodies who are doing pointless insignificant attacks because they know they have already LOST, over losing our freedom.
Erm, while I do agree with your point for the most part I would like to point out that, to the 100+ people who died tonight, these attacks were hardly "insignificant".
Yes they are. 9/11 was 10x bigger and was not even remotely a significant threat against anything except our perception of security and therethough our own freedom.
That sounds like a good way to lose your teeth.
Youtube censored the original video when it was posted on Slashdot yesterday (and scored 4 points) after it reached over a million views. But here is the Liveleak version and a taste of what Europe is in for if we persist with this slow motion invasion.
(A lot is exaggerated, but the basic idea stands).
You think you're funny and clever of course...
How about we start with this guy:
http://nypost.com/2015/03/23/i...
When Ayatollah Khamenei comes out and says publicly that attacks on civilians are unacceptable and he publicly denounces all terrorists and calls for no attacks against civilians, then I'll be impressed...
That is an indication that maybe you should change, focus on the major points instead of nitpicking little details
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The attack resulted in 140 people dead and counting, but that's not severe enough for you apparently. Because you want to see more dead white people and / or kafirs, is that it? Are you actually crazy enough to believe this is fake? Watch the footage on youtube you cretin. And stop spamming this thread with your SJW tinfoil hat BS, or at least log in so we can report you.
In the U.S., there is a much better chance such attackers would be shot and stopped before getting too far - which reverses the message the attack sends, as in the case of the American tourists stopping the paris train shooting, which painted Americans in a positive light...
Paris (and other EU countries) because of extreme gun laws preventing innocent people from being armed, are very soft targets and you can look forward to a vast increase in such attacks over the next few years.
Probably the U.S. will have such an attack at some point, but I don't think it will get as far. I also cannot see 14+ Americans in a theater being taken hostage without a substantial number of them rushing the attackers - if even 20 people had done so initially 10 of them might have died, but hundreds more would have lived.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
France just started bombing ISIS back in early September. That's one incentive. And the Syrians have never quite forgiven France for their occupation.
Western europe is committing cultural suicide importing this inhuman scum. These people arent "refugees" they are conquerors, they keep saying so themselves. Of course they can't help themselves killing people and mass raping the white infidels (of course the media will cover all of that up). Wake up europe. Fight back. Your governments won't protect you, the time to do it yourselves is now. Forcefully evict this inhuman trash from your country or else. Evict your criminal governments as well while you are at it. The people truly do have the power if you all rise up and deal with the vermin together.
Actually cases of mass shootings in America are *routinely* prevented by legal gun owners, but these cases tend to go under-reported by the media. There was a shooting in a mall either immediately before or immediately after Sandy Hook, for example, that was very quickly arrested by some random guy with a Glock.
You're free to use this to argue that the problem of gun violence in America is thus even worse than we think, but it is simply a lie to imply that private citizens have done nothing to stop mass shootings. There is a good reason why the worst shootings almost always happen in places where it is illegal to carry a gun. Students with concealed carry licenses at Virginia Tech have spoken freely about how they had to no choice but to run because they had chosen to obey the law that day. Even the Fort Hood shootings were as bad as they were only because the soldiers were not allowed to carry firearms while off-duty in that part of the base.
Refugees are mostly women and children, since danger at home puts them at the most risk. The invaders are mostly military age men, wearing designer clothes, talking on modern cell phones with no shortage of minutes, and apparently well enough fed that they can be picky about which food they accept as gifts.
When the danger is a shooting war in which women and children don't participate, then the military age men are the most at risk.
It's odd you don't mention the bombs that France has currently been dropping to kill Muslims who want to be in charge of their own countries.
Islam initially spread because it was very liberal
B.S. Islam initially spread by killing anyone who didn't convert. That tends to be a pretty persuasive argument.
Islam was never, ever in any sense "liberal". Even in the so-called golden age of Islam when Europe was in the Dark Ages, it was still pretty barbaric. Just not quite as barbaric as Christianity at the time.
I would hesitate to call islam "evil" and thereby brand every muslim as an evil person as well.
I wouldn't. The fundamentals of islam are pure evil, in that it promotes a lack of tolerance and acceptance of different points of view - this is evil no matter how you dress it, and all islam is evil because of this.
However, many muslims are good people and don't necessarily agree with all the points of their own religion.
Can you point us to a recent (say, last decade) left-wing / separatist / right-wing "terrorist" attack in Europe that left 140 people dead?
Regardless of whatever wrongs these people feel were done to them...
Regardless of whatever wrongs may actually have been done to them, their families, etc...
This will not help their cause, it will just make it worse. They are yanking the tail of the tiger, they will find they are unprepared for the other end when it turns around.
For all the jokes about France and surrender, the reality is they can be a tough bunch when they want to be, and they have strong allies around the world, including the USA who will come to their aid.
---
I get that western nations aren't perfect, both France and the US have done things that we shouldn't have. But this doesn't "right the wrong", it doesn't "excuse" murdering hundreds of people who were just going about their lives.
All that will really happen is the cause of these people will be harmed for a long time to come. This was a stupid attack, many more people will suffer because of it.
I'm saying you can't look at how people were 500 years ago and extrapolate that to assume they are the same today.
You fail to understand Islam. Islam by its nature rejects modernity and embraces the idea that it's followers should act as Mohammed did, back in the 7th century. I'm not a fan of any religion, but Christianity has, for the most part, reformed the worst barbarisms out of itself. Islam is regressing and becoming more and more barbaric.
Oh it's a good thing this happened then because Europe was *completely ignoring the Syrian refugee crisis* up until this point, yes. It's not like they were in the process of accepting millions of applications for asylum or anything.
The irony/tragedy/whatever of all of this is it may well cement Le Pen's victory.
Watch 'when the Moors Ruled In Europe'. It's a very striking story. Spain was visited by two separate waves of Islam; a first wave that was hugely enlightened in terms of the history of the time - more so than christianity - that really kicked off the renaissance. It was then squeezed out by crusading, violent christianity from the north, and a second wave of radical, brutal, intolerant islam from the south.
deperate nobodies who are doing pointless insignificant attacks because they know they have already LOST
Do you have any idea how many people ISIS has killed as they've expanded their territory? Feel free to round down to the nearest 100,000. You can include a few hundred Russians tourists or not, as you see fit.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
No it is not 'just like the bible'. Christians include the Old Testament to provide a marked contrast with the New Testament and Jesus non-violence. Christianities founder was non violent and clearly stated that his followers should not be. Islam's founder was a thief, warlord, pedophile, and murderer. Muslims are simply following their founders example. The two are not even close.
I would hesitate to call islam "evil" and thereby brand every muslim as an evil person as well.
Calling a cult evil does not imply its members aka victims are evil. I'm perfectly happy to consider religions harmful or even evil, but I don't necessarily think my religion infected friends are bad people (though I have mixed feelings if they pass their religion onto their children or others...).
It's an invasion in slow motion - here's a video on the topic:
With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations
(It's propaganda sure, but its general point is illuminating imo)
Oh, Islamic terrorism is a coordinated movement (though not as coordinated as you seem to think) but it's not the same as Islam, It's a bunch of jerks within Islam. And white supremacist terrorism is more coordinated than you seem to think, as is anti-Islamic terrorism such as Anders Brevik's.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Don't condemn the group, condemn the atrocities, the actual violation of human rights, and those who do the violating.
You're forgetting to condemn the millions of people amongst who the live, and who allow them to continue to operate, be funded, preach hate and recruit. The militant jihadis could never operate without the tacit approval of many millions of their less violent but none the less supportive co-religionists.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Don't worry soulskill, I appreciated it. I checked my familly and friends are safe. The French who read this article will certainly take it as me.
Peace.
It is not wise to bring semi-auto to the battle where your opponent has automatic defensive weapons.
Froggers could learn from their neighbours in Switzerland. Many things, not only freedoms.
Your nothing but an apologists for some of the most despicable people on the planet. Don't worry you have a lot of company. The "terrorists" hide behind their twisted interpretation of the Muslim faith and people like you give them the extra cover they need to continue the killing. Blaming the neo-cons or western liberalism will not solve the problem. Use all the flawed logic and historical ignorance you like trying to place blame but if that is all you are capable of then that makes you no better then the AK-47 toting crazies.
Yep. I admit it. We hold secret meetings to undermine your way of life. I have personally been responsible for 27 beheadings and 13 counts of genital mutilation...all in a days work.
I smuggle Mexicans across the border to run farms...and for added chaos, I smuggle the Canadians across to pick the fruit.
But none of that compares to watching you squirm and whine. I would vote communist just to watch you belly ache...that is prime-time entertainment.
Your point doesn't matter when it's not the Catholics we're talking about. You do actually understand that, right?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
My total guess is it's people with ties to the middle east who are fed up with being killed by westerners.
Do you have a reliable source that the world is round?
Biggest piece of ahistoric pseudo-progressive drivel I've ever seen here. France, as well as Germany, refused to have anything to do with the invasion of Iraq. It actually soured relations with the US.
PNAC quit in 2006.
Compared to what? The over 30,000 deaths annually in the US?
Best post on the page. Lame stream media are making a killing off this $$$ cha-ching! How disgusting it is to profit from such a tragedy.
Last I heard it was coordinated attacks across Paris, including slaughtering people in a theater. Not sure how you would characterize that as an "accident".
In the Middle Ages... er, I mean the Middle East, mass murder is common and expected. In the first world, it isn't.
No we don't, we think there are bad people and very bad people hiding in these groups of refugees.
Only solution I see is to ship them all back.
The good and the bad.
Otherwise be prepared to die from some radical Muslim's gun fire just for being different.
What they want is for France, Germany, Italy, the US, Turkey*, and other non-Islamic forces* (Russia now?) to invade ISIS-controlled lands. The little fairy tale that ISIS believes fanatically is that the Prophet Muhammad predicted that the Day of Judgement will come after Islamic forces defeat "Rome" at Dabiq, a small, non-militarily-important town in northern Syria that ISIS forces fought crazily to take. Dabiq features very heavily now in ISIS propaganda, and their English-language propaganda magazine is called Dabiq. The legend states that "80 flags" will gather, where the Caliphate will triumph militarily and Western forces be defeated. They do everything they can now to draw in as many countries as possible into the conflict, believing that they can trigger the Day of Judgement.
*Not to say that Turkey is not a nation of Islamic, but they are not Islamic from the perspective of ISIS. The government is secular, a grave crime.
Except, of course that there has been surveys done of French Moslems (by the Pew Research Institute if memory serves well), that tend to prove they are the least radicalized and best integrated of all European Moslem communities. You really have no idea what you are talking about, so please just STFU.
After rampant reports of burned cars and attacks on Jews in Paris, I'd really hate to see what poorly integrated Muslim populations looked like.
AQAP was behind the Charlie Hebdo massacre, not ISIS. Some people are already saying the same thing about this massacre. It's al-Qaeda trying to stay relevant after they've been upstaged by ISIS. If they don't they'll lose their funding from Qatar and SA, and they won't get new recruits.
So the real question is, who are these people making decisions, and why did they make those decisions? It's odd that you don't seem to recognize that.
"There is no god." "Mohammed was a false prophet." Either of those statements is sufficient for militant Islam to want to chop off my head, as I said either sooner or later as they see their way clear. It is the job of civilized governments to constrain and box in militant Islam so it can't expand and chop off heads and blow people up in any wider of a sphere than necessary. It is distinctly NOT the job of civilized governments to censor our lovable albeit loud mouthed atheists to make the Muslims happy.
Consequently, the question of why a particular militant Islamic group goes murder-crazy at a particular moment may in some cases be purely academic and moot for policy purposes.
The last thing we want to do now is militarize Paris. I was disgusted to hear a British MP on the TV tonight using these attacks as justification for the Snooper's Charter spying laws he wants to introduce. I'm not afraid, I will walk down the street without clutching my sword, and I don't need weak minded idiots who buy into all this "over-running Europe" crap protecting me thanks.
For those who want more control and power, there is no disaster that they won't take advantage of to push through the plans they had all the time.
Like how the PATRIOT Act was suddenly all ready after 9/11. It'd been sitting, the supporters waiting until the public was panicked enough in the aftermath to strike.
Operation Desert Storm was the greatest thing ever for jihadists. It weakened Saddam's Baathist regime, and Baathism is sa secular ideology, it's a form of Kemalism. If you know anything about jihadism, Kemalism is its nemesis, its ideological foe. Assad is also Baathist btw, not exactly the friend of jihadists either..
>> surveys done of French Moslems (by the Pew Research Institute if memory serves well), that tend to prove they are the least radicalized and best integrated of all European Moslem communities
I believe you're referencing this 2006 Pew Research, which showed that a higher percentage of French Muslims wanted to adopt the customs of their host country than in other European countries.
http://www.pewresearch.org/200...
However, that's ten years old, and the high unemployment and changing immigration trends could have changed attitudes. I've love to see an updated report.
Fortunately, though, it is precisely the religious zealotry of the Islamic radicals that keeps them poor and weak. First-world democracy and freedom will always dramatically outperform The Caliphate both economically and militarily. And, after enough of these terrorist attacks, the SJW Fifth Column in the west will be discredited and we'll actually get serious about screening immigrants and eliminating The Caliphate.
I am hard pressed to think of a single case where that produced any effect that was productive to terrorism.
The Madrid bombing influenced the Spanish elections. They got a socialist government that quit military involvement in the islamic world.
9/11 eventually led to the toppling of Saddam. That was a boon to al-Qaeda et al (also to Iran, but that's a different story).
Just to be clear, there's nothing specifically anti-French about an AK-47. It is the rifle of under-funded underdog armies and guerrilla bands the world over, because it's cheap, durable, reliable, and easy to get parts. Rich armies like the US Army use other weapons.
Oh wait, it's because white people got killed.
You are a racist asshole.
Yes. As has anyone who ever watched a boat sail over the horizon.
sustainable living
Fuck you. If you're too stupid to see this threat, at least don't denigrate those of us who can see it.
You're one of the "useful idiots" that jihadis use.
"Never" is a very long time.
Will there be a war next week? Probably not (99.999%).
Next month?
Next year?
In the next 10 years?
I imagine many people said that before the 1929 stock market crash. One wonders what they thought as the waited in the soup lines of the Great Depression.
Ben Carson does not. Where did you read that crap?
My favorite statements: "I do not tolerate intolerance" is now joined by "kick in the teeth of anyone who promotes violence."
desperate search for nuance
There MUST be some set of indirections we can cobble together to tie this to Big Oil, Bush, banksters and all the other fair game I've been trained to hate. Somehow, just somehow this HAS to be capitalism's fault.
Also, global warming.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
In your opinion Jesus was the light and discarded the old testament. So that means, In your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. But them Muslims are Evil...Nothing more, nothing less.
If you missed the point your beliefs are as valid as anyones are. Nutters are available everywhere
All you grey-haired-man-in-the-sky believers are whackos.
Actually that mission created a whole lot more terrorists than it ever took care of.
How about 100 meters off the coast and see if God chooses to save them.
How about you just get yourself a nice cup of STFU, you bleating idiot.
How about instead I chop you up with a chainsaw and feed you to sharks.
that's just fog of war bro
Which just motivates zealots from outside France to stir things up, to try to shore up support within France. To radicalize the local population.
My point is that you can't judge a group of people based on what they did five hundred years ago. Your own point explained why: because groups of people can change.
In your original post, you were trying to say that, "Muslims were bad then, therefore muslims are bad now." That is a stupid thing to say. If you want to say that they are bad now (and some of them are), then explain that. Don't bring irrelevant history into it, thinking it bolsters your point. It doesn't bolster your point for reasons already mentioned.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Here
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
You fail to understand Islam.
No I don't. There are plenty of Muslims who embrace modernity.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
They want a caliphate across the ME, Africa and into Europe and beyond.
And you probably want a girlfriend, you stupid idiot. STFU.
Actually I want to fuck you up the ass with a machete.
My favorite statements: "I do not tolerate intolerance"
A better way to put it is... "I do not tolerate violence"..
But sadly, the only way to stop someone who is violent is with more violence.
If a cop shows up to a domestic violence call, if the people are not willing to listen to reason, his only real tool at hand is violence.
Force is the only way to impose yourself on someone else against their will.
These people doing this need to stop. They can do it because it is the right thing to do, or they can do it because we make them stop.
Sadly, given the situation, the only way to make them stop would be to kill a large number of them.
I've had several problems with Muslims, even the less devout Muslims. My first encounter with Muslims was when we were at the age of 16-17. We went on our mopeds to a football game to play against a team that consisted of only Moroccans. After the game we wanted to got back to our mopeds to drive home, but we were waited by the opposing team. They claimed we were racist because one of them got a bruise on his shin. Well that happens when you play football (soccer for the Americans) and refuse to wear shin protection. At first they weren't allowed to play the game, there are rules against not wearing shin protection in football, but a few angry words later, the referee just stopped protesting to safe his face.
Well, one of them got a bruise and that was because we were racist. Before we could say anything we were beaten by 15-20 Moroccans and they managed to steal the keys of the mopes of some of us and drove away with them. That was my first encounter with Muslims.
My second encounter was when I was 18 years old. I went to my first party organized by a students organization of our college with a couple of friends. We had tickets and the venue was sold out. We went to the entrance but were halted by a few Moroccans who showed their knife and demanded our entrance ticket, our wallet and our cell phones. When I told him I didn't have a cell phone nor wallet (I put my money in my pocket), he hit me with his knife in my stomach. They ran away with a few tickets and some money and entered the party. My friends managed to warn the first aid who drove me to the nearest hospital (that was luckily for me only 2 km's away). It still have a thick scare on my belly, that often bleeds when I go for a run (20 years later now).
And than another encounter was with a colleague who seemed a nice person and with who I started to become friends. But this all changed when the 9/11 thing happened. I thought loud out how people could do such a thing in name of an entity that doesn't even exists. After this loud out thinking, he turned in to a mad man. He started shouting at me in some Turkish language and kept on shouting and even pushing me. A few hours later I had to go to the big boss to hear I was suspended and was fired a few days later for being racist.
Of course not all Muslims are bad. But I only knew one and I had 3 bad encounters with Muslims in my life. These were not 3 out of 1000, or 3 out of 100, but 3 out of 3. In one I almost lost my life, because I was slowly bleeding to dead if it weren't for the red cross who has to assist big parties. In another I lost my only means of transport when I was 17 and I had to ask mum or dad to bring me to sports school or regular school. In the last encounter I lost my job.
I simply can't help it anymore. I have some sort of trauma. It's like those people who don't trust dogs anymore because they have been bitten by a dog. I don't trust Muslims anymore, because I've been stolen from, almost killed and fired because of a Muslim.
I also hate the no go zone for non Muslims, only 6 km's from where I live (this was a housing project for the Muslims established 5 years ago, for Muslims only of course because it was to give people who don't want a loan because it is against their religion a house). Especially for me this is a problem, because I'm pale white, blond hair, blue/grey eyes, fairly large (1.92 m). From the moment I pass this neighborhood I get called names, sometimes they throw cans or carton boxes at me, or in other words, it's not fun to come in a place so close to home where you are hated.
I didn't watch television today, I was reading a book, when I heard people in a cars using their horns to express their joy. I looked out of the window and saw a bunch of multicultural enriching young people, but I didn't know why they did this. Maybe Turkey won their barrage football game, so I looked on the internet and noticed that Turkey didn't have to play a barrage game, but I noticed that there were at least 18 deaths in Paris at that time.
These
There are terrorist attacks bigger than this every day.
Maybe so, but in this case it means people in the affected area will be expected to bend over and give up their freedoms, because terrorists.
So if you had long-term plans to build a datacenter in France, or use a French proxy, you might want to reconsider unless you want to accommodate the new anti-privacy laws (likely already written and shelved until an occasion such as this).
Good grief, stop listening to everything Faux "News" tells you and get out every now and then. Prepper is a play on "Prepared", which is what "Preppers" are doing with shelters, stocks of food/weapons/ammo, books, radios, etc.. etc..
Can a war happen in our lifetime? You bet your ass it can, we are really a few good speeches away from a civil war. Race baiting and claims of Misogyny keep shoving us right down that path. Social engineers want it, but people like you are too stupid to see it.
And she said Dirka-Dirka, Mohammed Jihad, Sherpa Sherpa, Baka-La.
What else do you expect from the religion of peace.
They claim such a parade is Islamophobic and racist and even thinking about such parade my lead you into extremist thinking and they already start comparing with the few lone wolves that did terrorist attacks and were not Muslims. But they seem to forget that every single terrorist attack was countered by regular people holding marches, letting go balloons and all that stuff.
President Obama's BIG Presidential Event, COP21, is GAME-OVER.
That is a good thing because the French President and his government had sequesters 74,000 child prostitutes to service him, his government ministers, President Obama, President Obama's Cabinet Secretaries and their brood, and the UN ministers, their NGOs and HMOs from 2nd and 3rd world dictatorships and the Vatican which has a particular "taste" for Rio "young suckling", the human kind.
When you have an armed citizenry you're not going to have instances where three people manage to kill 100 by just lining them up and executing them one at a time. No, a gun doesn't turn you into John McClain. But it is a confounding factor for people who try to pull off these kinds of attacks.
It is not wise to bring semi-auto to the battle where your opponent has automatic defensive weapons.
Froggers could learn from their neighbours in Switzerland. Many things, not only freedoms.
A semi-auto is fine if you have any experience using it.
It's more a matter of who saw who first.
Yeah, but just this morning Obama told us IS is "contained", so... we have that going for us.
And blaming America and the West "first" IS a real thing--just see what the self-styled progressive left (recently nicknamed "regressive left") had to say after Charlie Hebdo. Already, I am seeing people blaming France for Syria (one of the gunmen in these attacks even shouted "This is for Syria!"), as if opposing the Iraq war and then not getting involved in clusterfucked Syrian civil war but offering to accept refugees anyway is an unforgivable sin. The West is blamed when it does intervene and blamed again when it does not intervene, and it is being blamed by both the jihadists and the Western progressive (I refuse to say "liberal") apologists for those jihadists.
Trust me, it can be truly liberating to think independently.
Physician, heal thyself.
Yes, so if they are going to treat people like shit, then let them into their country, they are beyond stupid if they don't think this is the predictable outcome.
It is probably the Government of France leading the attacks, much in the same way as the CIA was responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City.
What better way to "get rid of that pesky rights crap" )as that Ashcroft fellow congratulated himself, having gotten rid of the Rule of Law in the United States) and impose a totalitarian full surveillance police state.
Oh yeah, you want armed people at a soccer match between France and Germany. Tonight we're gonna party like it's 1944.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The White House provided the banner:
http://content.time.com/time/n...
Every time the carrier comes into port from it's six month (?) tour, it flies the Mission Accomplished banner.
Not true.
the only way to make them stop would be to kill a large number of them.
Which won't happen because eurocucks would rather adopt Sharia than be called intolerant.
If that were even remotely true the USA would be a very different place.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
In 1918, the philosopher historian mathematician Oswald Spengler predicted the end of all of western civilization in the next hundred or so years based on studies of the other historically major cultures (Greek, Roman, Mayan, etc) and civilizations. He said they go through a well defined lifecycle and western civ is solidly in the way out stage. Kinda like a real life Hari Seldon.
You're confused. It goes like this:
Person claims to be of a specific religion.
Specific religion is based on book that says to kill people who won't convert to that religion or malign that religion in any way.
There have been many, many instances where people of this religion have committed said killings.
We're supposed to let this person into our country on the hope that they DON'T actually follow their religion's rules?
I'd rather err on the side of caution and assume they will follow their rules. Once they clean up their own house, then we can talk about mingling in ours.
Saudi Arabia can go first frankly...
Saudi Arabia should have been targeted (by the US) right after 9-11, or perhaps earlier. Nowadays, it has paid its way into the pockets of the leading politicians of America, so it's protected - even from criticism.
(||) Nehmo (||)
Did you enjoy watching your fellow French citizens be murdered? Did it lift some of that white guilt you have?
You would have to add up quite a number of US "mass killings" to reach parity with what just happened in a single incident today.
Plus, this isn't just drug gangs killing each other in the hood.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Yep, everything is the fault of white people.
The "refugee crisis" is being used as a cover for a religious invasion. Sure there are a few from Syria but the majority of them (some estimates say 80%) are military aged males and not directly related to war zones.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I hope you realize how stupid those words are, but sadly I don't get the sense of sarcasm. "Let's beat up bullying!"...
The Obama Administration has already used the word "terror" in a speech about this.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
"The Moslem population is anywhere from 5% to 8% to the total French population. Not gonna happen anytime soon."
It's not that simple. If the proportion of those who want Sharia reaches critical mass in any given pocket of highly concentrated Muslims, then Sharia law it will be. And it will stay unless the French government is willing to put it down, and keep it down. Otherwise such pockets will be cancers that will continue to grow.
Correct. Complex societal dynamics are at play.
> Ah, yes, because the USA have such a sterling record of accepting and protecting its minorities... NOT.
Compared to the way most of the world treats it's own people, the USA is hardly evil. Improved opportunities are why pretty much the entire planet wants to come here.
People are free to be what they want here. That includes being jackasses.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
There is no good end to this for you, you idiot. You will either have an Islamist society, or a far right wing one. Liberal cowards like yourself won't last long in either.
The militant jihadis could never operate without the tacit approval of many millions of their less violent but none the less supportive co-religionists.
Why couldn't they operate?
I think that IRA terrorists, Basque terrorists, ETA terrorists, Red Hand Brigade terrorists, heck even Timothy McVeigh managed to operate quite well without needing the tacit approval of millions. I'm not sure why militant jihadis would be any different?
If it's such an awful place for immigrants, I have to ask: WHY THE FUCK DO YOU GO THERE?
Seriously, I stay away from places where I'm not welcome. Why is there this drive, this insane desire, to go into the "enemy's" lair and demand that you be treated as not just an equal, but as a superior, with rights that the locals do not have? Why must others attempt to drive differing peoples together while they themselves argue from the sidelines?
I have no sympathy whatsoever for people who do this.
Why are they attacking France?
They're not attacking France, they're attacking Paris. Would have been easier to attack and run in a smaller city, they chose Paris because of the symbol.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
I would hesitate to call islam "evil"
The only reason any religion was created is to exert control over others with made up nonsense. I call that evil.
and thereby brand every muslim as an evil person as well.
Non sequitur.
That does not mean that there are some pretty bad things in the qur'an itself (just like the bible, I might add). We should be careful to call every individual muslim to task for the literal text in the qur'an without knowing what their stance is, but we should also not shy away from criticizing the bad things coming out of islam or islamic cultures: genital mutilation, violence against homosexuals, nonbelievers, and apostates, or oppression of women, to name a few.
Your right it isn't religions fault... religion is merely one of many tools humans use to attempt to legitimize fundamentally irrational behavior.
Import hundreds of thousands of people in an effort to destroy the idea of "countries" so it makes control easier for the life of the typical Globalist.
Sit back and watch as countries implode.
Where is the popcorn?
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Oh, so that's why 16% — one in six — of the French support ISIS, you despicable Islam apologist! http://www.newsweek.com/16-fre...
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Won't happen. The non-violent ones mostly support the violent ones but don't have the cajones to pull it off themselves, and the rest of them live in fear of the violent ones. You won't see them speaking out against these guys in any real way because they fear being seen as heretics who aren't practicing what The Book states and becoming targets of the extremists.
It's like Morpheus' quote from The Matrix:
"The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it. "
Replace "The Matrix" with "Islam".
And white supremacist terrorism is more coordinated than you seem to think, as is anti-Islamic terrorism such as Anders Brevik's.
Brevik was not exactly anti-Islamic. He did not want to conquer muslim lands. He even had Muslim friends. He was anti mass-muslim-immigration, and his terrorism was an act of revenge against those whose white Norwegians who were responsible. If there were thousands more "white-jihadis" like him, it might have been an effective strategy.
One was followed thousands of years ago, while the other just killed 170 innocent people.
Go fuck yourself, you lying piece of shit.
everywhere the you find moslem they kill
If you replace 'moslem' with 'human', I think you have a 100% accurate statement.
Why is is that every racist dumb-ass on the Internet is out tonight? Look, the problem isn't Muslims, its extremist religion. Doesn't matter what god people pray to, there are always a few fucked up idiots who have to take it too far, and Islam is no different than Christianity in that regard.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Funny you should mention the IRA, who did exactly what you were trying to lie about them not doing. They had the tacit support of a majority of their countrymen.
Fuck you for condoning and sympathizing. You're the enemy. You should have been the one executed tonight.
Doesn't that make them cowards then for fleeing when they should be fighting for one of the sides? Hell, in WW2 if you were a draft dodger, that was a serious crime and people did not look kindly upon you for doing it. Here, we celebrate them with open arms??
A bunch of "jerks"? That's what you call murderous terrorists? Should we just say please stop being jerks?
Why couldn't they operate?
Because we're talking about a group (ISIS) that employs huge fleets of vehicles, operates oil facilities and transportation systems, conducts international banking, and involves tens of thousands of people operating in the open. They are awash in cash, and have the vocal support of people across the middle east and in little hotspots of insanity around the world. If Timothy McVeigh had been operating with thousands of other people and hundreds of millions of dollars while boasting about what he'd done and would do next ... you really think he'd be "operating?"
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
In your original post, you were trying to say that, "Muslims were bad then, therefore muslims are bad now."
Don't tell me what I was trying to say. Just read what I actually said.
Muslims were bad 500 years ago, and the ones who are acting that way to day ARE still bad. You really need that explained to you in clearer language than I first used? I reasonably assumed that you are able to parse the conversation in the context of knowing some basic history and knowing some current events. If you're foggy on either of those, you've got more catching up to do before carrying on with this conversation. If not, then my remarks are perfectly in context and you know it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The poor guys just wanted to throw a party with their bombs and guns to celebrate their new life in France, it is a shame all those stupid white people walked into the bullets and explosions
Doesn't that make them cowards then for fleeing when they should be fighting for one of the sides?
You tell me which side they should be fighting for.
This is why we have Nations, and borders, and people of different beliefs and culture living in separate nations. Not everybody gets along, and no matter how much people wish they would, short of genetic engineering, it will not happen. So, nations are the best option. Don't like your nation? You can move to one more compatible with your views (if they'll have you).
However, the globalists want to eliminate nations. They want one world government. One where, of course, THEY control everything much more easily. They won't have to worry about protectionist policies that hamper their profits to the benefit of citizens. They won't have to worry about bribing and controlling numerous politicians, it'll just be a small handful. Cheap labor will be plentiful. The police state will be absolute. Their laws will be forced upon all. A return to the era of lords and serfs..
You forgot to mention taking it to a rifle range for fun or competitive matches. Recreational shooting is legal in Switzerland. Like the US its sort of popular.
The big news is that Obama will soon recognize Myanmar (Burma). Then he will send forces to protect it from Chinese invaders (already massing on the border). Things will then get interesting fast. Enjoy your diversions while you can.
...and no one has the right to say, "We didn't know it was coming." When you knuckle under to a bully, you get more bullying, it's that simple. You show a spine, then and only then do they respect you. How many times do we have to learn this lesson before our "leaders" grow spines? My guess is, "thousands" since our "leaders" seem incapable of understanding that all their appeasement does is beg for more abuse.
you're closing your eyes to the true depth of the islamic terrorism problem if you insist on seeing it as a bunch of jerks instead of how it really is, a cultural and political movement.
Analogy time. Let's say there's a fraternity on campus known as the rapey fraternity. The leaders encourage and endorse date rape. Members of the fraternity cheer on social media whenever date rape is reported in the media. You know a guy in the fraternity who is a very active participant. Goes to all the meetings, goes to all the parties, wears the fraternity sweatshirts around campus, all that stuff. You don't know him personally, but isn't it reasonable to be wary of this guy? would you want your sister or daughter dating this guy?
Many strains of fundamentalist islam are like this rapey fraternity. Hate and violence are so infused into the core of the sect, and infused into the religious teachings themselves, that I think if you are american or european it's perfectly reasonable to be wary of somebody who chooses to associate themselves with this sect.
You don't know anything about Islam (the arab word for "Submission") do you? Islam has NEVER been peaceful. Go and learn about the life of Mohammed from the ahadith - he was a mass murderer, pedophile, slaver, bandit, genocidal anti-Semite with ambitions to conquer the globe for the chief god of his Quyresh tribe (the god is called "Dushara" if Koran 53:19-20 is properly understood, and has the *title* of "Allah").
The Islamic State does EVERYTHING according to Sharia (Islamic Law). Every beheading, every rape, all the slaevs - they are all halal (permitted) in Sharia, because Mohammed did these things.
But like most Westerners you *presume* to know what Islam is, without actually studying it and the all-important doctrine of abrogation. Islam closely resembles a Mafia protection racket, with National Socialist supremacism, global conquest and Jew- and non-Muslim hatred thrown in. There is a reason why the Islamic Grand Mufti of Jerusalem spent World War II with Hitler - because Islam is closer in aims and ideology than Westerners are lead to believe.
Fortunately, we now know that Islam's claims are refuted by archeology, which means it will die eventually, once enough Westerners understand the evidence that destroys it. Meanwhile, I'd suggest not making comments about Islam based on what you assume it is, rather than what Al Azhar says Islam is.
Guess which country in the EU doesn't keep track of violent crime stats because there is NONE?
Switzerland isn't in the EU. The second part of your statement is equally stupid. Friends of mine do work in the Bundeskriminalpolizei over there and always have funny stories about the creative use of agro-forestry machinery to get rid of bodies.
Crime in Switzerland
In 2014, There were a total of 41 murders in Switzerland and had a murder rate of 0.49 per 100,000 population, the lowest raw figure and lowest rate for 33 years, since the start of the nationwide coordinated collection of statistical data
If anything, US doing away some of the stabilizing factors in the area made the whole shit possible in the first place.
The Soviet Union. Afghanistan. Ring a bell? Soft-pedaling the excesses of the Soviets again?
You know what? I'm from a country that was sitting between the two power blocks back in the days of the cold war.
Where you're "from" seems to be a function of what is advantageous in any particular discussion.
Bring it on, whoever wants some can come and get some.
As I recall you don'[t live there any more, the Bundeswehr isn't what is used to be, and neither is the volk.
I wonder which way the Greens will go - deplore the attack? Declare solidarity with the Islamists and their anti-imperialism? Hard to say.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
These violent acts will guarantee the "westerners" will retaliate and really start increasing the body count. Do the people encouraging, planning, executing these kinds of attacks think their adversary is just going to say you win and leave? There is no diplomatic solution and that just leaves the military option.
Go die in a fire. Deport all muzzies, exterminate those who resist.
Or abandon the religion.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
judging by the writing style it is AmiMojo and not at all surprising - she posts as ac in threads she mods so look for downmods for those not holding to the narrative and if you are the subject of them they will all be within a few minutes of each other.
When was the last time a Christian, a Jew, or an atheist flew a plane into a building full of people while praising their God? Fuck them. This shit keeps happening over and over again, and every single time some idiot comes out and starts telling everyone that "they're not all like this". I don't care. A sufficient percentage of them I so ass backward that we need to do something about all of them at this point.
here you have an example of exactly what to expect if you are unarmed. why should you not be allowed to make the choice to at least attempt to defend yourself? your cowardice is amusing. you are scared of guns, so much, that you'll be the slave of anyone who is armed.
OK, reality check: France is pounding ISIS in Syria right now. Yes, they (we) also pounded Lybia. Terrorists consider France an ally of the USA (which it is).
These guys are simply using terrorism everywhere, because that's the only thing they know how to do.
Sorry, but that is bullshit. France has only been bombing Syria for six weeks and these attacks were almost certainly being planned long before that. Al Qaida had plots for attacks like this broken up in Europe five years ago:
'Mumbai-style' terror attack on UK, France and Germany foiled - Tuesday 28 September 2010
CIA foils Mumbai-style terror plot on Europe with series of drone strikes on militants in Pakistan - 29 September 2010
It takes months or years to plot and prepare for attacks like this. It takes two seconds to claim that it is because of "Syria."
The members of ISIS certainly know more than terrorism. They have put at risk the government of both Iraq and Syria, presenting a serious challenge to their armies in the field. They are using terrorism in France because that is what they can do . . .for now.
The Islamist extremists want France to convert to Islam, just like they want every other country to do.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Wrong.
The majority of the immigrants flooding Europe are not from Syria. It is also noteworthy that the majority of the people in question are choosing to travel across spacious oil-rich Middle-Eastern countries, and poor European countries to rich European countries.
Real refugees don't pick and choose. They stop at the first safe harbor they reach. Whatever these people are, they give real refugees are bad name.
Life before freedom.
Plenty of countries have had to roll back freedom to protect their citizens' life, but doing so has saved thousands upon thousands of people. Yes, it sucks but it's far better than the alternative (and frankly, it's not nearly as bad as you make it out to be). On the flip side, losing your siblings or close friends to terrorism is unbearable... far more unbearable than accepting cameras on every street corner.
Well, we bombed the hell out of France on the way to Germany. I guess there's some precedent. They're just working their way to the Rhine, they'll go a bridge too far, and camp for the winter. Where, Germany will sneak up on them (and they'll be surprised, yet again) by stomping through the Ardennes (spelling?). The terrorists will finally defeat them at the Battle of the Fat People and cross into Germany in the spring. Then the Russians will rape Berlin while drinking heavily and stealing anything not nailed down.
(I've seen this movie.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
But why keep them? That is what is so insane about all of this. We keep wanting to fight them, at the same time as letting them in to our fucking countries. Kick them out! And keep them out. Then leave their fucking countries alone. Why is this so impossible for people to figure out? There are 2 choices, and only two choices:
1. Exterminate every Muslim (if you want to solve the problem, while simultaneously proving ourselves even worse barbarians)
2. Separate the west from Islam (if you want to solve the problem with the sincere intention of minimizing violence in general)
The following is not a choice that will work, as it is what we have been doing, and it's not working:
3. Fight Muslims in Muslim nations, and let more Muslims into western nations. (more of the same)
Guess which one we are going to choose?
It's fewer deaths than Syria, but it shows the ideology spreading.
And indeed majority of members of the ideology are peaceful.
This shows that it's not enough to have 99% peaceful population like in France - you need 99.99% like in Korea.
Terrorism is a statistically completely irrelevant cause of death. 2014 was the most peaceful year in human history. Recently, only 0.9% of all deaths are violence related and there are indications this is on the decline. Life Expectancy is rising, Child Mortality is dropping and life seems to be moving on. Apart from Cancer, Heart, Lungs and stuff like Malaria, traffic is a big one we should be worried about, really. Having a staircase in one's house is, for instance, more dangerous than the notion of terrorism ever will be.
Now, here come the news outlets. Apart from all this "Educating and Informing The People", "Freedom of Speecht" and "Checks and Balances" bullshit, the press and media generally exist to make money. In some cases they even seem to exist for more Machiavellian purposes, but to make money is a biggie. So when something as statistically insignificant as a terror attack happens *Close By*, the news explodes. It's like a gigantic circle jerk in which everyone and their uncle needs to fill yards and yards of column space or air time to talk about What May Have Happened, Why It May Have Happened or What May Happen Next and Which Refugees To Treat Like Shit Because Of This.
So generally speaking, the Media seem to take events like this and add to the sense of fear that terrorists would have instilled in the citizenry. As such, I'm beginning to view the media as culpable in the problem of terrorism, because any wacko can get a world wide platform by misbehaving in an instant. Social media are even worse when it comes to knee jerk bullshit and mass panic.
Which leads me to Slashdot. I think Slashdot is a haven of alternative news which offers refreshing takes on things, interesting articles, sometimes brilliant and inspired discussions. It is a news aggregator / outlet that works differently, feels differently and makes me feel at home in more than a few ways.
I am sad to see that even here, there needs to be a discussion on Paris. I came here to avoid that news. Moreover, I came here to avoid certain discussions about Guns, Islam, The Administration and Refugees. Because these discussions are boringly predictable, polarised, fraught with no-fact-debates and generally just plain stupid.
Nice out of context reference. He said that had contained the advance of ISIS in Syria in that they are no longer gaining ground in Syria. Nothing more nothing less.
Dumb. Maybe they were already ready and waiting for a reason and this happened so they went now.
You're forgetting to condemn the millions of people amongst who the live, and who allow them to continue to operate, be funded, preach hate and recruit. The militant jihadis could never operate without the tacit approval of many millions of their less violent but none the less supportive co-religionists.
That was Osama bin Laden's argument for justifying his attack on the World Trade Center. He felt that the hundreds of millions of Americans who allowed the CIA and Israelis to operate, fund, preach hate and recruit against Lebanon and the Arab world were giving their tacit approval to the killing of muslims.
When's the last time you've condemned Western human rights violations against muslims and Arabs?
Like the more than 150,000 Iraqis killed during Bush's invasion?
Out of context, is it? Apparently one of the guys they caught claims to be working for IS.
If IS is killing people in France... would you say that's a sign they're "contained" in the Levant?
you're closing your eyes to the true depth of the islamic terrorism problem if you insist on seeing it as a bunch of jerks instead of how it really is, a cultural and political movement.
Analogy time. Let's say there's a fraternity on campus known as the rapey fraternity. The leaders encourage and endorse date rape. Members of the fraternity cheer on social media whenever date rape is reported in the media. You know a guy in the fraternity who is a very active participant. Goes to all the meetings, goes to all the parties, wears the fraternity sweatshirts around campus, all that stuff. You don't know him personally, but isn't it reasonable to be wary of this guy? would you want your sister or daughter dating this guy?
Many strains of fundamentalist islam are like this rapey fraternity. Hate and violence are so infused into the core of the sect, and infused into the religious teachings themselves, that I think if you are american or european it's perfectly reasonable to be wary of somebody who chooses to associate themselves with this sect.
And let's not forget the Christians and Jews. They've been committing acts of terrorism and mass murder for 2500 years.
Don't condemn the group, condemn the atrocities, the actual violation of human rights, and those who do the violating.
You're forgetting to condemn the millions of people amongst who the live, and who allow them to continue to operate, be funded, preach hate and recruit. The militant jihadis could never operate without the tacit approval of many millions of their less violent but none the less supportive co-religionists.
So lets condemn all Americans, because they allow the US government to operate, which is performing terrorist drone strikes all over the world.
The problem is, that the world is never that easy. Many people inside the areas occupied by ISIS will cooperate with ISIS just to survive. Can you blame them?
If you look at France: They have a huge problem integrating immigrants (or at least treating them reasonable well).If you read an article like this: http://www.theguardian.com/wor... you have to wonder, if this is really about religion or about the youth having no future and then finding a reason for getting violent.
In the context of militarily taking and holding ground, which is what Obama was talking about, then yes. That is called context. Is ISIS holding any ground in France? The spread of ISIS control is contained not their actions.
Ah, I see. For someone who applies such a strict interpretation to the Bush banner you seem surprisingly flexible in this case.
Just waiting for dave420 the taquia chief to come and tell us that all religions are as bad and it was just as likely to have been a Methodist, Mormon, or Buddhist gang.
It's listening to people like him that got is onto this state when Muslims clearly cannot mix with democracy - hell they even tell us they oppose it.
WTF! You think "love your enemies" does not invalidate old testament. It was the "followers" of Christ that chose to keep the revengeful god..
The Paris attacks are no big deal. More Parisians die in auto accidents per day than from Terrorism per month. The terrorists pose no threat to France.
Or you could pay Libya and Turkey to block the refugees.
That is just nonsense. Islam has never been liberal, Muhammad spread his religious disease at the point of a sword, as did his successors.
The only time early Islam was not violent was in its very first years when Muhammad struggled over a decade to get more than a handful of followers, with a relatively peaceful message. As his message became more violent, presumably causing him to have to flee to Medina with his followers, he then became a full on bloodthirsty and violent desert pirate.
Fast forward less than 100 years and:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours
Very early Islamic armies, defeated in France, within 100 years of Muhammad. When exactly was this liberal period you refer to ?
There were conquered peoples, who on being forced to submit to Islam got their Islamic names and continued their studies. Islam was not "leading" the progress, it was "co-opting" it.
If only France had laws against gun ownership, this could be avoided!
You could just have easily said Moroccans and that one guy at your office were crazy, since all of your experiences are based on them.
All muslims in Europe must be rounded up and segregated into camps, pending deportation or disposal. All the city areas currently under islamist control must be occupied by military forces and razed to the ground. Arrest all muslim leaders and religious figureheads. Europe to Europeans!
Bah. Reading most of the reactions here is utterly disgusting. There's one fraction at the one side of the fence just waiting for the other fraction at the other side of the fence to do something, like a macabre game f volleyball.
The extremists on both sides are the best allies after all.
Do you really think france will just abandon their tradition of a very liberal atheist society because of a few terror attacks? "Welp guys, it was a good run for the last few hundred years, but now its time to give sharia a try. Can't afford any more dead bodies!".
If WWII is any indication then... Well... Maybe. ;-)
Seriously you crazy Frenchmen, keep your heads down. Looking at the reporting on BBC indicates that this may not be over, just yet.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Why are they attacking France? What do they hope to achieve?
They have achieved it already. They want to live their life according to the commands of Mohamed.
If they'd have hit France first they'd probably have had to go through the Maginot Line and that would have been suicidal. So, whack Poland first and stomp around France to the north to attack it from the top - pretty much like they've done throughout history. And France is continually surprised by this. And no, we American's aren't much better. Sure enough, the Germans came stomping through the Ardennes (only headed towards Antwerp this time) and surprised the Americans with something known as the Battle of the Bulge. I bet, when Germany starts WWIII, they do so with stomping north and then heading east, again.
Aside: If France had grouped their superior in number and ability tanks together and faced the onslaught they probably would have ended the war right then. However, tactics at the time, kept them spread out and in smaller numbers. If the UK and France had actually attacked Germany to help defend Poland then their chances of success were pretty good. Hindsight is a hell of a thing.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Today's tragedy suggests that might not be very good research.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
My heart goes to the victims and their relatives.
Btw, will Charlie Ebdo make now caricatures of these incidents? It would be double-standard if they don't...
Yeah, because conservatives have done such a great job with this. It was your childish frat boy president who invaded Iraq and toppled a regime that kept this kind of crap under at least a little control. And no, Saddam wasn't a great or even a remotely good guy--but he ran a stable secular government which for now is what's needed there.
He also had nothing to do with 9/11, hated religious extremists (because they might upset his dictatorship) and didn't have any WMDs other than the ones we sold him. Of course, daring to want to sell oil in something other than US dollars is a very quick way to get your country invaded by an easily manipulated president. Billionaires don't like people who upset their business model, and the hell with regional stability, peoples' lives or anything else.
Take out any semblance of stability and this is what happens. So try owning up to your side's colossal screwups for a change. It's bad enough we have to deal with these extremists who are going to get a bunch of people including (hopefully) themselves killed, but to have to do it while listening to the likes of you is just sickening.
You know that terrorists kill many more muslims in their countries (look at Daech) than wite christians, right?
The fact that these people claim to be muslims doesn't make all muslims terrorists. After all, they are humans, and you are also human. Are you a terrorist?
Write boring code, not shiny code!
You've mistakenly accepted the "Islamic golden age" nonsense. It's a rebranding of the Arabic golden age for political correctness purposes when there's a need for a fallacious argument why all religions are just as good or bad. The only reason why science could flourish in the Arab world then was that the religious didn't pay any attention to science. All religions are bad for science (and mankind in general) so only the lack of religion advances science but some religions are worse than others.
Unlike muzzies, I can swim. I wonder how they can drown, turds usually float.
The "mission accomplished" was in reference to defeating Sadam's regime.
Who do you think Daaesh/ISIL is? Remember how we walked into Baghdad and the Republican Army was no where to be seen? They just waited us out.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Is that your understanding of this conversation? From my perspective, it would be you who missed the main point above to focus on the nitpicking. Which as I said, was something quite expected and unsurprising from my end of things.
Even as far back as the initial remarks by somebody, I forget who, on the consistent failure of repeated acts of terrorism. No, we're still here, arent we? They keep failing, and your examples didn't serve to disprove that contention.
But even then, your expressed resentment over being asked to Ãssert the reasoning behind your examples, and your failure to focus on them, by instead choosing the personalized discussion was expected. Human behavior can be quite consistent. You were nitpicking instead of sticking to the direct point, and quickly chose to exclude the original topic in presference to focusing on personal matters.
I certainly could have chosen to ignore that digression, as I could this, but I chose to give you the chance to pleasantly surprise me by responding in a manner that I hope leads you into examining your own actions and choices here.
Still, even this as a variant of the "the constant in your life is you" was expected, and while a bit tiresome, it does not aggrieve me since I recognize how other's reactions are their choices, not mine. I am not responsible for you and what you choose to do.
Sure, there is a cost to me in continued participation, but in this case, it is really trivial, so the potential for reward is worth it. A few moments of my time? I'll lose it anyway. But perhaps you might surprise me by choosing a different course in your own behavior. That would astound me.
Lets see, Bush banner in the context of mission complete against Iraq army and Obama "containment" in the context of containing military advances of ISIS. That seems pretty strict in both instances. You are the one that considers Obama's "containment" statement to include all of ISIS everywhere.
It was called the "Republican Guard" not "Republican Army" and was destroyed in the Second Gulf War. Is Saddam leading them? Oh right, he is dead. Does ISIS control all of Iraq? Again, no. The Republican Guard was a better armed military force under Saddam and no longer exists as a cohesive unit. Sure some ex members joined ISIS but their leadership has nothing to to with the Guard.
The only references I see to ISIL in Baghdad are terorist attacks that a military guard unit could not stop anyway.
One, your categories are not mutually exclusive. Two, if the IRA or ETA had pulled off anything of this magnitude since, say, the Charlie Hebdo attack I think I'd have noticed.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I'm surprised nobody int eh pro gun lobby has jumped in to claim the body count would have been much lower in the war if only there were more guns...
Anyone who has been in school knows that the only way to stop a bully is to publicly beat up and humiliate him, so that he cannot frighten anyone anymore.
It might happen sooner than expected:
* The ruling class and the medias show much more respect to Islam than to Christianity.
* The Muslim population is much younger than the Christian one.
* Muslims are definitively much prouder of their identity and ready to defend it.
Just make this experience: talk about religion with people of different faith. Just criticize them a bit, do some objections, and note the reactions.
Or: Count the number of profanations of Churches (Most of time advertised only in small local newspaper) vs Mosques.
Who was pumping all of Saddam Hussein's oil?
The Iraqi National Oil Company, with some technical assistance from the Soviet Union.
It did not take much more than some hundreds of well-organized and equipped people to take control of a country: Some terror, take control of the Senate, Parlement, train stations, power plants etc...
It's called "terrorism" when they fail, and "revolution" if they win.It happened in 1789, 1917 etc... and the story is told differently by the winners.
It might certainly happen in France, where the ruling class (Left and right) is weak, incompetent, corrupted and obsessed by the Front National who predicted this situation thirty years ago.
I
There is a reason why desperate people risk their lives, and those of their children, and are drowning in their hundreds.
It's because what is happening in their "major cities" in many, many times worse than what's happening in Paris.
That's not true. They want more western lifestyles. These people already have iPhones and designer clobber. They just want to get away from their shithole countries. You'll noticed there are very few elderly, women and kids. 98% are young able bodied young men. These are not your regular migrants, they're upping sticks because the left is giving them free accommodation and money.
Don't believe a handful of contrived "news" items, it's pure propaganda. That child you saw all over the news? He wasn't even migrating, his father was illegally ferrying people for lots and lots of money. Had they not fucked up, he'd be back home in shitsville with his wealthy family. Look at the hundreds of thousands of people. They're all 18 to 25 year old males.
Technically true, but say that in a Christian nation and you'll be tut-tutted. Say that in a Muslim country and you will die.
Here's the countries where what you just said is punishable by death:
http://www.thewire.com/global/...
Christianity is the most common religion on Earth. Why aren't any of those "if you don't believe in my sky fairy, you die" nations full of Christians? Statistically, you would expect MORE Christian nations than Muslim nations to have the death penalty for you. Assuming that they are all the equivalent form of whacko.
Do this long enough and you are endangering the survival of the religion in question as external pressure mounts.
So as elsewhere nowadays: Short term profit causing long-term loss.
Lets check your reasoning:
Some terrorists are Muslims Therefore All Muslims are terrorists.
Oh, look. It seems you just flunked Logic 101.
Some Nazi are murderer. Therefore all Nazis are bad.
Fuck yes. All Nazi are bad; even the peaceful majority that did not part take in war nor knew about the secret concentration camp. Subscribing to hateful ideologies is always a terribe thing to do even if you do not act on them because it support and legitimise the extremist minority.
The peaceful majority is ALWAYS irrelevant.
Every time muslim take control, implement sharia law, hang faggots, stone whores and murder infidels, do you really think the "peaceful majority" rise up and defend these peoples? Of course not, they are peaceful; they will sit at home and think to themselves how lucky they are to be good muslim and well alive.
Let the peaceful majority fallacy to rest, nobody believe that lie any more.
Your comments are noted. We'll make you repeat them after we're done slicing your face off.
Add to that UK churches are removing centuries old crucifixes.. Why? Because they were an offence to the newly arrived muslims.
My town recently had to hand over an entire hotel to one group at the behest of the local county council. They're turned it into a shit hole and are treating the whole thing like a holiday. Protesters are already gathering, this is our council tax money being pissed away or people complaining their luxury rooms aren't equipped enough, and they don't like the food being serviced. They're taking the piss. I fully expect the hotel to unusable once they've fucked off somewhere else. Fuck knows how a county council can force a business to that.
Those strawmen are not helping your posts sound any less stupid. Liberals do not accuse people who oppose cruel attacks by muslims. They oppose retards like you who somehow seem to think that a few crazy idiots somehow make islam worse than other religions. All religion is fundamentally stupid and the Abrahamic ones especially so. That being said, violent idiots will find an excuse to kill and assault people anyway. Liberals being rational and not interfering with people's private lives do not help terrorists in any way. You just took a two groups you hate for no apparent reason and found a way to make them both seem responsible for the actions of a terrorist group in your twisted mind.
The more I think about it, and even though I do not like the thought, I ask myself if the Israeli aren't on to something.
For those not knowing: When they catch or kill a terrorist, they destroy the house of his family.
Yes, innocents are affected. Then again, how innocent are they, really? The attitude for becoming a terrorist doesn't come from nowhere. But that aside, as these people culturally value their families, it actually works as a deterence.
So what if France would through out the entire distant family of every terrorist? Children, parent, uncles, everyone. No matter how long they've been in the country or if they are french citizen. Destroy the breeding ground. It's a bit barbaric, but orders of magnitude less barbaric than what they do.
But here's one result: Relatives would rat out their sons or uncles or whatever when they suspect that they're up to this shit. I'm sure a lot of them love their family enough that they would rather see their son in jail for being a fucked up asshole than their entire family losing everything.
It didn't work the nice way. You cannot tell me there were no warning signs around these fuckers, that their relatives, friends and other close people didn't know they were become more radical, more aggressive, had new friends of no good. But apparently, none of those people who could have suspected something told anyone. Now almost 200 people are dead because blood was stronger than being a human.
I enjoyed this comment, but please unpack and explain that last paragraph sperglord.
It's because what is happening in their "major cities" in many, many times worse than what's happening in Paris.
Yes, it is. But one doesn't justify, excuse or reduce the impact of the other. And that we care more about events close by, affecting people more similar or even related to us, is an absolutely normal human reaction that we should not have to be sorry for.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I'm not the other AC, but who are you going to report him to?
According to Dr. Bettany Houghes (spelling?), the Arabic/Muslim expansion across the straits, to El Andaluse (spelling, again), was pretty tame and the populace was pretty damned happy until the Catholics came and kicked them out and kicked out another group of Christians whose name I've forgotten - they didn't say a whole lot, were pretty tame, and ended up getting asylum from some dude in a castle but the Roman Catholic Church managed to Inquisitor the Holy Fuck out of them and their little dog Toto too. There are several other documentaries that come to mind that seem to indicate there may be truth in that there nugget of history.
The one I'm thinking of is something along the lines of "When the Moors Ruled Europe" or something like that. (I watch 'em for entertainment, it's not a scholarly pursuit. Thus dates, names, etc are just stored in /swap and are lost on reboot. My data recovery software's not working as well as it used to - I think it's partially due to bit rot.) It's a pretty good documentary, however. The Spanish have a holiday that they recount some of this and it's pretty much the exact opposite of what actually happened but that's how they choose to remember it and celebrate it. There's also a nice section about mathematics.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
"Good" religious people are nevertheless the breeding ground for evil terrorists.
Where is the fatwa that declares all terrorism un-islamic and cleares up that terrorists won't go to get 72 virgins and in fact they'll go to the deepest pits of hell (or whatever the islam equivalent, I'm not an expert)?
The Iranian Prime Minister was among the first to speak out clearly against these attacks, and I respect him for it. But all this jabbering about how these fuckers who are through-and-through religious nutjobs have nothing to do with the very religion that they themselves use to justify their actions is just pathetic.
Of course there is a link. Stop denying it. We can discuss the nature of the link, that there are various interpretations of the holy texts and only some of them lead to violence and so on. But I'm not even taking anyone seriously anymore who categorically denies that there is a link between this terrorism and islam. Of course there is.
What too many people don't get is basic logic. That for terrorism islam by itself isn't enough, there are other preconditions. Social inequality seems to be one of them. Cultural influences, and so on. But even if the religion is not the only reason, it is one of the reasons.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Regarding Le Pen, I think that's actually one of the happy side effects of this and Charlie Hebdo attacks from the ISIS POV. If France steers farther right, muslims legally in France (a substantial number) will feel threatened, and the young poor ones will increasingly wage war on the establishment. Win win for ISIS or any islams wanting disarray.
I have no idea what you could mean by that.
When's the last time you've condemned Western human rights violations against muslims and Arabs?
Yesterday. Any more stupid questions?
That was Osama bin Laden's argument
And you can't deny that the US bred this enemy themselves. The Taliban would have never appeared without them, and a lot o the weapons they had were US-supplied.
So the attacks on the Pentagon and White House - yeah, I can see that. Accepting some "collateral damage" is what the americans do all the time. But I can't remember France bombing skyscrapers in Syria.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
It's just some muslim refugees integrating themselves into the western society. Try to enjoy the exciting multiculturalism. Otherwise you're a racist and a xenophobe.
It wasn't inappropriate, you're just a fucking whiny punk ass fag who needs a reason to lash out because you're too much of a pussy to do anything about you and your country's cowardice. Man the fuck up, cunt. Maybe if you'd done that to begin with, you'd not have this problem. You're a bitch, nothing but a bitch. Hopefully they'll shoot you next and you can stop being a cunt on the internet. "You hurt my feefee! Take it down!" Sniveling coward.
+1
This is one of the few reasonable and informed posts in this thread, which otherwise mostly contains upvoted racist gibberish against peope who nothing to do with this act of terror. France has unfortunately missed many opportunities to integrate their minorities, there are "no go" area banlieus just outside Paris with thousands of disgruntled youth who see no perspective in their life. It wouldn't be surprising if the terrorists were recruited from them.
But how did they manage to get assault rifles? This may sound odd to many Americans, but in countries with strict gun control such as France and Germany, it is extremely hard to get weapons and explosives without getting on the radar of police and intelligence agencies. They must have had some special connection to the outside.
Bostonians and the IRA.
Something in the bible about he who is without sin...
Only assuming this won't end up in a massive genocide. This already happend once for lesser reasons in a nearby country
I never denied there is a link. My point is: if you condemn islam itself, you're doing a disservice to moderate muslims, and to our sometimes tenuous relations with them. We want the moderates on our side, not siding with the extremists. And that's what you'll get if you turn it into a "with us or against us" situation.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
whoops. moderated badly.
After 9-11 I saw young Moroccans celebrating in the streets. I also saw muslims of Indonesian, Turkish, Surinamese origin and older Moroccans scolding them. Young Moroccans are exceptionally troublesome here, compared to other groups. The reason is youthful bashfulness in an unfortunate mix with certain cultural aspects, upbringing, and socio-economic issues. Religion certainly plays a role, and hardline muslims (operating from mosques sponsored by S.A.) are all too happy to recruit from these younsters, but it is not the sole cause of the problems. For these kids, religion provides an identity and serves as an excuse for their actions. To them, it's more gang culture than a belief system.
The problem right now is that one half of the country expresses extreme tolerance towards muslims, giving them a free pass on many things that would land anyone else in hot water with the law. The other half has given up and turned their backs on all muslims. That's not going to work if we are to continue to live together. What we should do is to treat muslims like everyone else. Exactly like everyone else. If someone gets fired from a public-interface job because they refuse to shake women's hands, it's their own damn fault, not intolerance towards their beliefs. Your former boss should have seen that incident for what it was instead of tiptoeing around religious sensitivities. If Moroccan kids make trouble, don't go easy on them "to avoid issues with the community" as happens so often; these kids already know they can get away with murder, sometimes to the desperation of their parents. And if we want to call the nastier aspects of islam into question, we should be able to do so openly without being called recist or worse. From now on, let's ignore the "race / religion card" if they play it, and treat them fairly for the rest.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
It's also enough to get you shot or at least tazed and arrested in Texas, as long as you change it to "God" and "Jesus" instead of Allah and Mohammed.
I would not really draw attention to the Soviet-Afghan war when trying to argue for how good the US is for world peace and the stability of the region, considering what the US did during that time.
I know, hindsight is always 20/20, but, really, nobody thought that it just MIGHT backfire?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's right, NBC invented the term "Al Gebra"in the 1960's to replace the name "Math" so as to ret-con Islam into a liberal utopia in the past so as to demonise white evangelical christians in the USA.
You got us.
Yet, apparently, this counted as christianity. So why not Matthew?
Because it doesn't count for your argument? So who made YOU the arbiter of what the bible means??? And is this universal, or do different xtians choose their own authority? And if so, why aren't muslims doing so? Because you claim so? Are you a muslim, then?
You know, they will always find a reason. It doesn't matter if France had participated in Desert Storm or anything else. France has reached a level where they can find enough home grown terrorists to perform these acts.
France sadly just seems to 5-10 ahead of other European countries when it comes to these types of problems, at least the last 20 years where I have followed the news. But most of the leaders in the other European countries doesn't have ant guts to anything about it. They run around like headless chickens.
I believe that is why we see the elections are becoming more and more polarized here, where the extreme parties to each side are gaining more votes. Voting within the big colorless grey middle have not improved anything.
I am wondering how bad is has to get before we start to grow some balls, and I feel like there is nothing I can do to speed up that progress.
And anyone who pays attention knows there was a massacre in Paris yesterday. Go it?
Ooops. Doesn't match your desires and preconceptions, so you never looked for support, only conformation by someone else's claim.
Easiest way to get shot: live in a country where the police know you COULD be armed, then put your hands down preparatory to putting them behind your back to be arrested, and the police will shoot you for "going for your gun".
Oskar Schindler was both a Nazi and Righteous Among the Nations.
But sadly, the only way to stop someone who is violent is with more violence.
If a cop shows up to a domestic violence call, if the people are not willing to listen to reason, his only real tool at hand is violence.
Funny how you just contradicted yourself there. One sentence right after the other. Not to mention your misuse of the term violence, as violence is the unlawful application of force, which would mean police brutality in that case.
But seriously, you just said there is another way on your own. Try to remember that and choose your words more carefully on the future.
If you do recognize that force is not the only option, that there are othger measures, then there is a better way to put it than the one you used, one that may cause less trepidation in others who see how you are being frightenly similar to those you profess to oppose.
And as little as one word would make all the difference.
Europe seems to have shut down all immigration as a result of the violence in Paris. That means that Syrian refugees trying to get out of Syria and into Europe are now stranded and will suffer more than Paris is suffering and probably for a very long time as well.
Sorry to contradict you,
But the IRA had real tacit approval of a lot of the irish population.
So do the muslim extremists.
And, yes, they have worked together.
And let's also condemn those Christian terrorists.
Remember George W. Bush in the White House, with God telling him to invade Iraq?
The result: 150,000 innocent people killed, and the destruction of a country.
He wasn't some kooky isolated loner. He was the president of the U.S.
And how many people did he execute in Texas?
Weather extremes, solar flares, microbial plagues... name your poison.
There is some rational advantage in having a few weeks of food and water, even if the likelihood of all incidents approaches a small factor.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The Jihadis believe that if they can get the west into an all-out war against Islam, that they'll win, and the whole world will be muslims and their slaves. What they don't realize is that if they ever FULLY provoke even one nuclear power (like, say... france) into all-out war, then Mecca and Medina become radioactive holes in the ground, and tens of millions of muslims will die.
Ahmed Merabet can convert to Christianity, Judaism, or pretty much anything else if he's a decent human being. Islam is a retrograde force in the world.
Why? It's quite simple. I'm not saying it's good, or right, or in any way acceptable. My sister-in-law is French, and explained it quite well to me.
The French have a very strong current of fairness in their souls, and their laws are also very fair, and so they let Muslims matriculate into their country and have been doing it for some time. Nearly 9% of their country is now Muslim.
At the same time, the French recognize that these Muslims are NOT becoming French. They are not learning the language, they are not learning the culture. It is a very strong culture, very highly opinionated as we all know. These Muslims are not in any way French. They live in their own communities, and are not accepted by the larger numbers of French people. They are in ghettos.
They cannot get jobs, at least, not real jobs just menial labor. They are accepted into the schools reluctantly through that overall sense of fairness. But it is very hard, it is probably not much different than the Palestinians in Israel.
To sum up, just my opinion mind you: It is an extreme reluctance of either culture to allow the other to merge. You could argue that these immigrants should allow themselves to become French, and in America that's what happened, eventually, with the Germans, the Irish, and many, many other immigrants. But in our modern world at least, this doesn't seem to happen much anymore. And definitely not in France, where it is difficult in the extreme for an American to be 'allowed' to become French, let alone a Muslim. And especially not when those Muslims absolutely refuse to take on any change to their culture. They wish to live in that rich, fair country, but do not wish in any way to become part of it.
If majority of them is good, what stops them from creating their own side?
Where is the fatwa that declares all terrorism un-islamic and cleares up that terrorists won't go to get 72 virgins and in fact they'll go to the deepest pits of hell (or whatever the islam equivalent, I'm not an expert)?
You're probably looking for the 2010 Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings.
ISIS operates in the open in areas it is occupying, just like the Nazis did for most of Europe during WWII. You're confusing resignation for approval.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Your knee-jerk liberal equivocating is as wrong as it is boring. In the USA you are very unlikely to encounter violence over strongly atheistic speech. You will get a vigorous response of (take a wild guess...) more speech -- in Texas I admit you may be yelled at, you may have some ladies tearfully tell you they'll pray for you, you may have a greasy haired evangelist do his best to save your soul, etc. However, you will not be shot or tased.
See, you're falling into a typical liberal fallacy -- "any speech that makes someone mad is hate speech and is the same thing as violence". In fact, so called hate speech that leads to more speech back and forth is an inescapable part of a healthy and diverse society.
...are the cause of terrorism?
Got it! Thanks for all that insight. Into schizophrenia.
Next thing you'll say it's all those people who were shot that are to blame.
After all, if they weren't in a public place, nobody could have shot them in a public place.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
When Ayatollah Khamenei comes out and says publicly that attacks on civilians are unacceptable and he publicly denounces all terrorists and calls for no attacks against civilians, then I'll be impressed...
I guess a statement from the prime minster of Iran is not enough to impress?
(Not sure why you think the Iran religious leaders would approve of the attacks. You do realize Iran is fighting against Islamic State, right?)
Oh stop it. You just got your ass handed to you and still you can't bring yourself to judge the group that did it for fear that you might look like some intolerant sinner.
Wake the fuck up.
Suicidal piety should be reserved for religious zealots.
Thanks for Isis, George and Dick.
Well, for starters we have to stop attacking their countries.
Killing Saddam Hussein was a huge mistake. The world would be a much better place if Saddam was still the dictator of Iraq, or if he had been succeeded by one of his sons, or if he had been deposed in a coup by some other Iraqi ruler without outside help. Rulers like Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad are the least bad currently available options in these countries. We should not upset things by trying to remove them.
Let the Arabs do what we did back in the day. Countries like the US, or France, or really any western democracy, were not granted their freedoms and rights by some outside force.
You describe problems with assholes. Unfortunately, you can find roughly the same percentage of assholes everywhere and in every religious or ethnic group. Luckily, they are always a minority.
Every day in Syria, a corrupt family-run business, has killings and maiming and torture. EVERY DAY. Why is that news? It's the norm. Angry impotents killing people in peaceful neighborhoods is news.
Technological tracking, identifying and prevention are the Slashdot realm.
Stop posting this fucking nonsense and take a look at the actual numbers. If all 4 million current refugees from Syria would enter Europe (the vast majority of them is in Turkey and Lebanon), then the percentage of Muslims in Europe would raise from 4% to 5%. That's not a "religious invasion". Also, if you think religion is a problem, then you should find religion and not people.
The vast majority of mass shootings in America have taken place where citizens are not allowed by law to carry guns and almost always are stopped when someone else with a gun shows up.
There is one case i am aware of (ohio) where someone assassinated a couple cops eating lunch and ran into a Wal-Mart where a concealed carry holder attempted to intervene but was unsuccessful and killed in the process. He did however occupy the assassins (2 of them ) long enough for unarmed people to escape and law enforcement to converge on to the scene. You cannot say he stopped them from killing anyone else nor can you say he saved anyone. All you can do is guess at how many others would have been killed if no one opposed them at all.
There are many self-defense shootings in the US that you can say did not turn into a mass shooting. However, when that happens you likely cannot say they would have either. That is because it is stopped before it gets that far.
"fight", not "find"
And only stopped doing so when stripped of temporal power. I don't know if Islam can share in the Enlightenment or if they need their own version, but unless and until Islamic theocracy stops being an idea that carries actual weight within it this shit will keep going on.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Seriously, you think that GWB started all of these problems? 9/11 happened before that if you don't remember...
I would not really draw attention to the Soviet-Afghan war when trying to argue for how good the US is for world peace and the stability of the region,
You weren't arguing that the US was good, you were arguing that it was bad, and you're doing it again while ignoring the primary mover that was the Soviet Union. Repeating an error doesn't make it smaller.
considering what the US did during that time. I know, hindsight is always 20/20, but, really, nobody thought that it just MIGHT backfire?
It did help bring down the Soviet Union, and I doubt the Soviets had that in mind when they invaded. Bin Laden and al Qaeda weren't a reaction to the US, and weren't backed by the US. They are splatter from the Soviet invasion and the existing strain of Islamic radicalism that had been growing for some time.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
There is a certain fix to this that exists in various Muslim countries. You can offer a convicted criminal the choice of being sentenced by Sharia law or by Western law.
I'm personally against it, though, because in my point of view Sharia law violates basic humanist principles even if it is chosen seemingly voluntarily.
performing terrorist drone strikes all over the world
Please cite the use of US air strikes in:
India
Russia
China
Japan
Korea
Continental Europe
Britain
South America
Central America
Australia
New Zealand
Greenland
Iceland
Antarctica
Canada
I know, how about you just talk about where are strikes ARE being used, it's a lot simpler. Perhaps you can also then draw some conclusions about what the militants operating in those areas have in common. And then you can talk about how, instead of simply paving those areas over into glass, which we could do any time we want, we're instead going to as much trouble as possible to hit and limit damage to individual targets that match very specific criteria.
If you look at France: They have a huge problem integrating immigrants
No, they have a huge problem with immigrants who don't want to become part of French culture, don't want to do what's necessary to thrive in that economy, and who show up expecting to be handed a nice standard of living in exchange for ... showing up. Just like is happening across Europe generally, now. Europe has only itself to blame for allowing it to happen.
you have to wonder, if this is really about religion or about the youth having no future and then finding a reason for getting violent
It's about culture. The religion in question is the organizing system within the culture that's causing the problems. The voices of that religion are the motivating features of the culture, and the fundamental features of that religion spell out how the people who adhere to it are supposed to interact with those who aren't members. That religion calls for exactly the sort of thing we just saw in Paris. It's a religious culture following the urgings of the religiously authoritative people who are given power within that culture. Young Muslims in France didn't just wake up realizing that their culture doesn't grant them a cushy existence in France, and then roll out of bed and find a backpack full of grenades and an AK-47. They're not leaving Algeria or Syria to come to France, they're bringing Algeria and Syria TO France, and expecting it to become, culturally, what they wish their own countries has been, but fueled magically with French prosperity even as they attempt to erode the Frenchness out of France.
Quit making excuses for medieval-minded theocratic thugs and their willing followers. There are poor people in Appalachia, too. They're getting even more unhappy as the EPA strangles their historical way of making a living. They aren't shooting up concert halls or lopping heads off of people they don't like.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Lol.. give up. The parent poster isn't concerned with logic or reality. He just heard a bush was running for president and had to jab at GW so he doesn't get reelected.
If he doesn't understand that another president has been directing the country for the last six years, that the Bush running is a different Bush, or that this happened in another country, He will not be able to understand what the reference was to.
just like the Nazis did for most of Europe during WWII
The Nazis could never have risen to power or carried out their expansion and countless atrocities without the tacit approval and direct political and financial support of large swathes of the German population. That's exactly the point I was making about large swathes of the Islamic world's support for militant jihaddis, so thank you for reinforcing what I was saying.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So, people running away from terrorists......are the cause of terrorism?
You are an idiot if you don't imagine some terrorists are coming in with the hundreds of thousands - ISIS has said they have several hundred operatives coming in with refugees. What reason have we to doubt that, especially now?
And since they are bypassing all border controls, they can bring whatever weapons they feel like...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
For all of the numbskulls that think all "religions" (a nebulous term that can mean wildly different things to different people, but I digress) are to blame when specifically Muslim terrorists commit acts of violence against innocents, using the Crusades as supporting evidence. I would like to point out that the Crusades were not called because Christians wanted to conquer the world and have a monopoly on control of religious sites. Far from it--Christian pilgrims in Europe and the Middle East were being butchered by the Islamist conquerors. Yes, many crusaders committed evil acts. Yes, even an entire crusade (the fourth) went wary, when the leader took the many and ran with it to attack a fellow Christian city for spoils. But none of this is evidence that Christianity is inherently violent or terroristic; all it shows is that Christendom found a common ground (i..e their shared faith) to join forces and protect themselves from ruthless invaders (the Abbasid Caliphate) that mistreated their own in the lands they attacked.
tl;dr the Crusades have just about nothing to do with ISIS and are totally incomparable.
Liberal? Yes, "convert or die" appears to be the liberal motto, except instead of death being the punishment for not saying "la ilaaha illa allah" or "Caitlyn Jenner is a brave woman", the punishment is being hounded out of your job by Internet vigilantes threatening your employer under the "hostile environment" jurisprudence.
So maybe historical Islam is a bit more liberal than modern liberals.
What apartheid are you talking about?
You do know that Muslims and Arabs have been in the Israel government from it's start and continue to today right? Civilized Palestinians live and thrive within Israel's borders.
Victim blaming. Nice.
I mean what can you expect when some people in another country attack someone. Firebombing of course. Your fucking fault.
Like the more than 150,000 Iraqis killed during Bush's invasion?
Almost all of whom were Muslims killed by other Muslims with whom they'd been having a sectarian bloodletting for centuries. Those Iraqis?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I'm not sure what you're taking about; we let those guys run our country?
Read the Christian bible. It's just as full of hatred, stoning, death, pain, wrath, gnashing of teeth, hell, Satan, etc etc etc.
You've either got to abolish ALL religion (yeah, right) or accept that the books religions are based on are insane and trust that most of the people are not.
Neither of those things have ever happened, so we continue to kill each other over fairy tales and hobgoblins, as we have fir thousands and thousands of years.
But, by all means, claim your god helps you win football games and blesses your turkey dinners.
You've obviously forgot about WW1, where a "terrorist" shot and killed one person. It destabilized the entire continent. In fact, it has alot to do with why there is even something called ISIS today, since it also affected the middle east.
Even if it is crazy as it sounds, one person can really do alot of damage, especially in the name of a religion.
I wish I could help defuse this situation, but it's going to take as many sane people as possible to band together and do something that keeps society together, as you know as I do you can't stop everything bad from happening. Prepping is not bad at all when it helps you and others in knowing how to handle difficult times.
You do have a point Sir Neville Chamberlain.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Islam is evil because religion is evil. There never was a more harmful plague on mankind. Killing each other because MY imaginary guy in the sky is better than yours. What nonsense.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
You're forgetting to condemn the millions of people amongst who the live, and who allow them to continue to operate, be funded, preach hate and recruit.
Stop talking about the GOP that way
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
its easy to say anything on the internet when you dont bother to provide any proof to back anything up
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I'm surprised nobody int eh pro gun lobby has jumped in to claim the body count would have been much lower in the war if only there were more guns...
May I present to all and sundry the latest brain fart tweeted by Newt Gingrich for your consideration:
Imagine a theater with 10 or 15 citizens with concealed carry permits. We live in an age when evil men have to be killed by good people
-- Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) November 13, 2015
Didn't take him long after the attacks to publicly shame himself once again.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
So you at least admit that there's no side worth fighting for.
The Paris attacks are a huge deal. Unlike Syria, France is not in the middle of a fucking civil war. Terrorists post a threat to the people of France, who are not currently at war with each other.
More here.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
There are tons of news sites covering this, and doing it a hell of a lot better than providing links to a worthless propaganda factory like CNN.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Are you a nihilist or a sociopath "everyone will die eventually and people have been killing people ever since Abel and Cain. So let's not rush to judgment or take action to protect ourselves"
Really? We have heaps of armed citizens over here and instead of no violence we're topping the charts with it.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
And then you can talk about how, instead of simply paving those areas over into glass, which we could do any time we want,
So this isn't about doing what is right or will lead to a better world, but being stronger and forcing everyone into submission? I got the bigger club: Do what I say. This isn't the best way to instill confidence that the "western way of living" is better or more moral.
we're instead going to as much trouble as possible to hit and limit damage to individual targets that match very specific criteria.
What specific criteria? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... http://www.businessinsider.com... Is there a court that can be called to question drone strikes? What happens if somebody does not adhere to these "specific criteria"? Any consequences? No? So these are just arbitrary killings.
Also the words "as much trouble as possible to hit and limit damage" strike me as caustic. A proper way would be to arrest those people and give them a proper trial. But obviously that is far to much trouble.
No, they have a huge problem with immigrants who don't want to become part of French culture, don't want to do what's necessary to thrive in that economy, and who show up expecting to be handed a nice standard of living in exchange for ... showing up.
Well you could make them feel more welcome:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhfGcXeFCtU
http://www.france24.com/en/20150120-calais-france-migrants-denounce-police-brutality-hrw
If you treat people like shit, it is fairly likely that they won't want to integrate.
Just like is happening across Europe generally, now. Europe has only itself to blame for allowing it to happen.
Blame ourselves whatfor? In my town we got a great new restaurant opened by a woman from Iraq which is great. I worked with a software developer from Afghanistan (which didn't make any difference whatsoever). The CEO of a company I worked for was from Turkey. Many of the people from the middle east are integrated into society without any problems.
It's about culture. The religion in question is the organizing system within the culture that's causing the problems. The voices of that religion are the motivating features of the culture, and the fundamental features of that religion spell out how the people who adhere to it are supposed to interact with those who aren't members.
Just take a look at history. Christianity has been used to justify the inquisition, burning witches, the crusades, wars between catholics and protestants. Only in the last 200 (?) years it has been more or less a religion of peace. Homosexuals have been a problem for the church for years, but now it's changing. Divorces are getting more and more accepted.
Since the bible hasn't changed in all those years, this somewhat indicates that religion is more a backwards reflection of society, than it is coining society.
Quit making excuses for medieval-minded theocratic thugs and their willing followers.
I don't really care all that much about those thugs. They are a lost cause. Most of the actual terrorists are already dead anyway. And I just hope the police catches whoever is behind this (organization/financing) and locks them up for good.
What I care about is that we (as the western world) do not response in a likewise medieval manner and start another pointless war or kill more civilians. I think you can see in Israel / Palistine what happens if fundamentalists on both sides work together to create a stable environment of mutual violence.
Also I care about the next generation of immigrants which has not been radicalized yet, and where we should try to help then integrat
Anders Breivik killed 77 people in Norway.
Therefore white Christian Europeans are evil terrorists by the same logic.
Soccer players acting like hooligans? Who could imagine such a thing!
I'm sure non-muslim soccer players would never behave so crudely.
the Germans came stomping through the Ardennes (only headed towards Antwerp this time) and surprised the Americans with something known as the Battle of the Bulge.
In that case it caught them by surprise because it was a foolish move lol. The Germans didn't have the forces necessary to seize initiative while also defending, and indeed, the allies were quick to punish them for their over-extension.
bet, when Germany starts WWIII, they do so with stomping north and then heading east, again.
O_O
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Okay so after aligning themselves for 2+ centuries and funding the extremist Wahhab sect for 60+ years to the amount of over 100 billion dollars all these extremists are killing people in France and other places. So every time a Salafist, Takfiri, Islamic State, El-Nusra etc kill someone let's bomb the house of Saud. I'm willing to bet this problem goes away in a hurry once a few privileged princes in Saudi Arabia start getting killed.
Your evil spawn kill 150 of our innocent bystanders we kill 200 of your princes. There are roughly 5,000 members of the house of Saud so lots of targets.
The only groups that seem serious about fighting these Wahhab types are other Muslims with their Russian allies. Sufi's in Chechnya and Shia in Iraq and Syria have done more to stop these scum than anyone else.
So this isn't about doing what is right or will lead to a better world, but being stronger and forcing everyone into submission?
No, it's about stopping people who DO think that way, and who will only be stopped through the use of force. I know you'd like to wish those sorts of people away, but they exist. Some of them visited Paris last night, and hundreds of thousands more are now taking over large chunks of Iraq and Syria.
I got the bigger club: Do what I say
When "what I say" is "stop trying to remake the world in your twisted medieval vision by slaughtering innocent people" then yes, that's a reasonable thing to say.
This isn't the best way to instill confidence that the "western way of living" is better or more moral.
What? We already know that. Plenty of people in the middle east already know that representative, constitutional democracy is better. But those are exactly the people that are being killed by regimes like Assad's and groups like ISIS. The sure sign that it's a better way of living is that people who think women should be killed for teaching girls to read are trying to stop it.
If you treat people like shit, it is fairly likely that they won't want to integrate.
They are treated like shit BECAUSE they don't want to immigrate. Because they are giving housing in public facilities, and then spit on women as they walk by. Because they are given food bought and paid for by their hosts, and then protest in the streets because the food isn't the same as back home. Because they destroy property as they show up, leave mountains of trash behind them, and treat places like Greece or France like doormats on their way to what they think will be an easy life in Scandinavia or the UK. Because a high percentage of them are lying about who they are and where they're from and why they're there (see the example of one of the murderers last night in Paris - a "refugee" who came in through Greece just a month ago).
And I just hope the police catches whoever is behind this (organization/financing) and locks them up for good.
As pointed out, the people behind this number in the hundreds of thousands, and get cultural and financial and logistical support from people who number in the millions.
Also I care about the next generation of immigrants which has not been radicalized yet
The next generation of immigrants - almost entirely young men their 20's who are NOT from Syria - are, right now, swamping Europe by the hundreds of thousands. They are ALREADY radicalized.
Of course the immigrants have to change their ways.
Look at the seasonal burning of parts of Paris. Those immigrants are (pretending to be) mad because the French won't change their ways and allow growing parts of that country to become self-contained, Sharia-run Muslim ghettos. They show up demanding that their host countries change to suit them, not the other way around. That problem is now epidemic in the very countries that have gone the farthest to extend such a welcome. They are already regretting it.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
It surely must a false flag operation organized by the evil white heterosexual males who my college professor taught me are responsible for all evil in the world.
Hmm, no, the El Salvador civil war was actually ended by a peace treaty. And given that the terrorism was on both sides, it's hard to say what worked.
It's not hard to say what worked. It's hard for you to say what worked because all you did was read the Wikipedia article on the subject. I could describe the conflict in greater detail, discuss the thousands of pages I've read on the topic and more. We could have an interesting conversation, with both sides bringing interesting facts to the conversation.
But what's the point? You'll just try to argue about it. What interesting facts can you bring about the El Salvador civil war? I'm here to have interesting conversations and learn, not to argue.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Let's look at what you said
And we can also look at what you said.
El Salvador guerrillas in the 1980s.
El Salvador guerrillas - they got significant power in the government. The current president of the country was a guerrilla commander.
Very little. Two or three sentences on the civil war in El Salvavor, I think. Much the same for your other examples. So what are you complaining about? Me not offering more than you?
What, am I supposed to give you a full essay, while your own responses are terse and unsubstantiated?
Seems a bit one-sided there.
It's not hard to say what worked. It's hard for you to say what worked because all you did was read the Wikipedia article on the subject. I could describe the conflict in greater detail, discuss the thousands of pages I've read on the topic and more.
You could have. You didn't. That was your choice. Hence all I can say is that maybe you just read some article on the subject. If it's not hard for you, do tell.
Go ahead. You've got the chance. Take a shot. Or you know, continue to choose to take the conversation along the path you seem to prefer.
We could have an interesting conversation, with both sides bringing interesting facts to the conversation.
How? When I noted that you forgot to say how they were productive, not only were your responses minimalist, you leaped right to the complaints that I could have looked something up, that I shouldn't be lazy. And then you decided to focus not on any of your examples, but your own estimation of me.
If you wanted an interesting conversation, I'm not sure your method has been effective.
But what's the point? You'll just try to argue about it.
Somehow I get the impression that you would prefer I just agree with you, and not offer any counter-thought. I myself find it more interesting when somebody doesn't just nod along.
It also helps when they don't try to personalize it.
What interesting facts can you bring about the El Salvador civil war?
Is this your preferred response from me? Why? You're the one who brought it up, it's on your side of things to show why it proves your position.
I'm here to have interesting conversations and learn, not to argue.
Then why did you choose to reply with:
Your ability to argue any technicality is astounding.
and continue the conversation along similar lines?
At least I'm aware enough that your responses have been entirely predictable and expected.
You had the chance to offer more than brief sentences to carry on your point, you chose to pass on it. You've chosen to continue the conversation as you have.
I'm afraid you don't even want to argue your own position.
I do have to agree, it's not interesting, and it isn't anything that I haven't known for a long time. As I said, it is not surprising at all.
But hey, you can still try to do something that would surprise me. Like taking a look in the mirror, and saying something honest about your own role here.
That would be a shock.
Or prove me right, and keep plodding down this tired old path. Would you like me to point out some of the sights along the way? There's quite a variety of them, from remarks about childhood, to drug use, to smugness, to delusion, to narcissism, and of course, living in a basement.
Well, that depends mostly on whether you consider the CIA part of the US. By that logic the US also never backed Iran to fund right wing rebels in Nicaragua. :)
Which is not to say that it was bad. Both things seemed right at the time, and we should be glad that the deal with the Contras didn't backfire as badly as the one with the Islamist fundies did. Then again, the Contras never really cared about anything outside of Nicaragua.
Official doctrine and "the right thing to do" is not always the same. And "the right thing to do" is certainly not always something you can morally justify. I just don't think that leaving Al Qaeda out in the cold after the cold war ended and they were no longer useful was a good move. It does leave a quite sour taste if you feel used by someone you considered an ally.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Islam had their Enlightenment. They helped give the Enlightenment to the West. They continued the study of Greek and Roman learning when most of Europe was illiterate.
If you were to compare Christianity with Islam at the turn of the 1st millenium, 1000 CE, the Islamic world was way ahead of Europe in everything that the enlightenment valued: they were more secular, tolerant, advanced in science, technology and commerce. They gave the Jews a refuge from European anti-Semitism.
Al-Haytan wrote a book that gave Newton his understanding of optics. Muslim doctors (and Jewish doctors, whom they accepted as colleagues) developed modern medicine.
One of the reasons the Islamic world didn't reach a modern state of development today was the imperialism of Europe and the U.S. Whenever they developed self-rule, the West overthrew their government and set up a puppet state. That's what happened in Iran, when the CIA overthrew Mossadegh. The U.S. supported Saudi Arabia, at the time they promoted Wahhabism. We overthrew the Afghan socialist government and put the Taliban in power.
No, because the PM of Iran is not actually in charge.
No, I think Muslims, Christians and Jews are equally likely to commit terrorism and mass murder.
"Juden und Heiden hinaus!" so duldet der christliche SchwÃrmer.
"Christ und Heide verflucht!" murmelt ein jüdischer Bart.
"Mit den Christen an SpieÃY und mit den Juden ins Feuer!"
Singet ein türkisches Kind Christen und Juden zum Spott.
Welcher ist der Klügste? Entscheide! Aber sind diese
Narren in deinem Palast, Gottheit, so geh ich vorbei.
--Goethe
The closest I've seen to 19th-century Nihlism is the U.S. C.I.A. and the right-wing hawks, who managed to influence GWB. A lot of their policies come down to, "Let's destroy a functioning society, and a new pro-U.S. free market government will magically rise up from the ruins." That didn't work too well in Iraq. Or Afghanistan. Or Iran. Or Latin America. Or Asia.
1. You can have your full auto ak47 and myself with 7mm rem mag or similar bolt action. Who can pick who off at 800+ yards?
2. look at "bump firing" semiauto videos on youtube.
So that's a second reason why the French should be more selective about who they allow in.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And you just got your PhD in strawmen.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Correlation is not causation. A "link" isn't proof. Islam, like Christianity, doesn't have one leader who can just issue fatwas. Unless you think Fred Phelps speaks for all Christians.
What, am I supposed to give you a full essay, while your own responses are terse and unsubstantiated?
You don't need to write a full essay. You can say things that would be patently obvious to anyone familiar with the situation. The FMLN reached their goals, and one of their commanders is in charge of the country now.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
We condemn all kinds of terrorism. Who is doing damn. http://www.antalyalievdeneve.c...
Firmamız, müÅYterilerine Ãzellikle evden eve taÅYımacıl
Do you follow all the rules of your religion or ethnicity? I'm part German, does that mean I'm going to start following the rules of Mein Kampf?
See, Western society believes in religious freedom. That means you can believe anything you want without repercussions.
Divide victims by perpetrators and you are probably at par. And why do gang killings make less of a difference to you?
Moslem? How about I pay attention to you when you stop spelling things like my grandpa.
so seriously, you can't unequivocally denounce a horrible crime? you can's say, "that is a shocking crime" without equivocating?
it's = it is, you dumbass jew.
so seriously, you can't unequivocally denounce a horrible crime? you can's say, "that is a shocking crime" without equivocating?
No, I can't denounce a horrible crime against us without also pointing out that we committed equally horrible crimes against them.
I can't accept the narrative that we are the good guys and they are the bad guys (which GWB actually believed).
These are tit-for-tat crimes. Retaliation is a universal principle. We bomb Lebanon (through our Israeli allies), and Osama bin Laden bombs us. The French bomb Syria, and ISIS retaliates against the French.
We can't stop these crimes unless we stop provoking them with our original crimes.
Do you denounce the Iraq war? Do you think American lives are more valuable than the Iraqi lives we ended in our war against Iraq?
Ok, now you're back to the origins of the discussion, a pleasant choice, so good for you. But you're not supplying much on your end of things. You contend the FMLN met their goals. How? What events and circumstances influenced the outcome?
Me, I would say that it was the outside powers, including the US, wanting to end the conflict, if anything because of the collapse of the Soviet Union and no longer having quite the perceived need to prop up a government that itself practiced substantial acts of cruelty and terrorism of its own, which proved to be ineffective. And let's face it, a free and democratic society was hard to argue against. So no, I don't take the contention of the effectiveness of terrorism being an automatic assumption in resolving the civil war in El Salvador.
Do you have something to offer? What do you say? How did terrorism work for their goals?
I would be willing to bet my house that some of the kids he missed on that island are in the forefront of the cheerleaders of the current European invasion
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
I don't like Breivik one bit, but strangely enough he shot no Muslims.
The Persian mathematician al-Khwarizmi from whose writings (al-Jabr) the word comes was some advancement and duplication of earlier Indian mathematics. So what's your point? Do you have one?
You were so close to the truth and then went off on an unsubstantiated rant. Religion is not the issue. People are.
That sad part is that we are so politically correct that we don't even use the same tools our ancestors did to make themselves great, namely self-imposed eugenics, and total war against enemies that threatened their security. Every single one of us on this planet are descended from purpose bred, genocidal ultra survivors.
Interesting that some parts of the Islamic population still practice these techniques. Yet have been proven very effective over millennia. The West's stance of tolerance and disarmament has also been teates over millennia, and it fails.
Enjoy your Carter Carastrophie. The seeds of it are starting to germinate now. Islamic nukes will be the tipping point.
Me, I would say that it was the outside powers, including the US, wanting to end the conflict, if anything because of the collapse of the Soviet Union and no longer having quite the perceived need to prop up a government that itself practiced substantial acts of cruelty and terrorism of its own, which proved to be ineffective. And let's face it, a free and democratic society was hard to argue against. So no, I don't take the contention of the effectiveness of terrorism being an automatic assumption in resolving the civil war in El Salvador.
If the FMLN hadn't continued their campaign, the US wouldn't have needed to 'encourage' the government to make peace.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If the FMLN hadn't continued their campaign, the US wouldn't have needed to 'encourage' the government to make peace.
That's arguing for not surrendering till you fulfill your objectives, which certainly supports the idea of tenacity and fortitude as a whole being important towards the attainment of goals, but does not of itself specifically assert towards the productive effects of terrorism.
Especially since the peace treaty specifically made both sides give up such practices, and refrain from exercising military force in general.
So giving up terrorism worked for both of them.
First you must wait at least 48 HOURS!
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
If he had killed Muslim, peoples would have just call him a racist. He killed traitors from his own race. That make him a hero. #BreivikWasRight #FreeBreivik
what do you have to wait for
Islam had their Enlightenment. They helped give the Enlightenment to the West. They continued the study of Greek and Roman learning when most of Europe was illiterate.
Arabs had that. It was permit for Arabs to study and developed sciences in a time Islam lost its grip and all of that was lost later on when a brilliant caliph declared mathematics to be the work of the devil and therefore haram. The enlighten Arabs of that time were essentially to atheist.
Stop conflating Arabs and Muslim. Stop being a Muslim apologist.
Who do you want to get in. Who do you want to let out. The second part is scary. Justified as they are nutters who need to be apprehended. But a big problem for freedom of movement in the EU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement)
What the fuck does this have to do with tech news? It's covered on every news site. Please remove it from Slashdot.
O_O
It could happen! And, for some definition of "start." WWII really, kind of, sort of, started with Japan back as early as the late 1920s. WWI was a Serbia and Austria thing but then a few other countries decided to help and that then bloomed into everyone trying to get a piece. In Europe, well, we could even say that it was Italy that started that theater rolling, for WWII. It's pretty hard to pinpoint exactly where some of these events began, humans aren't a very good source for formal studies.
But, damn it, it could happen! The dastardly German folk could, once again, stomp up and around the top of France, kick the low-land countries in the jimmies, and then sack France for fun and profit. (I'm still working on why, exactly, they'd do so but I'm sure I'll come up with a good reason - eventually.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
You have to wait for 48 hours! Dear God, don't you understand?!? FORTY-EIGHT HOURS!
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
wait 48 hours for what?
Meh. Us violence is mostly drug dealers shooting each other. That's going to happen whether or not guns are illegal.
True, but if you have a correlation, you need to explain it.
If you say it is not causation, then what is it? Third variable? Which?
Islam, like Christianity, doesn't have one leader who can just issue fatwas.
I believe their leaders can talk, and know how to use a telephone, maybe they've even heard of the Internet, yes?
Either they are all agains terrorism, then explain to me why they couldn't set up a conference call and agree to publicly denounce it, together.
Or at least some of them are not against terrorism.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Thank you, that is indeed what I was looking for.
Now I can look for the next link in the chain: Why is it ignored by the very people it is aimed at?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I am condemning islam, and I am telling the moderates that they have a lot of explaining to do, the same way that if the topic were the crusades, I'm not letting christians off the hook just because they say now is a different time.
Yes, it's a different time, but it's the same religion. You're not a member of a "2.0 version" that officially replaced the old one.
So to anyone who is a muslim, I ask: How could you let this thing happen in your religion? How can you be a member in the same club as these fuckers?
ISIS didn't appear out of nowhere, it was decades in the making. I'm not expecting moderate muslims to perform a miracle now, I'm expecting them to explain how it was possible that for at least 40 years (since the russian invasion of afghanistan and the formation of the Mujahideen) this was allowed to spread and prosper.
I'm a German, and we are taught very clearly that our grandfathers were guilty in making Nazi Germany, if not actively, then by not preventing it. Maybe this education is why I apply the same logic. I ask: If you are a muslim, what have you, personally, done to prevent the rise of ISIS and the fanatical ideology that it has its roots in?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
No, it isn't. Your solution just plain doesn't work.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
If you look at France: They have a huge problem integrating immigrants (or at least treating them reasonable well).If you read an article like this:
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
you have to wonder, if this is really about religion or about the youth having no future and then finding a reason for getting violent.
Ah, the old "they're just poor and misunderstood" argument. That myth has been debunked a million times by terrorism research, but it just won't die. The muslim world is full of this type of violence, and thousands of young men have joined Deash from Algeria alone. Are you claiming that Algerians in Algeria are not integrated and are marginalized by Islamophobes?
Different countries have different ways of dealing with immigration. Whatever the approach, all western countries have to deal with islamist terrorism, as well as plain old muslim antisocial and criminal behavior. This behavior is caused by the ideology, mentality and cultural values that have been imported from the muslim world. Some examples:
Forced virginity tests
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Honor killings:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Challenging authority: attacks on police, firefighters, mailmen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Sectarianism in the classroom:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Turkish (Anatolian) thugs take over German school:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Muslim misogyny, racism, triumphalism, glorification of violence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
PS If you'd read the Guardian regularly, you'd know it's not a credible source. They argue that Thomas the tank engine is racist. They ignore issues like this because it doesn't fit their narrative. If they can't ignore it, like these 2 major domestic scandals, they downplay the religious / ethnic aspects:
Pakistani (child)rape culture in the UK
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-eng...
Trojan Horse school scandal
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-eng...
Who is AmiMojo, does (s)he work for Dice? Looking at its comments it seems to be a radical feminist.
One of my comments on this story, a reaction to a vile AC, has been modded troll, so you might be right. Not only am I supposed to fight the patriarchy now, I also have to become an ISIS sympathiser. This site is geting shittier and shitier by the week.
Crosses removed in the UK, really!? That sounds more like Sweden. Also surprised by the hotel story, I know this happens in Germany, but it sounds very uhm, un-British. Doesn't common law forbid this? Do the Brits accept this?
As for the refugees I mentioned:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is in the Hague. I just found out they had been granted asylum and promised a house. Instead they were housed in office space due to an administrative mistake. Still, they seem very spoilt and entitled to me. They look healthy and well-fed, and obviously have money to burn on make-up and hair dye.
Also in the Netherlands, refugees unhappy with slow internet, want money for cigarettes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's like this al over Europe. Migrants suing German government:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That's fine for Muslim countries. But not western ones.
1. Liberals warned of the *muslim* human rights violations long before you knew how to spell moslem. Don't make a structural issue political.
2. Islam has long been used as a means to take democratic right away from all citizens of western democracies, so wake the fuck up and see what is going on, more citizens rights will be taken from the general population because we are obviously not grown up enough to be free.
3. OBL was created by America via the Mujahadeen when you supplied them weapons to fight the soviets. You could have fixed the country by installing schools and educating these fuckwits but, as usual you cut and run before the job was done and you paid for it later.
4. You created ISI? and a new brand of fuckwits when you cut and run (again) from IRAQ's borders and left a crushed and defeated people, who didn't want to fight with a bunch of *YOUR* weapons, Iraqis who happen to be christian - just like you.
You and your fucking cowboy politics that doesn't have the balls to stay put in a fight, the wisdom to know when to use diplomacy and the tenacity to finish a job.
This is the consequences of your fucking conservative, moronic, uninformed, ignorant, selfish, apathetic whiney "why do they hate us" politics. As a christian myself, I've long been aware of the sleeping devil in Islam and you fuckwits just had to go wake them up instead of let them flail around in some dusty shit hole.
Now, we all, as usual, have to pay for your inability to so any further than your own self interests.
Sincerely
FUCK YOU
And make no mistake: not all muslims are bad. But those who believe they are better than others, they are and should be shot on the spot.
Hitler would be proud of you right now.
'Allahu Akbar' just means 'God is great'. Please don't link it with terrorism. I was born a Hindu but am not religious. At most I am spiritual. In Hinduism too, we have similar sayings like 'Jai Shri Ram'.
A very mature reply, good job. He is right though:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
PS You sound very offended, what was that about the right to offend?
Wrong country, Iran condemned the Paris attacks. They support Hezbollah and Assad in their fight against the Syrian rebels. They are ISIS' enemy nr 1, it's the 1300 year old batle of Sunni extremists vs Shiite extremists.
Man, a lot of people are with you here. You see a lot of comments coming from clueless rich kids, probably living in some sheltered place like California who haven't the faintest idea of the actual reality in some of these neighborhoods and the behavior and mentality of these common youth. I think if a you took a few of these fully P.C. people and showed them around these places their views would soon change.
Exactly, with one caveat. Good luck enforcing these laws without having mass city wide riots as a result. I've seen videos of riots in certain French neighborhoods. Imagine the unrest if suddenly laws started to be equally enforced. It needs to be done, but probably with heavy military support around certain neighborhoods and perimeters. So put iron clad military support units in place, then slowly start tightening enforcement, taking down troublemakers quickly and effectively. It would be great to see, however probably just a pipe dream.
Well for a very liberal atheist society France is already going through hoops with "no go" zones and the unsightly neighborhoods and crime that results in. Slow progression perhaps?
You know, it would have been nice to have a few gun toting friendlies in the crowd around that time along with the polite, friendly politically correct French youth enjoying their drinks that evening... Something, anything to oppose these barbarians.
France got directly involved in Syria with military operations a little more than a year ago.
The 2004 Madrid train bombings had the effect of altering the Spanish elections so that the party which does not support the war in Iraq won. Isis might hope to accomplish the same thing in France.
More recently France has been directly involved in supporting Iraq against ISIS and fighting ISIS directly including in Syria.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I would add the Madrid train bombings to that list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Andreas Lubits was suicidal - he was not a fanatic regligious terrorist. Is crashing of the plane he was in charge for as a pilot was an extended suicide fueled by a deadly mix of depresssion, narcisim and psychoactive prescriptoin drugs that are under suspicion by some researchers for causing sucidal tendencies.
The deliberate crashing of that flight had nothing to do with religious motives.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
"A Syrian passport was found near a body believed to be that of one of the suicide bombers. The holder of the passport—which has not been proven to be authentic—entered Greece with dozens of refugees last month".
Yes, EXACTLY! F-o-r-t-y - e-i-g-h-t... hours.
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
Good example.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
France has nukes, so Germany would have to start by developing new technology that counters or defends against nukes, so they would feel confident they could win a war. Then, of course, there's always an excuse to start a war.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So giving up terrorism worked for both of them.
Certainly, knowing when to stop using a tactic is important as well.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Certainly, knowing when to stop using a tactic is important as well.
But not the contention you've set about demonstrating. You've got to show the productivity of terrorism, not the wisdom in giving it up.
If they hadn't continued the terrorism, they wouldn't have been given the chance to demonstrate wisdom by giving it up at the proper moment.
Another person in this thread pointed to the Spain train bombings as another example of effective terrorism. Which of course isn't to say that terrorism is always effective: I would guess that the bombings here in France will prove to have been a mistake.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
They perserved in a futile strategy till they could benefit by giving it up? A tortuous justification that doesn't demonstrate the practice of terrorism being productive in itself, but rather the effectiveness of other means.
And no, the Spanish train bombings also failed to be productive for the terrorists. Note the lack of any actual change in the Middle East. At most it would be the kind of tactical gain already excluded by Sun when asserting the ineffectiveness of terrorism.
And no, the Spanish train bombings also failed to be productive for the terrorists. Note the lack of any actual change in the Middle East.
Yeah, this proves you're just out to argue. You're knowledge-less.
If a thousand generals from war came to you and said, "Terrorism is an effective tactic," you would still argue.
If God himself came and told you, "terrorism is an effective tactic," you would still disagree.
If a terrorism changed your own personal behavior, you would still find a way to argue with it.
Unless you have something interesting to add, I'm out, Mr Arguer.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
The bible doesn't include instructions to CONTINUE being pre-medieval forever. Its followers tend to build and develop and invent and move into the future, rather than remaining in the century in which it was written. While you can certainly point to instances in the bible of the clan being given instructions that we would now consider inhumane, the scholars and teachers of the bible uniformly decry those instructions and that behavior, and preach against emulating it. Scripture, and the way that the group's teachers interpret it, create the culture that performs the atrocities; and the groups following that scripture you call "the bible" are not known for atrocities.
Yeah, this proves you're just out to argue.
Actually, it's your words that show you're going back to bad practices again.
My own words merely show that I don't take your words as unquestioned truth, but expect you to provide more than bare assertions.
That, as you may have forgotten, was the ultimate basis for this conversation.
You're knowledge-less.
If you have another opinion on the Madrid bombings, feel free to offer it. Tell me what you think the Madrid bombing accomplished that was productive for the cause of whatever terrorists you believe caused it.
Or repeat the bad practice where instead of disagreeing on substance, you choose to go with the aspersions of character.
It's not new to me. You're not offering anything I haven't seen before.
But it won't get you anywhere. Unless you like to lie to yourself.
If a thousand generals from war came to you and said, "Terrorism is an effective tactic," you would still argue.
If a thousand generals came to me, I'd expect them to be able to prove their point, not simply declare it to be the truth.
And any general who resented that would demonstrate to me something about their own character. The ones I would respect are the ones who would set about showing their point and not have a problem with the expectation I would have of them.
For that matter, I also have no problem believing there are a thousand generals who were grossly wrong and yet indignant over the burden of proving the legitimacy of their argument throughout history.
As I already said, this isn't anything rare or unique in my experiences with human behavior. I am neither surprised not astonished.
If God himself came and told you, "terrorism is an effective tactic," you would still disagree.
If God came to me, I would expect proof to go along with any assertions.
And a God who could not do that, without resentment or anger, would be one I did not respect.
And there are enough petty deities throughout history too, or even works of fiction. I've seen the movie. Why does God need a starship?
If a terrorism changed your own personal behavior, you would still find a way to argue with it.
I certainly would argue that any changes to my personal behavior do not inherently mean that they were productive results for the terrorists.
See the problem in your assertion there? You claim a change of behavior. But what's absent is specificity.
I could easily change my behavior in a way that was not productive to their ends. As a matter of fact, that has happened. Anti-Abortion terrorists have increased my support for abortion providers.
Unless you have something interesting to add, I'm out, Mr Arguer.
And this is another thing people tend to do, they say they're going to leave and go off in a huff, as if they were in a righteous rage at some nuisance.
But the truth? Maybe you really consider spending a few moments looking in a mirror. It's always been on you to show something to demonstrate the effectiveness of terrorism in achieving a productive result. I've let you try. Numerous times. You haven't.
Instead, you resent that request, and keep trying to blame me while ignoring the log in your own eye.
I would wonder if you can even recognize the ineffectiveness of your own method of argument.
It, like terrorism, seems to ultimately be quite ineffective.
I suggest you lay down your arms and choose another path.
You aren't even causing me any economic hardship.
Nukes aren't the best choice when attacking a neighbor. For a second, I was asking myself, "Wait, am I seriously discussing Germany and France going to war against one another?" Then I was, "Oh yeah, history." I'm sticking with, "It could happen."
No, no... I still haven't come up with a GOOD reason why it might happen. Though, if I look back at the last two conflicts, I am still not able to come up with a GOOD reason for those to have happened. Hmm... Maybe the 2nd. That treaty was rather rough and the inflation was crippling.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Any chance you'll supply the productive part?
I read somewhere that Winston Churchill considered WW2 to be merely an extension of the first world war. Much like the hundred years war (or the thirty year war) wasn't a single campaign, I guess.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That's the conclusion of many historians. The space between them is often referred to as the "Interwar Period." or similar. Without the former, the latter would probably have never happened. The treaty was more a armistice and the League of Nations was a joke that was more political and had no actual power to respond.
The two are very much related, even if only just because of WWI resulted in the Treaty of Versailles (spelling?) which pretty much told Germany that they could have no modern weapons, no military force, very little research, lost a bunch of land, and - perhaps more importantly, that they owed a metric butt-ton of cash to cover the expenses from the war. Germany was considered to be at fault and got pretty much no say, at all, in the Treaty.
They were invited in to sign it and that was about it. Everyone happily agreed (except for Germany) that the Germans were entirely to blame and owed reparations.
I watch a bunch of documentaries to the point where that's all I watch, almost exclusively. I don't own and haven't had a television. I watch them as entertainment, not a scholarly work. However, I've found that it is essential to watch them from multiple perspectives. Many of them are full of propaganda or outright misinformation. It's good to be able to watch and learn from the different views.
Had WWI ended differently, it's a near certainty that WWII would not have happened in the manner that it did. It might not have even happened at all.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Had WWI ended differently, it's a near certainty that WWII would not have happened in the manner that it did. It might not have even happened at all.
Had any number of things happened differently, than any number of other things would not have happened the way they did.
That's as useless a truism as any.
But actually, no, not everyone happily agreed with the War Guilt clause, the British wanted some reparations to be sure, but not the punitive amounts that the French did, and the US was rather hesitant about an indemnity at all. And much of the extremism of the Nazi party, particularly the Antisemitism, was already prevalent in Germany. They might well have acted the same way without Article 231.
How could you let this thing happen in your religion? How can you be a member in the same club as these fuckers?
I'm not sure that either of those is actually a fair question to ask anyone.
Just as a thought experiment, imagine that there were several groups of militant atheists out bombing churches, mosques, and synagogues around the world, claiming that they were doing it because they were atheists, and all religious people needed to drop their delusions or die. How would you justify being "a member in the same club" as people like that? How would you answer, "How could you let this thing happen in your group?"
The former question is assuming that just because they happen to share some relatively broad affiliation (and yeah, "Muslim" is a truly absurdly broad affiliation; there are more Muslims than there are Chinese people in the world), they can somehow prevent these people from doing terrible things and claiming they're doing it in the name of that affiliation.
The second is assuming that because these things are being done by what are, if you do the numbers, really quite tiny splinter groups of the main affiliation, that all 1.6+ billion other Muslims would renounce their religion and...I dunno, turn atheist?
Basically, what, exactly, is it that you expect the 90+% of all Muslims who don't know any Islamist terrorists, and don't know anyone who knows one, to do about this that you or I couldn't do just as easily?
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
France was increasing isolated leading up to WW2. Her allies from the first world war were gone (Russia), under new management (Italy), living in isolation (USA), or not really opposing Germany all that much (Britain). The few nations that could support her (Belgium, Netherlands) were not the strongest allies. She was isolated on mainland Europe and consequently began shifting from a peacekeeping view to a defensive view. Instead of smacking down Germany when she reoccupied the Rheinland, the Anschluss, or the occupation of Czechoslovakia, France instead built the Maginot Line and waited.
At that time the French army had more men and equipment than the Germans. They would have steamrolled them. Instead they did nothing because Britain wasn't going to make a commitment, like they never really did in the past.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
He shot no Muslims (as far as I am aware) but he shot supporters of a political party specifically because the party wasn't anti-Muslim.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Forty-eight hours. That's TWO WHOLE DAYS.
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
ok well it has been almost 72 hours since the attacks and nothing has changed.
I do denounce the war in iraq. more americans died in the war in iraq than died in 9/11. it was a needless war and only caused destruction while hurting us militarily, exhausting the will of the public to fight, and creating more problems in the middle east. it's funny, what would be really great right now is to have some strong secular military dictators assert dominance in the middle east. oops!
Now I can look for the next link in the chain: Why is it ignored by the very people it is aimed at?
That is, indeed, a very good question. I don't have a good answer, but I'm guessing it's for the same reasons that the majority of victims of Islamic State are other muslims. Religion is often an excuse or even a catalyst for violence (and these days, the religion is most commonly Islam). But the underlying reasons are often much more complicated, manifold and hard to decipher, and IS is probably the most complex threat the West have faced since... well, possibly ever.
(Man, to actually wish for the "simpler times" of terrorism...)
Of course it works. If you tried this kind of attack in Israel you'd kill a few people before being gunned down by ordinary citizens.
I'm a German, and we are taught very clearly that our grandfathers were guilty in making Nazi Germany, if not actively, then by not preventing it.
Which is, of course, a load of bull. Only people who actively do, support or contribute to something can be guilty. If your grandfather did not do any of those things, he was merely a victim of what other people did.
I do denounce the war in iraq.
Yes, but did you denounce it TWO days ago?
oops!
Oops, indeed.
You can't spell "oneiromancy" without "roman".
I'm tired of this trolling. I'm not going to respond any more.
We have concealed carry in the USA in all 50 states including at soccer matches. people are slaughtering each other left and right at those, yes? oh no they aren't. We do have problem with savages in inner cities with guns, but those are illegally held without permit
maybe violent eurotrash idiots in europe, with police record of such behaviour including at soccer games, should not carry firearms. I'd agree with that
That doesn't mean that the majority of the refugees are terrorists, nor even a sizable minority, but the argument does seem to have some merit.
...to tell that someone is a prejudiced racist cunt?
If they tell you a thing like "You are an idiot if you don't imagine some terrorists are coming in with the hundreds of thousands" as if it is a rock solid argument - BEFORE any identification has taken place.
I.e. Prejudice [prej-uh-dis]
noun
1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding an ethnic, racial, social, or religious group.
Oh and BTW, no. One of the attackers, at this time, has NOT yet been identified as a Syrian refugee.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/22a0...
Ahmad al Mohammad, 25
A Syrian passport in that name was found near the body of one of the men who detonated a suicide vest at the stadium.
Fingerprints from the body matched those of a man who entered Greece via the island of Leros as an asylum seeker in early October.
He is said to have travelled through Turkey, Serbia and Croatia on his way to Paris.
FranÃois Molins, Paris public prosecutor, said the authenticity of the passport "had yet to be verified".
Unconfirmed reports from AFP suggest that the passport may have belonged to a Syrian soldier of President Bashar al-Assad regime who was killed several months ago.
At the same time, the same passport is found at another location hundreds of kilometers away from Paris.
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
With another guy's face in it. On another guy.
So... Why not another guy's hand at the scene too?
I mean... if we're gonna make wild unconfirmed guesses about smuggling guns (which are much easier to just buy locally), finding a refugee with a passport, already in France, and cutting off his hand there in France...
Seems a lot easier than marching across a dozen borders just to be the only non-local to blow himself up in Paris.
As far as wild unconfirmed guesses go... it seems a lot simpler.
But not in the mind of our resident prejudiced racist cunt, SuperKendall. Or his pal, gay358.
Nah... see... they imagine brown people smuggling guns and bombs across borders - cause that is what they LIKE to imagine.
That is the way they are set in their minds, and that is the way they see the world.
As racist, chauvinist, prejudiced cunts they are.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Saudi Arabia can go first frankly...
Saudi Arabia should have been targeted (by the US) right after 9-11, or perhaps earlier. Nowadays, it has paid its way into the pockets of the leading politicians of America, so it's protected - even from criticism.
Even though Saudi-born and supported Wahhabism and salafism is responsible for most of those twisted interpretations of Islam.
I understand enough about Islam to know that there's no consensus within Islam about what the material aims of Islam are, and that no one individual has the authority to say what those aims are, and "no one individual" includes you and me. I wonder what expertise you claim that trumps these 1000 Muslim leaders and academics?
I suspect you've been misled by the common myth that religion is bound to an unchanging literal interpretation of its founding texts, and so the "true" version of a religion is found by a simplistic reading of those texts, but that's not the way most religion works in the real world (including most of Islam). Religions change over time, much to the inconvenience of those whose argument against religion is the dogma that they don't.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?